What should Christian apologists say?

[AV1611VET]

Apologetics for a Theistic God should be a starting point for an atheist, and once the existence of God is established, we can then move to the Bible, which establishes the Christian faith.

My favorite argument for the existence of God is pointing out Christian hymns, carols, holidays, churches, bumper stickers, debates, martyrs, organizations, and so on.

Force them to throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.

It may not be convincing, but it's convicting.

 

[Hawkins]

Religions and history share some common characteristics. So atheists how you are persuaded with any human history older than 2000 years?


Moreover, atheists may have got the whole point wrong. Christianity is not for Christians to persuade anyone. It's rather a spreading of a message for one to make a choice. It's more like a message of "there's a bomb near your house" brought out by someone who martyred himself in order for the message to convey.

It's your own life, no one has the responsibility to persuade you anything under that circumstance.

 

[food4thought]

What about testimonials?

Testimonials can be a positive addition to the argument for Theism and Christianity, but alone will not convince someone who does not believe God exists that "God" is the cause of their experience... instead, they will look for a naturalistic cause because the natural world is all there is. No God, no valid testimony of experiencing God is possible.

 

[food4thought]

Apologetics will never bring someone to the faith, but it can remove mental obstacles to faith. Faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

 

[Soyeong]

"Synonymous" is a strong word to use to compare "faith" and "trust". You are right that the Bible uses the word "faith" to mean "trust" more-so than to mean "belief without proof" but that is the way "faith" is most commonly used in the secular world, and is a perfectly legitimate use of the word.

That's not to say that Christians use the word "faith" in an illegitimate way, just that there are more meanings to a word than one, and I wouldn't call them synonyms. There are times of course that I would say, "I have faith in my ability to..." because of sufficient evidence that I am capable. But it also needs to be used in the sense of "belief without proof" in the case of apologetics since the non Christian is going to have to believe in God first without ever seeing Him or hearing His voice.

That's where a lot of the confusion comes in with the discussions I have witnessed and been a part of. The atheist is using faith to mean "belief without proof" and the Christian is using faith to mean "trust based on a history of truth". But what word should be used to mean that initial belief without proof then?

Both "trust" and "faith" can be described as "a belief without proof" because you can not prove that someone will be trustworthy or faithful in the future, through it would be inaccurate to describe them as "a belief without evidence" because you can still have a good deal of evidence that someone has a track record of being trustworthy or faithful in the past. Likewise, when you have faith in your ability to do something, it is because you have sufficient evidence that you are capable, but it is also a belief without proof because you can not prove that you will be able to do that.

The problem comes when "faith" is confused with meaning something like "belief in spite of having poor or no evidence". It is not humanly possible to form a belief with no evidence and if you had poor evidence, then it would still not be sufficient to form the belief that someone will be trustworthy. Though words can gain meanings through common misunderstandings of them, this understanding has no relation the term used in the Bible, no relation to what happens reality, and should not be held in religious discussions.

 

[cloudyday2]

My favorite argument for the existence of God is pointing out Christian hymns, carols, holidays, churches, bumper stickers, debates, martyrs, organizations, and so on.

Force them to throw the baby out with the bath water, as they say.

It may not be convincing, but it's convicting.

LOL yep

 

[cloudyday2]

Testimonials can be a positive addition to the argument for Theism and Christianity, but alone will not convince someone who does not believe God exists that "God" is the cause of their experience... instead, they will look for a naturalistic cause because the natural world is all there is. No God, no valid testimony of experiencing God is possible.

99.9% of atheists allow for the possibility that gods might exist, but they lack evidence - i.e. personal testimonials, formal experimental tests of intercessory prayer, etc.

 

[cloudyday2]

...
The problem comes when "faith" is confused with meaning something like "belief in spite of having poor or no evidence". It is not humanly possible to form a belief with no evidence and if you had poor evidence, then it would still not be sufficient to form the belief that someone will be trustworthy. Though words can gain meanings through common misunderstandings of them, this understanding has no relation the term used in the Bible, no relation to what happens reality, and should not be held in religious discussions.

I agree with that. I like to think of faith as a subjective probability. If something seems likely to you, then your "faith" is 85%. If something seems unlikely to you, then your "faith" is 2%. ... I think this is consistent with the Epistle of James. "Faith" is involved in the decisions you make, because it affects the choice with the highest expected return.

 

[Soyeong]

I agree with that. I like to think of faith as a subjective probability. If something seems likely to you, then your "faith" is 85%. If something seems unlikely to you, then your "faith" is 2%. ... I think this is consistent with the Epistle of James. "Faith" is involved in the decisions you make, because it affects the choice with the highest expected return.

