Discussions with Bob, the rationalist

[OzSpen]

I am a regular listener to Dr. Frank Turek (crossexamined.org), who fancies himself as a world-class debater of folks like Bob. Surely ammunition of the sort you are seeking would be found at Turek's site if anywhere. On the other hand, even as a believer I find a large percentage of Turek's arguments facile and unconvincing. Literally all of my friends are highly educated, highly intelligent, hardcore nonbelievers. They wouldn't waste five minutes with someone like Turek (or you) and they certainly wouldn't reconsider their beliefs on the basis of anything Turek (or you) would have to say. As someone else has suggested, you "reach" them, if at all, by way of example, simply by living your life around them. If something eventually clicks, perhaps in a time of despair for them, so be it. If it doesn't, so be it.

I obviously don't know Bob, but anyone who is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia isn't interested in anything you have to say. He is humoring someone he thinks is a fool. Asking "How would you progress in your discussion with him so that you can get him to consider the existence of God and then move toward the Cross" is like asking "How can I train my poodle to make martinis and hit a golf ball 300 yards?" If I were seriously going to make someone like Bob my pet project (my very, very long pet project), Christianity wouldn't even be part of the discussion. I would challenge him to seriously explore all the evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death and perhaps the evidence for Intelligent Design. He would be highly unlikely to do it, of course, because it is a massive undertaking and he is already a member of a church in which he is quite comfortable.

Thanks Runner for your thoughtful and comprehensive reply. I'm only conversant with Turek through his association with Norman Geisler, e.g. in the book they co-authored, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (2004 Crossway Books).

I have these responses to what you wrote:

1. Reaching people by the way I live does not help to answer their questions or present the Gospel to them.
2. I reject your premise that someone who is a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia is not interested in what I say. The reason I reject this premise is because of evidence of atheists who became Christians through evidence presented and the drawing of the Holy Spirit: Philip Vander Elst, C S Lewis, Joy Davidman, Nicky Gumbel, Alister McGrath, Peter Hitchens, and Lee Strobel are but a few examples.
3. I have not met many people in 55 years as a believer who easily open up to the Christian faith in my post-Christian Australian society. That does not cause me to be resistant towards them because, (a) I have a mandate to proclaim the Gospel (Matt 28:18-20 ESV), and (2) I have a responsibility to give an apologia (defence) for the hope I have in Christ (1 Pet 3:15 ESV).
   
4. You have recommended a way forward that is very helpful: (a) Survival of consciousness after bodily death (but how can I do that without evidence from Scripture? Near-death experiences are not permanent death) and natural theology - evidence for intelligent design. In fact, exploring intelligent design is an ideal opportunity to discuss why this design has been frustrated and becomes imperfect. Enter the sin factor.

Thanks a million for caring to share your insights.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

OzSpen

I do believe Runner has said it all...

(but there's always hope and you never know when one might be searching...)

I have commended Runner for his insights and I agree with many of his points. However, I agree that as long as there is breath there is hope. It was C S Lewis who said 'There are no atheists in foxholes'.

Christians have mandates to proclaim the Gospel and defend the faith. These requirements will never change until Jesus's second coming.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If I felt the need to continue the conversation, I'd probabley start with some wisdom in Jesus's teachings, and possibly from the bible as a whole. I had a friend at work that he and I got in a simular conversation about Christianity. He said why he didn't like Christianity, largely from some experiences he's had and judgments placed on him by harsh relatives and strangers who claimed to be Christian. In that conversation at first I focused on the redemption quality of Jesus and God and said that there is a large subject of being redeemed. I tried to take in his critisms of Christianity or religion as a whole, but for the most part I stuck close to lesions and wisdom I had gained through study and contemplating the bible, or the wisdom of someone else who studied the bible too. And though I don't remember how the whole of the conversation went, on the third day of work when we met again, he asked we stop the conversation, because he was feeling hostility because of the conversations. Not hostility from me, but hostile in himself. He didn't want to continue the conversation to the point where it became a yelling match, or where he lost his composure.

Though I don't think I won him over, this conversation was a lesson for me because it was civil and stayed on the path of teaching bible concepts instead of both of us being angry at Christians who did him wrong. So it's now a conversation model I hope to be able to try again someday.

