Starting with God, the Bible or Jesus?

[headheart]

I've often wondered about this.

Why do unbelievers who don't believe in the primary character of the Bible engage in argument, discussion or debate about the Bible and Jesus and not settle this weightier matter first?

I've often wondered about this too.

We know that Anthony Flew wrote a book about how he changed his mind about God but was still moving towards the Christian religion. It's my concern that Christian apologetic discussion, argument and debate storms the gate when they haven't even crossed the field yet.

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

This recent comment by Tassman makes my point.

What god?

[Cerebrum123]

I do think that we should first show that there is a God, and then show how this leads to the identity of God. My opinion is that we need to show that in order for this universe to exist that a God has to exist, otherwise there would be nothing at all. Showing this to be true, though, is easier said than done.

[ZackMartin]

I think partly it's a reaction to a certain style of Christian apologetics, which spends little time on the idea of God, but instead focuses on trying to prove the reality of the Resurrection, etc.

Zack

[headheart]

I do think that we should first show that there is a God, and then show how this leads to the identity of God. My opinion is that we need to show that in order for this universe to exist that a God has to exist, otherwise there would be nothing at all. Showing this to be true, though, is easier said than done.

It is easier done than said.

[headheart]

I think partly it's a reaction to a certain style of Christian apologetics, which spends little time on the idea of God, but instead focuses on trying to prove the reality of the Resurrection, etc.

Zack

Ideas about God are interesting and multifarious but until a person has a significant encounter with God arguments for the existence of such a being are circular.

[ZackMartin]

It is easier done than said.

Myself, I believe in God, but I don't find any form of the cosmological argument convincing. I'm sure I'm not the only theist who feels this way.

Consider e.g .the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which many (e.g. William Lane Craig) claim is the best version of the cosmological argument available:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a Cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a Cause

Let's say that (2) is demonstrated. My real problem is (1). It's clearly true when we are talking about the kinds of objects we deal with in every day life, but I'm not convinced it is universally true, in the sense of applying also to situations distant from our everyday experience (i.e. talking about the universe as a whole instead of the tiny part of it which we interact with). If there's legitimate doubt about (1), the argument doesn't succeed.

[ZackMartin]

Ideas about God are interesting and multifarious but until a person has a significant encounter with God arguments for the existence of such a being are circular.

Some people find in the Gospel story an encounter with God, and others don't. Of those who don't, some just don't encounter God at all (at least not yet), but then there are others who encounter God in all sorts of other places. I've always felt God most strongly in the very beautiful, but the Gospel story doesn't particularly appeal to my aesthetics (I don't deny it does to others)

[Cerebrum123]

It is easier done than said.

Perhaps I should clarify, getting said atheist to admit it is easier said than done. "The heavens declare the glory of God", but getting someone to admit that that is true, isn't all that easy.

[headheart]

Zack 'n Cerebrum123,
Are you tempting me to play the devil's chaplain card?

Peace,
Eric.

[Cerebrum123]

Zack 'n Cerebrum123,
Are you tempting me to play the devil's chaplain card?

Peace,
Eric.

I didn't think that I was. I was just trying to say that getting an atheist to admit that "the heavens declare the glory of God" isn't all that easy. Sometimes they will admit it, but they rationalize it away. Kind of like Dawkins saying that the universe has apparent design, but that it was only "apparent" design, and not "real" design.

[headheart]

I didn't think that I was. I was just trying to say that getting an atheist to admit that "the heavens declare the glory of God" isn't all that easy. Sometimes they will admit it, but they rationalize it away. Kind of like Dawkins saying that the universe has apparent design, but that it was only "apparent" design, and not "real" design.

Rationalize it away? How about struggle to reconcile with Zack's romantic notion of 'the very beautiful' and your half a verse from Psalm 19 'The heavens declare the glory of God ....' with what we've learned and continue to learn everyday about this universe?

Now see you've made me play the role of the skeptic, damn!

Stewie says Damn!.jpg

[Jedidiah]

This recent comment by Tassman makes my point.

But remember that is Tassman.

[headheart]

But remember that is Tassman.

Surely not?

The Artful Dodger.jpg

[Seasanctuary]

Settling the matter of the existence of God isn't all that helpful for showing that Christianity is true.

See: all non-Christians who are non-atheists.