Defending the existence of God

[Wrg1405]

When I was very young, I started working in the fields. Doing hard labor. My Dad put me on a "stone boat" when I was 6 years old, on the weekends, working his farm picking rocks, from sun up to sun down. No kidding. Over time I learned to "trick" my mind into loving labor. There was no way around having to labor. He taught me that. But in those fields, I saw those fields as "endless oceans" and me as the explorer, the conqueror, the overcomer, by my labor. And I learned to subdue those fields and myself in the process, by that sight of His creation. Somewhere about the age of 16, I knew I could work as hard as any man on earth, because of this "discipline" instilled in me.

When I was in my late 20's, after I had a 'born again' experience, I had what I call a 'vivification,' a "showing" of Gods Eternal hands, while in the midst of a wheat field, ripe for harvesting. The wind was blowing across the prairies. I saw, with my own eyes, that every single grain of wheat, nearly countless in number, existed before my eyes. Every grain unique to only itself. Specially made and formed by our Creator. No 2 alike. And every stalk, the same in unique identity. And within this, every molecule, completely unique. As these stalks swayed in the wind, they never moved against each others in the same way twice. Every move was unique. The wind variations. Every molecule of air, also unique, to any particular moment. And angles of light, ever changing. The clouds, the same. I stood before His creation in complete AWE of His Hands. Overwhelmed internally, by the Glory of His Workings. How much more was HIS OWN GLORY. I could not even imagine it when such glory stared me in the face. And then, it started to rain. And I cried, huge sobs, over this glory, the glory of His Hands. It was one of the most vivid moments of my life.

This today is part of how I witness. Between me and thee there is an infinite amount of divisible space. It is so infinite, it can not be numbered. We literally walk in a sea of infinity, even within our own bodies. I do not love creation, I love the Hand of the Creator who created it, because His Infinite Hands are upon all things, and shown in all things. We stop, and observe, such glory.

Within all of this, God Himself has given us a small taste of LOVE. Everyone has had this "taste." This is my introduction to Jesus. Everyone has had but a small taste. Now look to The Creator of Love, and recognize, just taste, of His Eternal Love expressed in His Son, Jesus. His Own Love will come into you and live with you, in your heart, by 'faith.' This is the faith that gives us "perceptions" of God in Christ. I "assume" them into Gods Kingdom, by this introduction. Whether it sticks or not is not my call. I point to the obvious infinite, and that they themselves are already given their "taste" of His Finer things. Without our Creator, they would not be here, tasting of His Awes and His Wares.

An Endless Ocean of His Perfect Hands. Whether any man sees, it would not matter to me. I was caught up to into 'infinity' long long ago. No man can pull me back from what I've seen and tasted of, In Christ. It's not even possible.

With Papa Zoom.

Amazing and fantastic. Thanks for sharing that.
It has lifted me.

 

[OzSpen]

I would agree that the material is philosophical theology, not Christian theology. If there is any difference, it is there. Philosophical theology deals with "proofs." Christian theology deals with faith in Christ, which faith is not a provable matter.

They are two different animals. I do however enjoy philosophical theology. You are correct to note the difference, and no, Jesus was not mentioned once in any of the clips.

To the contrary! When William Lane Craig uses philosophical arguments for the existence of God he is engaging in Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics deals with proofs and evidence. It is designed for: (1) Pre-evangelism and (2) Dealing with the rocks of objections that many throw at the Christian faith.

Philosophical theology came into existence in the 18th and 19th centuries when positivist, modernist, and Enlightenment thinkers attacked Christianity. Theologians wanted a way to explain and defend their beliefs and found they could use philosophical methods to defend divine revelation. The use of philosophy to analyze and explain theology was not without precedent. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and other early theologians had used the ideas of Aristotle and Socrates in their writings in an effort to think through and understand the concepts presented in the Bible. Many modern apologists still use philosophical arguments; for example, the teleological and ontological arguments for God’s existence are rooted firmly in philosophical theology.

The Bible says that seeking out a matter, or searching for truth that God has concealed, is glorious (Proverbs 25:2). We have been given the ability to reason, and there is nothing wrong with studying philosophy. At the same time, we must be cautious. There are many spiritual dangers in the study of philosophy. God warns us to “turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Timothy 6:20) ['What is philosophical theology?' Got Questions Ministries].

Evangelical philosophical theology deals with faith in Christ but provides reasons/apologia that are not contradictory to biblical Christianity.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't use any of the above when witnessing God in Christ anyway.