NWS,

We never know the final outcome of these conversations because we don't know how the conscience works on that person, based on your conversation or with others. However, you have done your piece of sowing the seed.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

I have commended Runner for his insights and I agree with many of his points. However, I agree that as long as there is breath there is hope. It was C S Lewis who said 'There are no atheists in foxholes'.

Christians have mandates to proclaim the Gospel and defend the faith. These requirements will never change until Jesus's second coming.

Oz

I agree Oz.
I'd only like to tell you when I actually stop.
When the person starts getting upset.
Some will listen to you for a little while. Humor you. But then they start to get upset. Why? Because the word of God bites. It hurts. It says you cannot live your own life. It says you have to change. It says that much will be required. It says that one knows what he has, but does not know what is coming. Fear sets in. And anger.

At this point, all talk must stop.

Also, I like the "little bit at a time" approach. But this is not always possible. And does not work for everyone.

W

 

[Free]

A good way to think about this is to ask how a Muslim, Hindu or atheist would go about effectively “witnessing” to you? The type of person who joins an organization like the RSA is not a garden-variety nonbeliever. He is as committed to his worldview as you are to yours. “There is no God” and “Christianity is silliness” are, for him, axioms – they are not theories he is going to be talked out of.

Of course. All that goes without saying.

Having now spent some time on the RSA website, including their section on Christian Apologetics, I have confirmed they are who I thought they were. The eat arguments such as you are suggesting for lunch (or at least think they do, which is all that matters).

This made me literally lol. And they wouldn't eat the arguments you are suggesting for lunch?

I don’t know how Plantinga would deal with someone like Bob, but I found it interesting in the interview that when he was pressed for evidential support for theism he went directly to – yep – Intelligent Design.

Although the fine-tuning argument is a good argument for the existence of God, it goes beyond the Intelligent Design movement. They weren't even the first to consider to see the universe is finely tuned for our type of life. Even evolutionists believe in fine-tuning.

My essential point being, there are two ways to approach someone like Bob: (1) present the basic Christian message and hope the Holy Spirit opens his heart and mind, or (2) jolt him out of his worldview, so Christianity becomes at least worthy of consideration. You are not going to jolt Bob out of his worldview with clever philosophical arguments, traditional “proofs” of God, or evidence for the reliability of the Bible. Bob doesn’t care about any of this any more than you care about being shown the truth of Hinduism. As soon as you start talking about Christianity in any way, shape or form, he simply labels you a credulous fool.

In my experience. jolting Bob out of his worldview has 0% chance of success. Whether he becomes a Christian depends on the Holy Spirit, not on how clever you are. Ergo, present the basic message and move on. However, if I were to attempt to jolt Bob out of his worldview, so that Christianity might at least become an option, I would challenge him with the latest advancements in physics, consciousness studies, Intelligent Design and, yes, paranormal research – including after-death communications, near-death experiences, ghosts, apparitions, deathbed visions, possession, mediumship, channeling, instrumental trans-communication, all forms of PSI, miracles, reincarnation studies, yada yada yada. Some of the paranormal research is not consistent with Christianity, and some of it may even be demonic – but immersion in it will certainly challenge a materialistic worldview. Once that hurdle has been overcome, Christianity may start to make sense.

There is no argument you or I can present that is capable of jolting anyone out of their worldview. Any jolting is going to be caused by some experience. And even then an experience can be swept aside.

As I stated to wondering, one needs to begin with showing why belief in God is rational, or in the very least, the supernatural. Then one can show why the Christian God is rational and preferred over the gods of other religions.

The problem is, not 1 in 100,000 characters like Bob is going to do the massive amount of work necessary to convince him his worldview might be wrong. Which is why I say, present the Four Spiritual Laws (or whatever) and move on. People like Frank Turek and William Lane Craig are really “apologizing” to Christians, making them feel better about their worldviews; their arguments don’t dent the worldview of someone like Bob.

But they do, so no, they are not 'really "apologizing" to Christians.'

But, hey, go ahead and confront Bob with Plantinga or arguments about the supposed inconsistency between determinism and free will (which is already addressed on the RSA site). Let us know how that turns out. My bet is, you’ll be the one getting an education.

Maybe, maybe not, but who cares. This isn't about winning and losing arguments. It's about showing why belief in the Christian God is rational, and if they are as rational as they claim to be, then they must at least consider what is being said. Of course, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, there is no point.