You might think that there is an 85% chance that someone will turn out to be trustworthy, but I don't see how you can act with 85% confidence because you either trust someone or you don't. When you choose to trust someone, then you are choosing to act in a way that is indistinguishable from how someone would act if they knew the future and had 100% certainty that someone would be trustworthy. Having faith in someone involves putting yourself at risk if they turn out to be untrustworthy and if you refuse to put yourself at risk, then you are demonstrating that you don't trust them.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

My favorite argument for the existence of God is pointing out Christian hymns, carols, holidays, churches, bumper stickers, debates, martyrs, organizations, and so on.

Would it be a good argument for me to use the months of the year and days of the week trying to convince you that Norse and Roman Gods exist?

 

[Moral Orel]

Both "trust" and "faith" can be described as "a belief without proof" because you can not prove that someone will be trustworthy or faithful in the future, through it would be inaccurate to describe them as "a belief without evidence" because you can still have a good deal of evidence that someone has a track record of being trustworthy or faithful in the past. Likewise, when you have faith in your ability to do something, it is because you have sufficient evidence that you are capable, but it is also a belief without proof because you can not prove that you will be able to do that.

I can agree with this. Here I am, ironically throwing the word "proof" around inappropriately when nothing can technically be proven 100%. My bad.

The problem comes when "faith" is confused with meaning something like "belief in spite of having poor or no evidence". It is not humanly possible to form a belief with no evidence and if you had poor evidence, then it would still not be sufficient to form the belief that someone will be trustworthy. Though words can gain meanings through common misunderstandings of them, this understanding has no relation the term used in the Bible, no relation to what happens reality, and should not be held in religious discussions.

This I have some contention with though. You say that it is impossible to form a belief with no evidence, but what about when people use evidence to support a claim, even though that evidence doesn't point to that claim?

For instance, it is a fact that as the sale of ice cream goes up, the number of recorded drownings goes up. So if I were to form the belief that ice cream causes drownings it would really be based on no evidence because ice cream has nothing to do with people drowning. People eat more ice cream in the summer, and people swim more in the summer. The two results of summertime actually have nothing to do with each other, and therefore are not evidence that one causes the other.

If we aren't talking about religion, I'm sure you can think of a few stupid people you've encountered in your life that believe in something without any real evidence.

You might think that there is an 85% chance that someone will turn out to be trustworthy, but I don't see how you can act with 85% confidence because you either trust someone or you don't. When you choose to trust someone, then you are choosing to act in a way that is indistinguishable from how someone would act if they knew the future and had 100% certainty that someone would be trustworthy. Having faith in someone involves putting yourself at risk if they turn out to be untrustworthy and if you refuse to put yourself at risk, then you are demonstrating that you don't trust them.

I know that this one wasn't directed at me, but it's on the same topic so I wanted to address it anyways. What if someone you know wants to borrow $100 from you. You don't have complete trust in them to pay you back, but you believe they are likely to. So you loan them $50 instead because you are only willing to invest so much risk in them. You'll risk losing $50 but not $100. Whereas there are other people in your life that you are more confident in and you would be willing to loan them the full $100 because you are near certain that the money will be returned to you.

 

[cloudyday2]

You might think that there is an 85% chance that someone will turn out to be trustworthy, but I don't see how you can act with 85% confidence because you either trust someone or you don't. When you choose to trust someone, then you are choosing to act in a way that is indistinguishable from how someone would act if they knew the future and had 100% certainty that someone would be trustworthy. Having faith in someone involves putting yourself at risk if they turn out to be untrustworthy and if you refuse to put yourself at risk, then you are demonstrating that you don't trust them.

Here is the Wikipedia thing that explains better than me.

This area represents the heart of decision theory. The procedure now referred to as expected value was known from the 17th century. Blaise Pascal invoked it in his famous wager, which is contained in his Pensées, published in 1670. The idea of expected value is that, when faced with a number of actions, each of which could give rise to more than one possible outcome with different probabilities, the rational procedure is to identify all possible outcomes, determine their values (positive or negative) and the probabilities that will result from each course of action, and multiply the two to give an expected value. The action to be chosen should be the one that gives rise to the highest total expected value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_theory#Choice_under_uncertainty

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would it be a good argument for me to use the months of the year and days of the week trying to convince you that Norse and Roman Gods exist?

Who says they didn't?

 

[Hammster]

I agree but think there has to be more than just the Holy Spirit in order for someone to believe in God since Jews also believe in God.