Since you don't use the arguments of William Lane Craig when witnessing, which ones do you use?

 

[smaller]

To the contrary! When William Lane Craig uses philosophical arguments for the existence of God he is engaging in Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics deals with proofs and evidence. It is designed for: (1) Pre-evangelism and (2) Dealing with the rocks of objections that many throw at the Christian faith.

I know that. Have listened to him debate a few times on youtube. I'd pity anyone trying to convince Chris Hitchens (yea, I know he's dead) or Richard Dawkins about anything, let alone God. Some of these opponents have such bad caricatures of Christianity. Quite ignorant altogether. But some of their critiques are legit, such as pointing out in the various rifts, and that not everyone, in all these splits of sights can possibly be right. And I agree with that critique. They have many other legit critiques of "religion" and "christianity" as it's practiced. Some will give the slightest nod to a vague possible backhanded undefined deity, such as Sam Harris.

In the end I think most intellectuals are quite wrapped up and deeply financially vested in self-their own intellect/reason worship. I doubt his arguments do much to persuade any of them. They bought and paid for what they have.

Evangelical philosophical theology deals with faith in Christ but provides reasons/apologia that are not contradictory to biblical Christianity.
Oz

I'd consider it a side field to Christian theology.

For personal witnessing, I look for personal connections. Putting ones self in someone else's shoes goes a long ways to sincere sharing of Christ. As does loving our neighbors as ourselves.

 

[Douglas Summers]

But even Jesus would explain to his disciples when they asked. And you're not Jesus.

And you are not one of His disciple.. Christ did not always explains things to His disciples. He would let the event happen and then they would remember what He had told them and He did that on purpose. For example (John Chapter 16). I would be careful about insulting the Lord, by denying any born again believer that they are not Christ's, For every born again believer is a part of Christ, in fact, we are His body and He is the head of the body (John Chapter 17). The born again believer is Christ vessel of where he resides. Spiritual things are not understood by the carnal christian. (1 Corinthians chapters 1 & 2).

It is the church in Revelations 3:20-22 that dominates the ages today. Christ is not asking us to come out, but that He may come in. None of us are above our Lord, nor above each other. Instead of insulting each other, the body of Christ should be supporting each other in their calling and election and their in the Spirit of Christ. Pride is the very seed that destroys, and pride is what started the decay of every thing that was Good. (Gen. 1:24-25)

 

[Papa Zoom]

In the end I think most intellectuals are quite wrapped up and deeply financially vested in self-their own intellect/reason worship. I doubt his arguments do much to persuade any of them. They bought and paid for what they have.

This strikes me as a very unfair comment. WLC is deeply invested in the gospel. Philosophy is his vehicle. But he's well versed in theology too. And many skeptics are brought to faith via these arguments. As for Christopher Hitchens, one of his close friends was a Christian who encouraged Chris to read the bible. Which he did. They did a lot of debates together and traveled together. We would all do well to learn apologetics and teach it to our children to prepare them for the assault on their faith which they will face. I thank God for the intellectuals that stand up for the Faith.

 

[smaller]

This strikes me as a very unfair comment. WLC is deeply invested in the gospel. Philosophy is his vehicle.

Did I say I have a problem with WLC? No. Nor do I have a problem, generally, with christian intellectuals. I respect what these people have to say. No complaints from me.

I do however think the other sides of these debates ALSO have very legit/harsh/biting critique about a LOT of what christianity projects/presents. I myself have witnessed up front close and personal, christians who I would consider semi psychotic with a great number of sociopathic manipulating leaders in the realm. But this is largely from the charismania realm. I don't think I'm alone in these sights, even from within christianity.

It's hard not to agree with some critiques IF they are honest. And that does work "both ways."

As to the clips posted, I've commented on them sufficiently, pro and con. Mostly pro. I am a fan of First Cause IF it's truly First Cause of "all things." And also a fan of infinite complexity observations coupled with organization observations necessitating an Organizer. These are exceptionally legit. I still don't think atheist intellectuals would agree however. There are counters to these observations.

 

[OzSpen]

I know that. Have listened to him debate a few times on youtube. I'd pity anyone trying to convince Chris Hitchens (yea, I know he's dead) or Richard Dawkins about anything, let alone God. Some of these opponents have such bad caricatures of Christianity. Quite ignorant altogether. But some of their critiques are legit, such as pointing out in the various rifts, and that not everyone, in all these splits of sights can possibly be right. And I agree with that critique. They have many other legit critiques of "religion" and "christianity" as it's practiced. Some will give the slightest nod to a vague possible backhanded undefined deity, such as Sam Harris.