But the fact remains: as Christians we are called to reach out to everyone. So to simply "present the basic message and move on" is not an option, if one is capable of presenting sound arguments for the existence of God.

 

[Runner]

I have commended Runner for his insights and I agree with many of his points. However, I agree that as long as there is breath there is hope. It was C S Lewis who said 'There are no atheists in foxholes.'

The problem being, Bob is not in a foxhole. As he sees it, he is an ivory tower of intellectual superiority, whereas you are a victim of a primitive, credulous mindset. Bob pities you. There may come a time when he is in a foxhole, figuratively speaking, and is receptive to the Christian message. I found myself in a foxhole of sorts when my late wife was diagnosed with breast cancer - but both of us were so grateful that we had decided what we really believed before finding ourselves in the foxhole. When one decides upon one's beliefs only after finding oneself in the foxhole, one is always going to be suspicious that one is merely "whistling past the graveyard." My point is that really jolting someone like Bob out of his worldview (easier said than done) does put him in a foxhole of sorts. I'm not just speculating here - at least when it comes to the paranormal, I've been dealing with folks like Bob for many, many years. One eye-opener was that many of them know more about the Bible, the history of Christianity and the various Christian doctrines than even a sophisticated Christian. On one skeptics' sight, a character who called himself Cowboy X was viciously opposed to Christianity but knew more about the Bible and the intricacies of hermeneutics than I will know if I live to be 200; I was pretty much in awe of him, at least in that respect.

 

[Free]

Oz mentioned the gospel, not you.

Why then would you bring up what Oz said when responding to me, if you didn't think in some way that I was arguing for presenting the gospel? What was the point?

Did I say to start with the resurrection? I don't even believe using the bible is of any use.

You were only addressing the resurrection, so it makes it seem as though that would be where I suggested starting. And as I stated, there is evidence outside the Bible that supports the resurrection. The point is to get to the point where one can argue for the resurrection, using both the Bible and the extra-biblical evidence.

What makes the scriptures be trustworthy?

The internal consistency and coherency; prophecies; certain details which were included; manuscript evidence; etc.

What makes you think we can trust the Apostles?

 

[OzSpen]

I suppose one answer to the OP would be, "Do or say whatever you want. If the Holy Spirit has decided this is the time to open Bob's heart and mind, it scarcely matters what you say. Just walk him through the Four Spiritual Laws." This, of course, isn't good enough for the Tureks of the world. They have to show they are more clever than Bob (which generally they aren't), that they can talk him into belief (which 99.9% of the time they can't, at least in the case of someone who is a card-carrying member of the Rationalist Society of Australia).

Runner,

I would never settle for such a simplistic response. It does not get to deal with issues Bob has with Christianity. Giving a defence of the faith is just that - defending Christianity in the marketplace of ideas. There are excellent reasons, but some Christians want to brush those aside and deal with the Four Spiritual Laws.

I hope one day to get to the point of asking him one of the two Evangelism Explosion diagnostic questions: 'Suppose that you were to die today and stand before God and he were to say to you, "Why should I let you into my heaven?" what would you say?' But that's a way down the track. If God can save a C S Lewis or a Richard Hitchens, he can do it with Bob if Bob responds positively to the Gospel (after the barriers have been kicked down by a caring apologist and person who shares the Gospel).

Oz

 

[Runner]

This made me literally lol. And they wouldn't eat the arguments you are suggesting for lunch?

There is a critical distinction. My "arguments" - meaning physics, consciousness studies and paranormal research - challenge Bob on his own turf. They are within his framework of reference and have an evidential value that he can accept or reject but cannot simply dismiss. "Christian" arguments are not within his framework of reference and are easily dismissed out of hand; they are axiomatically incorrect (in Bob's view). Philosophical arguments have no evidentiary basis, although the teleological argument does at least have Intelligent Design to support it. I think I pretty clearly said that my arguments would stand pretty much 0% chance with someone like Bob - not because they are easily dismissed, but because characters like Bob are already members of a fundamentalist church and have no interest in undertaking the massive amount of work required to familiarize oneself with the evidence.

