Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

I thought there might be some commentary regarding the ways God might (theoretically) be disproved, which addresses arguments by atheists that faith is blind or the existence of God is disprovable, but since I see none I will continue with the logical train of thought I am sharing:

Both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH (struggle) will end. At that time NT theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. MT 7:24-27) .

The choices involved in making the second watershed decision (the ground of meaning/morality) correspond to the following questions: For a humanist, “Is there any reason I should not be selfish?” [No/Yes, depending on how you feel or what the rulers decree or how the majority votes.] For a karmaist, “Does how I live ultimately matter?” [Not unless you can remember previous lives.] For a naturalist, “Does instinct negate volition? [If not, then why is evil/hatred not equally right or existentially lawful?] And for a theist, “What does God desire?” [That depends upon what message or revelation is from God.]

Which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology). Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (RM 1:20) and “the requirements of the law” (RM 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others. Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in JN 14:9-11), Paul (in GL 1:11-12 & TIT 1:1-3), and other religious leaders. Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (JN 16:13).

The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge, especially when their messages are contradictory. In my opinion humanism provides no hope for ultimate “oughtness”, because there is no logical way to avoid moral relativism without a superhuman Judge. Karmaism offers a rationale for reincarnation, but I have explained why I view it as incredible. Naturalism does not even provide a rationale for morality/the UMI (universal moral imperative), but rather it implies that what is, is right. However, I do find reasons to believe NT theism is true.

While conducting a comprehensive comparison of theistic religions is not my desire, I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God.

The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as HB 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and RM 1:3-4).

Christianity qualified/reformed OT theism, which emphasized God’s love for some people (descendants of Abraham), with a UMI to love everyone by reflecting His love, beginning with God and continuing with one-self and one’s neighbors (whether Jew or Gentile) and even including one’s enemies (per MT 22:37-39 & 5:44). The best reason to hope in God is Christ. Paul calls those who have saving faith/cooperate with God’s will the spiritual or righteous children of Abraham (RM 3:28-30 & 4:9-16).

I want to remind y'all that my reason for starting this thread is because that since about 1970 I have been trying to obey the command in 1PT 3:15 to be prepared to explain the reason for the hope of salvation that you have, so that is what I am doing by sharing a logical train of thought that makes sense to me and perhaps other folks might find to be helpful in this regard.

I am not saying that this train is the only or even the best apologetic or way to obey 1PT 3:15, but I felt led to begin pre-biblically or logically (like the philosopher Descartes) by citing three unavoidable beliefs and then two qualitatively opposite answers to the question regarding the meaning of life.

Next I posited that sane or non-nihilistic people choose to believe that life has meaning or a moral dimension, and I noted four flavors regarding what warrants such faith, beginning with humanism. Then I shared an analysis of major religions including karmaism, naturalism, atheism and just concluding with NT theism in the preceding post.

Now I want to share an insight that I call the Propensity Principle (PP). It admits that the evidence for God’s existence is debatable or a matter of faith, but it points out that perhaps the type of evidence atheists demand will occur in the future at the eschaton. (An apt analogy is modern DNA analysis, which currently is providing evidence that may have been future at the time the accused were tried, but on the basis of which some are now deemed to have been falsely convicted and are being released.)

In the meantime, humanity’s existential need and desire for eternal life/heaven and ultimate justice/hell (what I refer to as the Duo of Desirables or DOD) make it logical for truthseekers to have a propensity to hope and believe a God who provides the DOD exists until/unless He is disproved, to determine the most credible revelation of God’s requirement for attaining heaven, and to cooperate with His revealed will.

Again, the evidence I have cited is not proof, but until it is disproved, it seems more logical to me (after studying humanity’s variety of beliefs) given the existential facts of death and imperfect justice that an unbiased truthseeker would have a propensity to hope the Christian view is correct, because there seems to be no better (credible and desirable) way of attaining the DOD than NT theism. This PP restates Pascal’s wager in terms of comparison shopping (with all belief systems) instead of gambling.

The PP employs linear logic (rather than circular reasoning) to propose faith in the NT God as the best belief that solves the maze of reality as follows:

1. Current scientific knowledge cannot explain how the universe came to exist by means of natural causes, thus it is possible that the cause of the universe is a supernatural Creator/God.

2. The most creative species is humanity, whose traits also include language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality), so it is possible that these human traits reflect attributes of a God who created humanity.