In the end I think most intellectuals are quite wrapped up and deeply financially vested in self-their own intellect/reason worship. I doubt his arguments do much to persuade any of them. They bought and paid for what they have.

I'd consider it a side field to Christian theology.

For personal witnessing, I look for personal connections. Putting ones self in someone else's shoes goes a long ways to sincere sharing of Christ. As does loving our neighbors as ourselves.

I'm a debater, having engaged in public debates with some prominent people. While one of my aims is to find holes and inconsistencies in the arguments of the person I'm debating, another of my purposes is to provide Christians and others with defences of the faith. I did this as a radio and TV interviewer for many years - and that involves many debates at a lower level.

Let's face it. There have been some atheists who have become converted to Christ (Lee Strobel being an example) and others who have moved from atheism to deism (Antony Flew was such).

All is not lost in debating atheists. If they have bad caricatures of Christianity, these need to be challenged with evidence. If they have legitimate complaints, acknowledge them.

I will not generalise that 'most intellectuals are quite wrapped up and deeply financially vested in self-their own intellect/reason worship'. That's a hasty generalization fallacy.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

This strikes me as a very unfair comment. WLC is deeply invested in the gospel. Philosophy is his vehicle. But he's well versed in theology too. And many skeptics are brought to faith via these arguments. As for Christopher Hitchens, one of his close friends was a Christian who encouraged Chris to read the bible. Which he did. They did a lot of debates together and traveled together. We would all do well to learn apologetics and teach it to our children to prepare them for the assault on their faith which they will face. I thank God for the intellectuals that stand up for the Faith.

Thanks Papa for this excellent assessment. I don't have the philosophical skills of Bill Craig but I'm blessed to see his God-given gifts in action as a debater and presenter on YouTube. Craig's methodology will not be followed, promoted and accepted by some in the Christian community. His concepts are sometimes too advanced for the laity.

However, these YouTube videos are an attempt to reduce major concepts down to manageable levels.

Ravi Zacharias's international ministry has a wonderful group of young people working around the world under the name of Reboot. I recommend their videos as well.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

For personal witnessing, I look for personal connections. Putting ones self in someone else's shoes goes a long ways to sincere sharing of Christ. As does loving our neighbors as ourselves.

That's a normal and expected approach to Christian caring when dealing with people. It doesn't tell me anything about your approach when people object to what you are telling them. Are you saying that you do not engage in any apologetics in your personal witnessing?

 

[smaller]

That's a normal and expected approach to Christian caring when dealing with people. It doesn't tell me anything about your approach when people object to what you are telling them. Are you saying that you do not engage in any apologetics in your personal witnessing?

I expect the Love of God in Christ to be with me, in my witnessing. And the hope that they will hear/see that. Nothing more. Rationalization can not do what Christ does.

 

[smaller]

I'm a debater, having engaged in public debates with some prominent people. While one of my aims is to find holes and inconsistencies in the arguments of the person I'm debating

I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that the other side of the coin is provided plenty of ammo from the christian side of the realm, to poke rationalization fun at. How would you even begin to rationalize a cracker being Christ? (one of their favorite "go to's")

, another of my purposes is to provide Christians and others with defences of the faith. I did this as a radio and TV interviewer for many years - and that involves many debates at a lower level.

Let's face it. There have been some atheists who have become converted to Christ (Lee Strobel being an example) and others who have moved from atheism to deism (Antony Flew was such).

I think there is an appeal to the intellectual discourses of Word/Spirituality. Very much so, if anyone is once turned on to that aspect. Reasoning with Gods Own Words is no small challenge. My objection with this approach, from a reasoning/logic standpoint, is when the reasoner thinks they have the market cornered with their particular brand of force fitting. Gods Words tend to resist the capture of reasoning when that reasoning is partial/biased. It is very much "like" a chess game. When a move is made on the board, a counter or resistance move is provided.

All is not lost in debating atheists. If they have bad caricatures of Christianity, these need to be challenged with evidence. If they have legitimate complaints, acknowledge them.

The above is why I quit listening to those reasoning debates. There is soooo much bad reasoning provided from the general christian arena that the atheists are quick to trot out. There really is.

