Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What about the various Christians who became Christians as a result of apologetics arguments?
... and then The Case Against The Case Against the Case for Christ.Second of all, you might want to now read "The Case Against the Case for Christ" by Robert Price.
What about the various Christians who became Christians as a result of apologetics arguments?
I was well aware that God existed from a very young age.
I did not read the Bible until after I was born again. My concept of God was false, but I had no doubt that He was real. I did not need apologetics or intellectual persuasion. I knew something about Jesus from Sunday school, but I had no idea about salvation. Apologetics may persuade some people. The danger is that an intellectual presentation of truth will produce an equally mental appreciation of Christianity. The devil knows the truth and he trembles. We need a change of heart as well as a change of mind. The simple gospel was enough to convict me and cause me to say, "What must I do?" Yes, I was scared into the kingdom of God. That was only the starting point.
The gospel is the power of God to bring about salvation. Preparing a person to hear the gospel is God's business. Praying for the lost is a must. Living in a way that testifies to the reality of Christ is vital. People should see Jesus in us, even though they do not know what they are seeing.
I don't think you can really become a Christian through arguments. I think what happened was they already were a Christian but needed whatever rational block out of the way so they could have peace in their walk with God.
But what if you are a Muslim..... One of my favorite Apologists is the late Nabeel Qureshi, whose journey to the Faith started when he tried to convince his college friend David Wood that the Bible is unreliable.
Certainly! And I believe it's an under-discussed topic, so thank you for starting this thread.I feel this is an extremely important topic.
I still don't think that apologetics would only be a front. While I don't think apologetics alone will bring someone to faith, it can be a stepping stone in that direction. My non-religious friend, who seems to be becoming increasingly interested in religion, would likely have never started down the path of curious interest in religion if he didn't believe that there had to be a divine creator. I can see it as a real possibility that he (and you!) may become more & more interested in this whole God thing, eventually getting a personal contact with God that will lead him to faith. Even if personal experience is the catalyst for faith, apologetics paved the way for him to find that personal experience!I'm coming to the conclusion, more and more so, that apologetics is nothing more than a 'front.' Most did not come to their belief by arguments and 'evidence'. Most came to belief by personal experience and/or emotion. Thus, if the believer did not come to belief by arguments and 'evidence', then what would lead the believer to surmise this would work for the atheist/doubter/skeptic/etc?
Certainly! And I believe it's an under-discussed topic, so thank you for starting this thread.
I still don't think that apologetics would only be a front.
While I don't think apologetics alone will bring someone to faith, it can be a stepping stone in that direction.
My non-religious friend, who seems to be becoming increasingly interested in religion, would likely have never started down the path of curious interest in religion if he didn't believe that there had to be a divine creator.
I can see it as a real possibility that he (and you!) may become more & more interested in this whole God thing,
eventually getting a personal contact with God that will lead him to faith. Even if personal experience is the catalyst for faith, apologetics paved the way for him to find that personal experience!
A priest was discussing a study done by the Jesuits, a religious order within the Catholic Church, on when & why people who are raised in the Church leave the faith. The overwhelming amount of people lost their faith around 5th grade, and it was overwhelmingly because they could not reconcile faith with science. Faith seems to be all these stories from thousands of years ago, that we believe because we're told they're real; science is verifiable, tested every day, following the evidence to the conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion already in mind. The priest said that if he saw disparities between faith & science, with science being factual & faith being belief because you're told to believe, than the priest said that he would probably leave the faith, too. I am inclined to agree with him; after all, I picked Albert the Great as my confirmation saint, because he was the patron saint of scientists!
I bring this up because it points to the importance of apolgetics, maybe not as a reason to believe initially, but as a reason to not lose belief in the midst of challenges. Suppose these 5th graders had been educated on St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that faith & science can never truly contradict, because they come from the same source. Suppose they were educated on the poetic nature of Genesis 1-11, making the 7-day creation simply an artistic way to describe the stages of God's design, instead of something that was meant to be taken literally. This kind of apologetics can show that there is a logic to faith, and correct misconceptions about faith.
To summarize & move on: I believe apologetics has its place. It can be useful, it can serve as a pathway towards the personal experience that brings about faith in God. However, let us work with the idea that God is infinite. Most religions will agree with some notion of a God that always was & always will be, and Christianity is no exception.
If God is infinite, that means he can't be narrowed down to one thing. Agreed?
