"You all know that a God exists" - Bruggencate, etc.

A few words seem to have been missed out in the last part of my post.
PS - One thing I've never understood is Jesus' instructions to the disciples to carry swords on the night of His arrest.

Yes but this stance (violence vs no violence ) is a no-brainer when you understand that Jesus as you mentioned, was on a peaceful mission to show us that we need to love God and each-other because we are all created in His image.
‘Now because man has free will, he will not let go of his ego and thus reject Christ and reject that he needs to treat others like he wants to be treated.
‘This is where arguments begin which can lead to war.

One great example of this is shown in the movie Hacksaw ridge, where an American ww2 soldier would not carry a weapon to kill the enemy (Japanese) and he became a medic. He treated Americans and Japanese all the same because he understood the Love of God that was revealed to him.

Yes, WLC is much more credible than Sye, although he too has some decent points from what I can remember from him. I would guess that many atheists love to hate both of these gentlement, but as some atheist (may have been Sam Harris) once said, William Lane Craig is the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into the hearts of atheist debaters. There are obvious differences in the theological assumptions and apologetic methodology of WLC and Sye, so that's likely to decide which one of the two one finds more appealing (but there are more qualified representatives of the Calvinist/Presuppositionalist views than Sye, so even if one goes that route, he may be just a good place to start before getting to know the more scholarly apologists).

Than
Thanks - I have seen a few debates and talks with WLC.

That was to fulfill a prophecy (as mentioned in Luke 22:37). I guess one could also think of it as a somewhat ironic practical demonstration of how Jesus was being treated by the party coming to arrest him. (Mark 14:48)

I think that's a stretch.
I've come across the idea that it was to fulfil a prophecy. That's seemed strange to me - the fulfilment of a prophecy being to fulfil a previously predicted event. I realise that it's stated in the Bible in this kind of way and I certainly don't want to go against the Bible in my understandings, but I don't know if it's just a manner of speech or maybe I'm missing something.
I tend to think the point of a prophecy is to predict a future event - to prepare for it and/ or to recognise the significance of it when it happens. The way I see it - it's like putting the cart before the horse. The point of prophecy would be to point to a future event. It seems the point of an event would not be to fulfil a prophecy.

Why has this person (or persons) suddenly become the authority on the existence of God?

Here is what Isaac Newton had to say a long time ago: Newton was both a scientist and a believer in God. He wrote Optics, a study of light. In this scientific treatise, he paused to ask: “Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain? And whence arises all that order and beauty which we see in the world? . . . Was the eye contrived without skill in optics? And the ear without knowledge of sounds?” [5] Then, in case the reader is not getting his point, he states plainly: “Does it not appear from phenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite space . . . sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly.” [6]
https://rsc.byu.edu/converging-paths-truth/brief-survey-sir-isaac-newtons-views-religion

I don't totally disagree with the "cart before the horse" part. While doing this "to fulfill prophecy" may be a way to show obedience to the divine plan, presumably the prophecy had its own purpose rather than just being arbitrarily fulfilled. That he "was numbered with the transgressors" (Isaiah 53:12) would have been established even by the type of death that he died. The swords just look like an appropriate amplification for that message. The point of him being numbered among the transgressors while being the truly blameless one also seems to highlight the stark difference between the way "justice" is dealt in this world versus the real justice. The consequence of the disciples having swords was that Peter decided to use the sword but Jesus healed the victim of the sword strike (Luke 22:50-51) which also serves to illustrate how Jesus was a different kind of king, not one whose followers should fight (John 18:36).

Thanks.
I didn't want to overstate the issue, but things such as these instances of "fulfilling prophecy" have "bugged" me at times.

It seems like similar reasoning to part of Rom1, where Paul calls unbelievers "inexcusable". Many have used modern concepts such as evolution to "explain the inecplicable".

On a philosophical level, I struggle with whether atheism is actually a "thing".

In Romans 1, Paul wrote that all of mankind, to one degree or another, is aware of God's existence. He also wrote that those who suppress that knowledge have no excuse. So Scripture would appear to say that there are no actual atheists. Also, Psalms 14 & 53 (if I'm interpreting them correctly) assert that anyone who denies God's existence is a fool.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I tend to view agnosticism and atheism on a continuum. Agnostics, for the most part, aren't sure if God exists, but they can't quite bring themselves to seek Him out, at least not in the short term. Atheists, on the other hand, have pretty much convinced themselves that God does not exist. And they "seem" to live their lives as if that's the case.

Sye Bruggencate is a pre-suppositional apologist. Presuppositional apologetics takes the approach of arguing for God's existence and the truth of Scripture based on His existence. Sye believes that when Christians try to make an argument for God's existence to non-believers, they (Christians) are basically setting themselves up as "judges of God" and "putting Him on trial".

I've watched a couple of videos from Mike Winger in which he attempted to answer Sye's arguments. Mike's take is that you can't use the fact of God's existence to try to prove His existence.

Personally, I'm not sure if I could be considered a presuppostional person or not. I mean, I know God exists and I know Scripture is true. However, if I try to convince a nonbeliever that he or she needs Christ as Savior, I would already have the upper hand in the discussion because I am a believer and I hold Christianity as true.

I suppose that I could use the example of J. Warner Wallace. He is a LAPD cold-case detective who was an atheist for a long time. JWW became a Christian and he uses his detective skills and reasoning to prove Christianity as true. Wallace didn't rely on the Scriptures alone to convince him that God is real and that he needed a Savior. Wallace's most recent book is titled "Person of Interest", which goes into great detail about Jesus and how & why accounts of His life on earth are true. I would assume that Wallace is NOT a presuppositional apologist.

This is one of those "thorny" areas where theology and philosophy as a whole run into each other. I can't remember who said it, but theology is actually a branch or sub-category of philosophy. We as Christians know without a doubt that God exists and that Scripture is true. That's why I understand where Sye is coming from. At the same time, I understand where other Christian philosophers are coming from, because they are trying to make the case for God by making Him the "endpoint". That is, such philosophers say that the natural world is not random and that some intelligent mind had to cause/create it. Then, they narrow down that intelligent mind to God and say that He is the One who brought the world into existence. As Tim Stratton says, "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Tim is a Christian, but he doesn't start with God's existence and go backward, he starts with the natural world and works forward to God.

I know this is long-winded but I hope I helped to answer the OP's question.

Y'know the first time I ever heard a theological debate- it was between two 5 year olds. One was shouting "Jesus is GOD" and the other was saying "HE'S the SON of GOD!!". It was also the first time I ever heard about Jesus. My reaction, without even thinking about it, was being confused over whether or not I had a brother.

I moved away from the town I went to elementary school in a long time ago... but if trinitarian/oneness debates are any indicator, they're probably still having the same argument right now.

The thinking may have come from this

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; ( man is made in his image we are meant to be a reflection of Gods nature and character )

for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-32‬ ‭KJV‬‬


if we reject Jesus he isn’t going to forcibly save us man was created to be the image of God but they followed the lie and became corrupt like this

“And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭6:5-6‬ ‭

We corrupted The image of God into the image of sinful man

I believed God was real. I also wanted nothing to do with Him. My concept of God was of the harsh judge, looking for reasons to beat up people. My idea was to leave God alone so that He would leave me alone. My dad was an atheist and hated Christianity.

Somehow God cur through all that and brought me to Himself. He used creation to speak to me as well as Christians I met.