You really think apologetics lead anyone with an IQ above 70 or any level of education or sophistication to Christ? That has not been my experience. "Proofs" of God and whatnot are mental masturbation (can I say that?), intended to reassure Christians their beliefs are not as goofy as people like Bob say they are.

 

[OzSpen]

The problem being, Bob is not in a foxhole. As he sees it, he is an ivory tower of intellectual superiority, whereas you are a victim of a primitive, credulous mindset. Bob pities you. There may come a time when he is in a foxhole, figuratively speaking, and is receptive to the Christian message. I found myself in a foxhole of sorts when my late wife was diagnosed with breast cancer - but both of us were so grateful that we had decided what we really believed before finding ourselves in the foxhole. When one decides upon one's beliefs only after finding oneself in the foxhole, one is always going to be suspicious that one is merely "whistling past the graveyard." My point is that really jolting someone like Bob out of his worldview (easier said than done) does put him in a foxhole of sorts. I'm not just speculating here - at least when it comes to the paranormal, I've been dealing with folks like Bob for many, many years. One eye-opener was that many of them know more about the Bible, the history of Christianity and the various Christian doctrines than even a sophisticated Christian. On one skeptics' sight, a character who called himself Cowboy X was viciously opposed to Christianity but knew more about the Bible and the intricacies of hermeneutics than I will know if I live to be 200; I was pretty much in awe of him, at least in that respect.

Agreed. But God saves people in foxholes. Remember the thief on the cross?

My wife has a terminal cancer so I know some of your struggle with this insidious disease, but both of us are blessed in knowing that Jesus is our Lord and Saviour and our security in Him is guaranteed.

That is my observation also that many antagonists of the faith know the Bible very well. They put us to shame. However, many evangelical churches in my country are not helping with equipping people in apologetics. I weave apologetic elements into the sermons I preach as a guest preacher. It has also led me to write a couple brief articles:
Why is apologetics in such low demand in the church?

Christians stuck for answers

Oz

 

[Runner]

I hope one day to get to the point of asking him one of the two Evangelism Explosion diagnostic questions: 'Suppose that you were to die today and stand before God and he were to say to you, "Why should I let you into my heaven?" what would you say?' But that's a way down the track. If God can save a C S Lewis or a Richard Hitchens, he can do it with Bob if Bob responds positively to the Gospel (after the barriers have been kicked down by a caring apologist and person who shares the Gospel).

Oz

I assume you mean Christopher Hitchens. I'm with the atheists on this one - the recent book by a money-grubbing "Christian" who barely knew Hitchens, suggesting he might have become a believer in the foxhole of his last illness, is a travesty and a disservice to Hitchens. If someone like Bob or Hitchens is intellectually honest, as I believe Hitchens would be, he would answer God's question by saying, "Send me to Hell if that's the way your system works. I made the best decision I could on the basis of what I believed to be the best evidence available to me, and if I was wrong I'm perfectly willing to accept the eternal consequences." Some members of organizations like the RSA are, of course, not dedicated True Non-Believers. They are searching souls who stake out an extreme perch to see if anyone can knock them off it; if Bob is one of these, perhaps your efforts will bear fruit. I once had one of the most high-profile skeptics, a guy who is a veritable god within the skeptical community, email me privately and literally beg me to explain why I believed (in the paranormal, not Christianity) because, down deep, he was desperate to believe.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why then would you bring up what Oz said when responding to me, if you didn't think in some way that I was arguing for presenting the gospel? What was the point?


You were only addressing the resurrection, so it makes it seem as though that would be where I suggested starting. And as I stated, there is evidence outside the Bible that supports the resurrection. The point is to get to the point where one can argue for the resurrection, using both the Bible and the extra-biblical evidence.


The internal consistency and coherency; prophecies; certain details which were included; manuscript evidence; etc.

What makes you think we can trust the Apostles?

I agree with prophecies.
What else can we trust?
All that other stuff you quoted could count for little. It could be forgeries, dreams, who knows what else. Have you read the gnostic bibles?

If we can't trust the apostles, we can't trust anything they said about Jesus. Seems simple enough.
Our faith in Jesus is based on the apostles.

W

 

[OzSpen]

I've never listened to Turek. You seem to be quite familiar with the Rationalist Society of Australia, but I simply cannot see how ID could be even close to being as convincing as the others I have given. It would be something to bring up, just not something to start with. As for "evidence for the survival of consciousness after bodily death," is there any?