As such, God can't be understood by only one path. God is not simply intellectual (as overly zealous apologetics would presume); God is not simply emotional (as pure personal experience may presume). The best faith in God lines up with His infinite nature; bringing together the intellectual, the emotional, the intuitive natures that we all have, should all culminate into faith in God!
Suppose Jesus could prove to the people around 33 AD that He rose from the dead.
There was no one in the tomb, someone rolled the stone back from the opening, the guards are dead with no apparent injuries, and the prophesies all say that the Messiah would suffer greatly & be raised from the dead on the third day. This would all form intellectual reason to believe. Yet Jesus wasn't satisfied to leave it at that; there are several instances of Jesus appearing to people, giving them personal experience that led to great faith in Him! Furthermore, intuition is praised, when doubting Thomas is lovingly rebuked; "Blessed are those who have not seen & have believed!" Reading the last section of the Gospels shows the different avenues that Jesus proves His divinity to people, and it's partly intellectual, but to narrow faith down to a purely intellectual virtue is to constrain faith to something smaller than its nature.
The first 5 arguments for God that Craig references don't necessarily lead anyone to Christianity, they lead to Theism.
I believe that God exists because I find arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument to be sound and I think the most rational position at this point is to believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't prove Christianity.
Point 6 can, and is used by many people to justify their belief in God. The Christian, the Muslim, and the Hindu will all point to 6 to justify their belief.
Which argument does this? I have not encountered such an argument that makes the supernatural plausible.I think apologetics can create a plausible case for God, and thus clear the way for faith, especially among those who have been subjected to the world's anti-apologetics all their lives
Kalam was debunked ages ago.I believe that God exists because I find arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological argument to be sound and I think the most rational position at this point is to believe that God created the universe. But that doesn't prove Christianity.
That of course is non-sense.As demonstrated, this looks to really be the only reason Dr. Craig truly believes.
it would need to be more than "debunked", depending on what you mean by that. If it was undeniably demonstrated that the universe came into existence "out of nothing" by nothing, then yea, that would give me serious pause. I can't tell you whether or not I would still believe in God because it has to actually happen for me to find out.Let's give this assertion a quick shake-down. If the Kalam was to be thoroughly debunked, to your personal satisfaction, would you still believe in God? I gather you might?
Watch, I can make an empty assertion to - "no it wasn't".Kalam was debunked ages ago.
That of course is non-sense.
it would need to be more than "debunked", depending on what you mean by that. If it was undeniably demonstrated that the universe came into existence "out of nothing" by nothing, then yea, that would give me serious pause.
I can't tell you whether or not I would still believe in God because it has to actually happen for me to find out.
I might need one or two other things explained as well. but it would be a good start.
You are correct, I did make an assertion. If you want the evidence, I am more than happy to supply it. Which version of the Kalam are you using?That of course is non-sense.
it would need to be more than "debunked", depending on what you mean by that. If it was undeniably demonstrated that the universe came into existence "out of nothing" by nothing, then yea, that would give me serious pause. I can't tell you whether or not I would still believe in God because it has to actually happen for me to find out.
I might need one or two other things explained as well. but it would be a good start.
Watch, I can make an empty assertion to - "no it wasn't".
Yes.Have you even pondered the plausibility and/or notion that the universe always was? If not, why not?
Nope.In regards to the 'universe', you must admit premise 2 of the Kalam is a blank assertion, at this point.... Right?
I think He has, certainly. That's one of those "other things" that would need to be sufficiently demonstrated to me as not God and just my imagination. How that would be accomplished, I'm not sure.Has God ever contacted you? If so, then the rest is likely fluff anyways?
Other things such as morality, and supernatural experiences.Such as?
Can you outline what exact same verification process the Hindu and the Christian are using? Then we can look at the verification process and determine if belief is justified.Is belief justified, when a Hindu and a Christian use the exact same 'verification process' for their god(s)?
You are correct, I did make an assertion. If you want the evidence, I am more than happy to supply it. Which version of the Kalam are you using?
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Yes.
nope.
I think He has, certainly. That's one of those "other things" that would need to be sufficiently demonstrated to me as not God and just my imagination. How that would be accomplished, I'm not sure.
Other things such as morality, and supernatural experiences.
Can you outline what exact same verification process the Hindu and the Christian are using? Then we can look at the verification process and determine if belief is justified.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?