I will not generalise that 'most intellectuals are quite wrapped up and deeply financially vested in self-their own intellect/reason worship'. That's a hasty generalization fallacy.
Oz

No, it's called the cognitive bias of the debater. If they are heavily invested with time and resources with their forms of reasoning, they will have cognitive biases. Common sense would tell that.

What I would say about reasoning in general, is that human reasoning is only capable of going so far. In other words it's logically inferior. The logical reason it is so, is because we are not capable of reasoning from Gods Own Seat, with all the data He has at His Disposal.

That is where our logic fails, logically. We can not reason perfectly with less than Perfect Logic. We can not reason Perfectly with partial sights. I hope you understand this simple form of logic. This is where "I lose" the seat of reasoning with God. And am happy to take that seat because it is correct logic.

When Job reasoned with his friends, and finally with the Voice of God, he ended up with this logical seat:

Job 42:6
Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

This is the man, to whom God will show His Logic.

But our pride in reasoning using intellectualism will always resist taking this seat.

 

[Free]

I Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

Hope this helps..

No, it doesn't. You've had it mentioned to you several times that simply posting Scripture with no explanation why is most often meaningless.

 

[Free]

No nothing of the kind..

II Corinthians 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Its all about simplicity...

What is "all about simplicity" and how does this address the topic?

 

[turnorburn]

What is "all about simplicity" and how does this address the topic?

I've answered your questions, if your not satisfied so be it..

 

[Free]

And you are not one of His disciple.. Christ did not always explains things to His disciples. He would let the event happen and then they would remember what He had told them and He did that on purpose. For example (John Chapter 16). I would be careful about insulting the Lord, by denying any born again believer that they are not Christ's, For every born again believer is a part of Christ, in fact, we are His body and He is the head of the body (John Chapter 17). The born again believer is Christ vessel of where he resides. Spiritual things are not understood by the carnal christian. (1 Corinthians chapters 1 & 2).

It is the church in Revelations 3:20-22 that dominates the ages today. Christ is not asking us to come out, but that He may come in. None of us are above our Lord, nor above each other. Instead of insulting each other, the body of Christ should be supporting each other in their calling and election and their in the Spirit of Christ. Pride is the very seed that destroys, and pride is what started the decay of every thing that was Good. (Gen. 1:24-25)

But you are insulting me. You first state that I am "not a disciple," which implies I am not a Christian" (a violation of the TOS), but then go on to state that "[You] would be careful about insulting the Lord, by denying any born again believer that they are not Christ's". So you not only insult me, you do the very thing you insults the Lord.

Not to mention it has nothing to do with the topic and still doesn't address my post.

 

[Free]

I've answered your questions, if your not satisfied so be it..

You haven't. You keep just posting Scripture as though you have said something but you don't explain how those passages address my questions or the topic. If you can't explain how they're relevant, then it is likely you don't understand what they say.

 

[Douglas Summers]

No, it doesn't. You've had it mentioned to you several times that simply posting Scripture with no explanation why is most often meaningless.

Scripture is pretty self explanatory unless it is a parable. And parables are for the wise (wise in their own minds), People who have ears but cannot hear and eyes, but can not see, And Scripture has never been useless except to those who think it is useless because they do not understand it. (Matt. 13:10-16)

 

[Douglas Summers]

But you are insulting me. You first state that I am "not a disciple," which implies I am not a Christian" (a violation of the TOS), but then go on to state that "[You] would be careful about insulting the Lord, by denying any born again believer that they are not Christ's". So you not only insult me, you do the very thing you insults the Lord.

Born again believers should never feel insulted, but are grieved that the visible church nature is just like the world.. To be a disciple of Christ is to have the nature of Christ. The truth of Scripture provokes the visible church if it does not fit their theology. But the visible church is quick to try to provoke believers if they do not agree with their theology. If I did not correct self willed teaching, then I would be a liar and the Truth would not be in me. I do not believe like you do and I have the Spirit to correct carnal religious thought. Not to lord it over anyone but to contend for the faith given by Christ and preached by the Disciples. You and we are not disciples of Christ. We are Son's of God and brothers to Christ if you were are born again. This is not my idea of Scripture, this IS Scripture. Look it up and study it to see if it is true. For we are Christ in part....the regenerated part (born again)

 

[smaller]

You and we are not disciples of Christ. We are Son's of God and brothers to Christ if you were are born again.

That's getting a little bizarre Douglas.

Let's trot the condemnation thingys back a few steps.

John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.