3. Existential reality indicates that humans are mortal and life is painful, but when life is happy, one wishes it would continue indefinitely. Thus, it is rational to seek a way to become immortal in a heavenly existence and to hope that justice will be attained.

4. Comparing all possible ways of achieving the DOD, the best or most credible way/hope at this point appears to be the God who resurrected Christ Jesus, because a natural cause of the universe has not been discovered and human efforts to create a utopian existence have failed throughout history.

5. When words from God are sought, the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced, and the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is most credible.

6. Thus, it is appropriate, logical or wise for atheists and anti-Christs to believe in the NT God and to accept Jesus as God’s Messiah, until/unless a better hope for heaven becomes available, which seems MOST unlikely!

Atheists deny the validity of the PP argument, but in the absence of disproof, I find the decision to reject the biblical gospel of salvation from selfishness, spiritual death, and a miserable destiny to be illogical or foolish. This is why all truthseekers should agree at least tentatively on NT theism now, while admitting that future evidence may prove atheism to have been a correct although unlucky guess.

As someone has said, heaven is like a vision of water in the desert: the scoffer will surely die where he/she is, while the believer will live if right. Again, however, this analogy should be viewed in terms of comparison shopping and logic rather than of blind faith and fear. True love for God is evoked by His love for humanity and is a reflection of His loving Holy Spirit (1JN 4:7-12); it cannot be coerced, although it can be imitated (2CR 11:14 calls Satan an “angel of light”). Heaven may not be a mirage!

A biblical illustration of the PP is the OT story about Naaman being told to bathe in the dirty Jordan River to cure his leprosy (2KG 5:10-14). The Naaman Example teaches us not to let sinful pride prevent us from being cured of spiritual sickness by methods we think are silly or do not understand. Some people might not understand why God ordained Messiah to atone for humanity’s sins, so they think the Gospel seems foolish or silly (cf. 1CR 1:18-25). However, they accept physical reality without necessarily understanding very well how it works (cf. JN 3:8). God’s way: humility = teachability.

Those who reject the PP (and Naaman Example) apparently employ a logical fallacy I call non praecedere (comparable to non sequitur), making an unwarranted conclusion which precedes unknown facts, namely the cause for the universe “banging bigly”. Atheists assume a natural cause will be discovered, but their assumption is premature and thus inappropriate.

I realize that my faith emphasizes logic/reason more than many Christians, but I do not intend to demean emotion. Both are important aspects of personality, but their relationship is analogous to that of saving faith and works: faith precedes love (per GL 5:6), and right reasoning should guide one’s emotion. Biblical passages that seem to support the view that human logic is a divine gift include the following:

1. “Come now, let us reason together,” says the Lord. (IS 1:18a)

2. “They hated me without reason.” (JN 15:25)

3. “So [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” (ACTS 17:17)

4. “We do, however, speak a message of wisdom [right reasoning] among the mature…” (1CR 2:6)

5. “When I was a child… I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.” (1CR 13:11)

6. “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1PT 3:15b)

These passages indicate that we should think and attempt to learn the best beliefs/opinions or solutions regarding issues including these arguments or accusations of atheists:

a. There is no objective truth.

b. There are no miracles or proof that God exists.

c. Christianity is blind faith, whereas atheism is scientific.

d. Evolution disproves creation as described in Genesis.

e. Jesus did not resurrect.

f. The Bible is not divinely inspired.

g. The doctrines of wrath and hell indicate that God is hateful.

h. There is no more reason to believe in the biblical God than in pagan gods.

i. Christians are no better than other people.

j. A loving God would not allow evil to exist.

k. The NT gospel makes no sense.

l. The Trinity makes no sense.

Do y'all have any other stumbling-blocks to saving faith that we might want to add?

Seeing no objection to the logic/reasoning I shared with regard to the PP, now I will try to explain who God is as revealed by Jesus and Paul.

As truthseekers, whenever we encounter someone who has a contradictory understanding, we want to learn which is the better belief, to admit when we are wrong, and to change our opinion. As people-lovers we want to share our knowledge with other truthseekers, so that we may fellowship (2TM 4:3-4, 1JN 1:3).

