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!