Or one could start with the problems with naturalism, most notably, determinism. Their own site says, "Welcome to the Rationalist Society of Australia, Australia's oldest freethought association." If, as they also state, "that the natural world is the only world there is," then there is no such thing as "free thought." There are a few reasons for this, one of which is given by Alvin Plantinga in the link below.

OzSpen Here is an interview with Alvin Plantinga that you may find interesting: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...nal/?_php=true&_type=blogs&smid=tw-share&_r=1

Free,

I've admired Alvin Plantinga from a distance. I've printed off the article for some bedtime ruminations tonight.

As for survival of consciousness after bodily death, I agree that the evidence is unconvincing from near-death experiences (NDE) as they can be both of light and darkness. Or, you can get the blasphemous statement from Australia's media mogul, Kerry Packer, when he stopped breathing for 6-8 minutes after an accident:

When the Australian media mogul Kerry Packer had recovered from a massive heart attack during which he virtually died, he told his friend Phillip Adams, “I’ve been to the other side, and let me tell you, son, there’s f—ing nothing there. There’s no one waiting for you. There’s no one to judge you, so you can do what you bloody well like (in Rowe 2009:205).​

I agree that dealing with the absolutistic determinism of naturalism is evidence of accepting values that are individualistic. It's amazing how free thought organisations are reticent to acknowledge that free thought excludes supernatural theism and Christianity.

Blessings,
Oz

Works consulted
Rowe, D 2009. What Should I Believe? Why Our Beliefs about the Nature of Death and the Purpose of Life Dominate Our Lives. London and New York: Routledge.

 

[GodsGrace]

Oz,
How did Packer know there was nothing there???
Doesn't this mean he had to WAKE UP and SEE that there was nothing there!!
Interesting...

W

 

[OzSpen]

Oz clearly said that presenting the gospel won't work with this Bob right now. If someone doesn't believe the bible is real, why should he believe the resurrection is real?

When I try to present the idea that Christianity is rational, I always go to the Apostles. What is our faith based on anyway? Is it based on the resurrection?

No. It's based on our faith on the persons who tell us that it happened. It's based on our faith in the Apostles. If the Apostles were men to be trusted, then we could believe what they proclaim in their gospels, in Acts, etc. If we cannot trust and have faith in the Apostles, then we can believe nothing.


Yes.

Why do you think they could be trusted?

Wondering

W,

Which criteria do historians use to determine if Plato's writings are dependable or those of Herodotus, father of history, can be trusted? When these criteria are applied to the Bible, how does it match up?

What are those criteria? Could we trust them? As a starter, why don't you check out the T.I.E.S Test I use in, Can you trust the Bible? Part 2

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,
How did Packer know there was nothing there???
Doesn't this mean he had to WAKE UP and SEE that there was nothing there!!
Interesting...

W

He experienced 'nothing' (as his definition) in his near-death-experience in a polo accident 15 years before he died permanently at age 68 on 26 December 2005. See HERE. This is why personal experience and description of that experience can be so unreliable in providing accurate evidence.

He now knows what permanent human death offers. Heb 9:27 (NIV) confirms what he will know now: 'Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment'. We know this because our eyes have been opened to the truth of the Gospel in Jesus Christ through the reliable witness of the Scriptures.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I assume you mean Christopher Hitchens. I'm with the atheists on this one - the recent book by a money-grubbing "Christian" who barely knew Hitchens, suggesting he might have become a believer in the foxhole of his last illness, is a travesty and a disservice to Hitchens. If someone like Bob or Hitchens is intellectually honest, as I believe Hitchens would be, he would answer God's question by saying, "Send me to Hell if that's the way your system works. I made the best decision I could on the basis of what I believed to be the best evidence available to me, and if I was wrong I'm perfectly willing to accept the eternal consequences." Some members of organizations like the RSA are, of course, not dedicated True Non-Believers. They are searching souls who stake out an extreme perch to see if anyone can knock them off it; if Bob is one of these, perhaps your efforts will bear fruit. I once had one of the most high-profile skeptics, a guy who is a veritable god within the skeptical community, email me privately and literally beg me to explain why I believed (in the paranormal, not Christianity) because, down deep, he was desperate to believe.