According to the Bible, God created everything else that exists (GN 1:1, JR 10:16, JN 1:1-3), including the ability by volitional beings (souls) to choose to rebel against His Lordship (GN 2:16, DT 30:19). Our finite minds cannot comprehend how God does this (IS 40:28). However, neither are we able to understand why the universe exists without God (JN 3:8). Theistic and atheistic cosmologies are both mind-boggling! Just as atheists believe that somehow the world always existed and somewhat intelligent beings evolved, so theists believe that for some reason the eternal Intelligence or Spirit of God created and pervades the physical universe, including the brains of those who freely will to spit in His face (RM 5:6-8, MT 27:30)!

What God was doing before the creation of time/space is as inconceivable as nothing/atheism. As Immanuel Kant indicated: humans do not have the mental categories or ability to imagine alternative or supernatural reality, which may be why the NT does not describe immortality and hell in detail (cf. 1CR 15:35-44 and MT 24:51, 25:30, 41&46.) However, I will share my understanding of the NT concept of God, “the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God” (1TM 1:17), in terms of seven words.

Four terms are used to describe (but not explain and certainly not “box in”) the supernatural power of God: omnipotent (almighty), omniscient (all-knowing/ intelligent), omnipresent (everywhere), and omnitemporal (eternal). “Natural laws” actually are ongoing supernatural operations of God (RM1:20). If the NT is not too good to be true, then the Lord of the universe is neither dictatorial nor distant, but rather relates to humanity. Although we cannot comprehend the infinite God completely, hopefully we can do so sufficiently in order to achieve the type of relationship God desires to have with humanity (JN 14:9-25). God desires communion.

Our truth is debatable.

God's unchanging Truth is not

Jesus is the Truth John 14:6
All His commandments are Truth Psa 119:172
His Word is Truth John 17:17

Every time we start believing a lie, the devil takes our mind in captivity. We continue in that path we will no longer be able to tell the difference between a lie and Truth 2 Thes 2:11

Only His Truth sets us free John 8:32

Sorry the verse I meant is Psa 119:151

Psa 119:151 You are near, O Lord,
And all Your commandments are truth.

I agree completely: God's truth is inerrant, and our understanding of it is fallible.

What part is confusing? Seems clear to me.

“Seems”, yes, but my understanding is as infallible as yours.

This is where the problem lies, imho when we don’t allow the plain scripture to interpret itself. It doesn’t need our help, just believe it as it reads. Some scripture might be more difficult than others, but the Bible always explains itself. Where we go wrong is not allowing it to. There is nothing complicated about God explaining His Truth. We go off the rails when we try to add to it.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall [b]direct your paths.

Scripture doesn't interpret itself. The spirit gives us an understanding of what the words mean. Without the spirit you will wander off the path quoting scripture.

But everything we say is our fallible opinion.

We are not saying, God is. It’s when we try to change what He says where it goes wrong. Otherwise no one would be able to have Truth. Only His Truth matters.

Speak for yourself

On the contrary, you are not God, so what you say is not infallible no matter how long you kick against that goad/truth. Thus, we need to have humility = teachability. How do we discern which option and opinion is best or most true? Answering this question involves understanding how truth is acquired (epistemology) and that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2CR 5:7).

Some knowledge is gleaned directly from personal experiences and is available to all who seek to know the truth with an open mind (like Socrates or Buddha) by means of reflecting or meditating on experiences logically. The apostle Paul indicated the world reveals God’s “invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature” (RM 1:20) and “the requirements of the law” (RM 2:15).

A second possible way of obtaining knowledge is by learning from the insights or inspiration of others, employing subjective logic and an open mind. Insights could be a combination of reflection and inspiration, perhaps taught by God’s indwelling Spirit, who Jesus said would “guide you into all truth” (JN 16:13). The problem for truthseekers is evaluating the various teachers or claimants to knowledge.
Divinely inspired knowledge was claimed by Jesus (in JN 14:9-11) and Paul (in GL 1:11-12 & TIT 1:1-3).

I think any open-minded truthseeker who compares the NT teachings of Jesus and Paul with the founding scriptures of other religions will reach the same conclusion as I have: The NT is the most credible canon or collection of writings purporting to be a communique from God. The NT hope for heaven is based on evidence in support of Jesus’ claim to be Messiah/Christ, which includes: the prophecy or foreshadowing of His life (in various OT scriptures, including IS 53 and PS 22, and by the sacrificial system), the purpose of His death (as explained in the NT, such as HB 7:18-10:18), and the probability or credibility of His resurrection (in history as recorded by the last chapters of the Gospels and RM 1:3-4).

