Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.

I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice .

An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).

The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?

Over...

 

[Jimbone]

Good points, I don't disagree. I just wonder why you went to a Christian sight to reach atheist. I mean no insult and you go where you want, and thanks for coming hete to share. I just found it a little funny when I was reading it and wanted to say something. I meant this in a lighthearted way so please don't be offended. Praise Jesus and have a great day.

 

[GWH]

Good points, I don't disagree. I just wonder why you went to a Christian sight to reach atheist. I mean no insult and you go where you want, and thanks for coming hete to share. I just found it a little funny when I was reading it and wanted to say something. I meant this in a lighthearted way so please don't be offended. Praise Jesus and have a great day.

I grew up with Christian parents and attended church most every Sunday, but when I reached college age I encountered atheism and wondered why the daughter of a missionary became an atheist. This prompted me to request a modern English Bible for Christmas, which I read completely through in order to find answers to atheists' criticisms, because the pastor's weekly sermons about how to be saved had not equipped me for such apologetics.

As I learned biblical teachings beyond the Gospel, I felt led to become a minister and perhaps a pastor so that I could share such truth with Christians who might witness to atheist friends or at least be edified and not deceived by their argumenta. When I became a military chaplain, there was an AKO online forum in which atheists debated Christians, and at one point I was invited to speak at a meeting of the atheists in Austin.

So, now that I discovered this ChristianChat forum, I would like to pass on what the Lord has taught me before I die, especially to those Christians whose experience sitting in church pews has been similar to mine.

Thanks for asking!

 

[Eli1]

I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable;

Well, for me, the absolute Truth is God but it's a personal choice.
We can say that everything we know about reality can be called 'absolute truth' because we share the reality and agree on it, but then quantum mechanics comes into the picture and throws everything into question as well as other large things about reality such as black holes, dark energy etc.
So it comes down to Faith. For me there is no doubt about God while also knowing that we can't know the fine-details about the reality.
So, again this comes down to 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink', which goes back to the key concept of free-will that we got when we were created and lived in the Garden with God.

 

[GWH]

Well, for me, the absolute Truth is God but it's a personal choice.
We can say that everything we know about reality can be called 'absolute truth' because we share the reality and agree on it, but then quantum mechanics comes into the picture and throws everything into question as well as other large things about reality such as black holes, dark energy etc.
So it comes down to Faith. For me there is no doubt about God while also knowing that we can't know the fine-details about the reality.
So, again this comes down to 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink', which goes back to the key concept of free-will that we got when we were created and lived in the Garden with God.

Yes, which means that the truths you cited are debatable. I will let y’all ponder my question a little longer and then share my opinion.

 

[Eli1]

Yes, which means that the truths you cited are debatable. I will let y’all ponder my question a little longer and then share my opinion.

Correct, which is why everything hinges on free will.

 

[homwardbound]

I knew an atheist once, and that person had valid points about stuff happening here on earth, Was very intelligent. There Was no arguing or debating things with that person, the person's mind was made up.

I heard to say to that person this:

Out of all your life here on earth alive, there is 0 to 100% to learn is that true?
Answer was yes true.
I then said, you are very smart, Would you say, out of your entire life here from birth to death, will you know everything there is to know?
Answer no, not 100%
Then I said do you think you can know 80% at least by the time you die here on earth?
He said yes.
I said okay, then can there be anymore in that 20% left that there is truly a God that does love us all?

I walked out and left it as is. trusting God to reveal God to that person when needed, that, to be done. Which I know God did, and whether or not that person ever chose to believe God or not, that is between God and that person only. CS Lewis was an Athesist for many years. Then not one anymore and wrote a lot of books, Screw tape Letters is one of my favorites and very deep, had to read it more than once and still there is more to see.
Thank you, that you have chose to believe in the risen Son for you too, at least that be from what I read from you

 

[GWH]

Correct, which is why everything hinges on free will.

Free will is indeed a key doctrine in apologetics and we will get to the reason for that in a little while.

 

[GWH]

I knew an atheist once, and that person had valid points about stuff happening here on earth, Was very intelligent. There Was no arguing or debating things with that person, the person's mind was made up.

I heard to say to that person this:

Out of all your life here on earth alive, there is 0 to 100% to learn is that true?
Answer was yes true.
I then said, you are very smart, Would you say, out of your entire life here from birth to death, will you know everything there is to know?
Answer no, not 100%
Then I said do you think you can know 80% at least by the time you die here on earth?
He said yes.
I said okay, then can there be anymore in that 20% left that there is truly a God that does love us all?

I walked out and left it as is. trusting God to reveal God to that person when needed, that, to be done. Which I know God did, and whether or not that person ever chose to believe God or not, that is between God and that person only. CS Lewis was an Athesist for many years. Then not one anymore and wrote a lot of books, Screw tape Letters is one of my favorites and very deep, had to read it more than once and still there is more to see.
Thank you, that you have chose to believe in the risen Son for you too, at least that be from what I read from you

I also have found atheists generally to be closed-minded, and Jesus did too in MT 13:14-15. Still, we all ought to try to be able to witness to atheists like CS Lewis did.