No, I do not mean Christopher Hitchens. I mean his brother, Peter Hitchens, who moved from atheism to evangelical Christianity. If you had read my link to Peter Hitchens you would know I wasn't referring to Christopher. You seem to be ignorant of Peter Hitchens and his Christianity that was in opposition to Christopher Hitchens' atheism.

You say, ' he [Christopher Hitchens] would answer God's question by saying, "Send me to Hell if that's the way your system works. I made the best decision I could on the basis of what I believed to be the best evidence available to me, and if I was wrong I'm perfectly willing to accept the eternal consequences."

God's answer to Christopher will be what Paul gave in Romans 1:19-20 (ESV):

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.​

The facts are that God does not believe in atheism (the title of John Blanchard's book of 2000) and not one person, including Christopher Hitchens, will have an excuse for not believing in God when he stands before God. Why? God has clearly provided evidence of His 'invisible attributes, eternal power and divine nature' in His creation that can be perceived by all people. This perception has been available to ALL since the beginning of the world.

What stops atheists from agreeing with God's diagnosis of their view of God? Rom 1: 18 (ESV) makes that clear: 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth'. There's the key. In their unrighteous thoughts and actions they suppress the truth of God's evidence revealed in creation.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

I have commended Runner for his insights and I agree with many of his points. However, I agree that as long as there is breath there is hope. It was C S Lewis who said 'There are no atheists in foxholes'.

Christians have mandates to proclaim the Gospel and defend the faith. These requirements will never change until Jesus's second coming.

Oz

I have seen an atheist or sinner deny prayer while waiting for surgery in country.so yes these exist.

 

[Free]

I agree with prophecies.
What else can we trust?
All that other stuff you quoted could count for little. It could be forgeries, dreams, who knows what else.

Count for little? I strongly suggest you get acquainted with arguments for the trustworthiness of Scripture.

http://www.christianity.com/bible/apologetics/the-trustworthiness-of-scripture.html?p=0

http://www.ukapologetics.net/trustworthiness.htm

And the link that OzSpen provided to his own work.

Have you read the gnostic bibles?

What Gnostic bibles? And what do they have to do with anything?

If we can't trust the apostles, we can't trust anything they said about Jesus. Seems simple enough.
Our faith in Jesus is based on the apostles.

W

Again I must ask, what makes you think we can trust the Apostles? What are your thoughts on the OT, do you think the books there are trustworthy? Why or why not?

 

[Free]

There is a critical distinction. My "arguments" - meaning physics, consciousness studies and paranormal research - challenge Bob on his own turf. They are within his framework of reference and have an evidential value that he can accept or reject but cannot simply dismiss. "Christian" arguments are not within his framework of reference and are easily dismissed out of hand; they are axiomatically incorrect (in Bob's view). Philosophical arguments have no evidentiary basis, although the teleological argument does at least have Intelligent Design to support it. I think I pretty clearly said that my arguments would stand pretty much 0% chance with someone like Bob - not because they are easily dismissed, but because characters like Bob are already members of a fundamentalist church and have no interest in undertaking the massive amount of work required to familiarize oneself with the evidence.

Just how does paranormal research "challenge Bob on his own turf"? Why would he not just dismiss that out of hand as he would anything else he doesn't agree with? And why wouldn't something like the moral argument be on his turf? Is evil not real, is it a purely philosophical idea? Such Rationalists claim that "all significant beliefs and actions should be based on reason and evidence." Are philosophical arguments unreasonable? Do they not constitute a type of evidence?

You really think apologetics lead anyone with an IQ above 70 or any level of education or sophistication to Christ? That has not been my experience. "Proofs" of God and whatnot are mental masturbation (can I say that?), intended to reassure Christians their beliefs are not as goofy as people like Bob say they are.

Yes, they help in leading people to Christ and your experience is hardly a basis on which to determine whether or not apologetic arguments work. And to argue to IQ is not only silly, disparages those who have been convinced by them and those who promote them. What does IQ have anything to do with being a Christian? Being rhetorical, the answer is of course, nothing. You are here arguing like an atheist.

Not to mention that those who are giving such arguments are significantly smarter than you or I. Several have multiple degrees, even multiple doctorates, teach at top universities, and are among the leaders in their fields. Surely if they are convinced about the arguments they are giving, others of their intellect and standing can be convinced as well.