No I am not God and either are you, but I beleive God at His Word- no edits needed.

The NT was based on the OT- how many times do you see - it is written? That’s because they are quoting Old Testament and Jesus said : 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”. Its what Jesus used the scriptures when the devil tried to tempt Him.

So while you are telling me in one ear to ignore what proceeded out of the mouth of God in the OT, Jesus is telling me something different. Jesus said: , “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. So Jesus telling me something different is Who I am going to place my faith in and follow, even if it’s not what most people teach. Jesus warned us about this too.2 Timothy 4:3 Isa 8:20 Mat 24:4-5

The Bible is one continuous book, the God of the OT is the God of the NT and He changes not. There was some changes of the NC, based on better promises and my suggestion would be to seek that instead of changing God’s unchangeable law that He said He would not alter Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18. This is where faith comes in, either we believe Him at His Word, or we don’t. Even the apostles taught we ought to obey God over man.

We all speak for ourselves.

I am glad we agree that we are not God, so interpretation is needed, but not edits--either by addition or subtraction (DT 12:32).

Yes, the NT is the fulfillment of the OT and supersedes it in authority, because Jesus is Lord of all. I just discussed MT 4:4&7 on the TOJ thread.

HB 7:18-10:1 does not tell us to ignore the OT but rather to update it as the NT writers indicate, including JN 14:6.

The Bible is a collection of books written over a period of at least a millennium, and the NC fulfilled the purpose of the OC, which was to provide Messiah for all humanity and convict them of sin so they might repent and accept Christ's atonement.

Jesus stated God’s unchangeable law in MT 22:37-40 and JN 13:34, and He prayed that Christians would be unified in order to be good witnesses to the world in JN 17:20-23.

Agree, we should not edit God's Word so when God says all He means that, no need to edit it to say, except this one or that one because we are not God.

I disagree that the NT deletes the Old Testament. Jesus and the apostles were reading and lived by the OT, called it scripture and we are told

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

There's that word again that people always want to edit....."all" means just that.

Jesus said, I'll quote it again because if Jesus is the WAY- following His instructions is instrumental

Mat 4: 4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”

So instead of deleting the Words of God out of the OT, Jesus said in the NT to live by them.

There are some changes to the NC based on what God said.

The New Covenant is established on better promises

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

So our focus should be seeking these better promises because the NC still has God's law- His Old Covenant- written on stone Exo 34:28 now written as tablet in the heart 2 Corinthians 3:3 Heb 8:10 based on Him doing -He says "I will" through the power of the Holy Spirit by our love and cooperation John 14:15-18

It's still a sin to break God's law 1 John 3:4 and the whole reason Jesus came, to save us from our sin Mat 1:21 not save us in sin. He wants a complete transformation why the law of God is perfect for converting the soul Psa 19:7 because it shows us God's righteousness Psa 119:172 that we have none. We receive His righteousness though our relationship with Christ because He is the only one who was ever able to obey His law. And if we are right with God will we be rebelling against God's law? God forbid! Rom 8:7-8 our faith upholds the law Rom 3:31 and if we are in Christ we too must die of sin and walk in newness with Him and live how Jesus lived. Did Jesus break the commandments? Did Jesus keep the Sabbath? Yes, and if we have His righteousness, we will too through His strength. Phil 4:13 His version of His commandments- not ours.

So our focus should be on the better promises....

1. God is the one doing now enabling to keep His law Heb 8:10 John 14:15-18
2. Jesus is now our High Priest- the law of Moses said the priesthood had to come from Levi- the law changed to accommodate Jesus who came from the tribe of Judea
3. All fleshy ordinances (not commandments) that had to do with sin offerings, annual holy feasts days, annual sabbath(s) feast days and festivals which all pointed to Jesus who because our sacrificial Passover Lamb ended Heb 9:10-11, Eph 2:15 Col 2:14-17
4. So in the New Covenant instead of taking an animal for a sin offering, which is breaking God's law (His version) we can go directly to Jesus who paid the penalty for our sin, and is longsuffering and longs for His children to be truly sorry for our sins because it causes our Savior so much pain and shows we serve another 1 John 3:8 Rom 6:16 but if we come to Him ,He is so faithful to forgive us and cleans us of all sin and unrighteousness, but when He heals He says go and sin no more. Through our faith and cooperation in Christ we can be reconciled Rev 22:14