 

[GWH]

Returning to my beginning question, an agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. IOW, These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The Old Testament (OT) says in Exodus 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2 Corinthians 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1CR 13:9&12 cited previously). [From this point biblical books in parentheses will be abbreviated.]

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me

What do y'all think about this reasoning?

 

[homwardbound]

I also have found atheists generally to be closed-minded, and Jesus did too in MT 13:14-15. Still, we all ought to try to be able to witness to atheists like CS Lewis did.

I see this to learn to be led and not lead as did before coming to belief in the risen Jesus for me at least

Living Bible

Therefore, don’t be concerned about how to answer the charges against you, for I will give you the right words and such logic that none of your opponents will be able to reply!

Not necessarily, just about charges against anyone. Could be witnessing as Peter did before the council in Acts and at the end of Acts 5 where, they were let go to carry on and charged not to talk of Jesus as risen anymore.
they counted that as all glory.
The Sanhedrin said through annas. I think it was, her said to let them go. For if this Christ as risen is real, then we are fighting against God. If not it will fossil out

Living Bible
Acts 5:35-42


Then he addressed his colleagues as follows:
“Men of Israel, take care what you are planning to do to these men! Some time ago there was that fellow Theudas, who pretended to be someone great. About four hundred others joined him, but he was killed, and his followers were harmlessly dispersed.
“After him, at the time of the taxation, there was Judas of Galilee. He drew away some people as disciples, but he also died, and his followers scattered.
“And so my advice is, leave these men alone. If what they teach and do is merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown. But if it is of God, you will not be able to stop them, lest you find yourselves fighting even against God.”
The Council accepted his advice, called in the apostles, had them beaten, and then told them never again to speak in the name of Jesus, and finally let them go. They left the Council chamber rejoicing that God had counted them worthy to suffer dishonor for his name. And every day, in the Temple and in their home Bible classes, they continued to teach and preach that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[GWH]

Returning to my beginning question, an agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. IOW, These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The Old Testament (OT) says in Exodus 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2 Corinthians 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1CR 13:9&12 cited previously). [From this point biblical books in parentheses will be abbreviated.]

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me

What do y'all think about this reasoning?

Having cited three unavoidable or axiomatic beliefs, my intent now is to discuss the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, let us begin by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice).

Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?

What are two qualitatively different answers to these questions?

 

[rrcn]

Returning to my beginning question, an agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly: that truth is believable, rational and meaningful, even though unprovable or subjective. IOW, These three affirmations seem to be a priori truth or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The Old Testament (OT) says in Exodus 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2 Corinthians 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1CR 13:9&12 cited previously). [From this point biblical books in parentheses will be abbreviated.]

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me

What do y'all think about this reasoning?

If you are trying to align the kingdom of God and the power of the gospel with the philosophy of man you are a little late, the Catholic Church has already done that.

 

[homwardbound]

(A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.)

what about John the Baptist and Jesus
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Luke 1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:41
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

 

[homwardbound]

If you are trying to align the kingdom of God and the power of the gospel with the philosophy of man you are a little late, the Catholic Church has already done that.

You might mean tried to do that as many even before the Christ tried also and did not recognize Jesus
Frist off, Jesus was not born in the tribe of Levites


Authorized (King James) Version

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The Law of God's Love, best described to me in 1 Cor 13:4-7 that I needed imputed to me to be in it and do it automatically, not by work(s) of my own ever.
thanks

 

[Karlon]

Romans 8:16, 1st John 5:13 & 1st John 3:24. there are more though.

 

[GWH]

If you are trying to align the kingdom of God and the power of the gospel with the philosophy of man you are a little late, the Catholic Church has already done that.

I am trying to explain a logical reason for atheists to accept Christ. If the RC Church has some helpful ideas, please share them.

 

[GWH]

what about John the Baptist and Jesus
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Luke 1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:41
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

It would seem that John was sentient when he leaped. I am trying to state a logical basis for converting from birthism to something closer to conceptionism. Sentientism by the 3rd month moves six months closer and should be easy to achieve if we would simply teach fetal development to every high school student.

 

[Eli1]

I don't think Catholics do philosophy. Catholics did the whole 'take one verse out of the Bible and built a church around it' by taking the "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" verse and creating the Pope.
I know that this might come as a surprise to many here but it's the Protestants who do philosophy by treating the Bible as a crossword puzzle that needs to be solved in the verse vs verse format.

 

[Cameron143]

I am trying to explain a logical reason for atheists to accept Christ. If the RC Church has some helpful ideas, please share them.

What do you mean by accept Christ?