According to scripture, everyone believes God exists. Even the demons. But not everyone believes in Jesus as Messiah. So when I say believe in God, I'm talking about the Trinitarian God, and gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[BeStill&Know]

This question is for Christians or non-Christians - but mostly non-Christians. I was watching a debate between a Christian and an atheist over the existence of God (

). The Christian made a philosophical argument for a generalized creator of some kind, and seemed to consider this sufficient justification for belief in the very specific theology of Christianity. This apologetic strategy seems to be very common, and it is very unpersuasive to most non-Christians. Maybe this argument gives Christians a fig leaf to continue in their belief, and maybe that explains its popularity among apologists.

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive? I like hearing personal testimonials about changes in lives, miraculous healings, or whatever. Why aren't these arguments presented by apologists?

Good evening, I found these testimonies for you. I love to hear them I hope you will too.

 

[Soyeong]

This I have some contention with though. You say that it is impossible to form a belief with no evidence, but what about when people use evidence to support a claim, even though that evidence doesn't point to that claim?

For instance, it is a fact that as the sale of ice cream goes up, the number of recorded drownings goes up. So if I were to form the belief that ice cream causes drownings it would really be based on no evidence because ice cream has nothing to do with people drowning. People eat more ice cream in the summer, and people swim more in the summer. The two results of summertime actually have nothing to do with each other, and therefore are not evidence that one causes the other.

If we aren't talking about religion, I'm sure you can think of a few stupid people you've encountered in your life that believe in something without any real evidence.

From combining a number of definitions of "evidence", I define it as "information that indicates to someone that something is true". When someone thinks there is sufficient evidence that something is true and that it is a step above alternative interpretations, then a belief that it is true is formed. Whether or not someone correctly interprets the information is a side issue. What is important is that they can not form the belief that something is true without thinking that information indicates it to be true. They used that information as evidence, so it evidence for that belief even if their interpretation is wrong. Two people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions, so I don't think it is reasonable to say that one used evidence to reach their conclusion while the other didn't or to say that nothing indicated to one one of them that their conclusion was true.

To give an example, Christians have information that they think most strongly indicates Christianity is true while atheists have information that they think most strongly indicates that it is false. If evidence can only be used to support beliefs that are true, then who is to say which one has evidence on their side? It seems more reasonable to me to grant that both have evidence that support their position.

I know that this one wasn't directed at me, but it's on the same topic so I wanted to address it anyways. What if someone you know wants to borrow $100 from you. You don't have complete trust in them to pay you back, but you believe they are likely to. So you loan them $50 instead because you are only willing to invest so much risk in them. You'll risk losing $50 but not $100. Whereas there are other people in your life that you are more confident in and you would be willing to loan them the full $100 because you are near certain that the money will be returned to you.

How much you are willing to risk loaning someone is certainly reflected in how much you trust them, but the decision to trust someone is absolute because you can't put yourself at risk and not put yourself at risk at the same time. Even if you only loan someone $50, you are still putting yourself at risk and you are acting with confidence that they will pay you back.

 

[Moral Orel]

Religions and history share some common characteristics. So atheists how you are persuaded with any human history older than 2000 years?

For me, I am persuaded first by evidence presented from multiple unbiased sources. I also only believe the things that can be seen occurring still today. People die, nations go to war, etc... We don't see people being cured of blindness from mud and being raised from the dead anymore if ever.

Moreover, atheists may have got the whole point wrong. Christianity is not for Christians to persuade anyone.

Maybe true. I would consider spreading the word to be an attempt at persuasion. But if it is not, the topic is Apologetics, not Christianity in general. And Apologetics is for persuading people.

 

[Moral Orel]

From combining a number of definitions of "evidence", I define it as "information that indicates to someone that something is true". When someone thinks there is sufficient evidence that something is true and that it is a step above alternative interpretations, then a belief that it is true is formed. Whether or not someone correctly interprets the information is a side issue.

That's an okay definition for evidence. What I'm seeing though is when someone presents their evidence, and then you point out that what they believe the evidence states is wrong, it ceases to be evidence. Like if someone said that ice cream causes drownings. But was it really evidence to begin with if it was never really useful for proving a statement?

To take it a step further, if I present that person with the real evidence, that summertime causes an increase in both things, and not that one causes the other, yet they persist in their belief that ice cream causes drownings, I would say they believe something without evidence because what evidence they claim to have does not actually support their statement. That may be wrong based on the definition of evidence, but that is what it is when people argue and make claims and debunk evidence. Just another semantic truth to face when having discussions to understand both sides better instead of getting bogged down arguing about two different things.

I'll state now that I don't feel that way about every bit of evidence presented by Christians and Apologists, but some of the claims made, yes.