Defending our Faith

[Tannhauser]

I often think that faith in God rests squarely with Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.’ If we don’t accept that, we can hardly begin to accept the rest of the Bible.

How do we defend our faith to those people that believe the Bible is all a flight of fancy; a story; something that was essentially fantasy. How can we defend our faith without reference to the Bible alone? Can this even be done?

A friend of mine insisted that ‘he couldn’t believe in a fairy-tale’, and I was at a loss as to what to say, aside from quote Scripture to him. Do we just have to accept that, for those that don’t accept Genesis 1:1, there is little that we can say otherwise?

 

[1ke]

Do we just have to accept that, for those that don’t accept Genesis 1:1, there is little that we can say otherwise?

Well, I suppose you could start the conversation by asking whether or not your friend can allow for the possibility that a being, one that we call God, could exist.

If my friend dismisses out of hand the possibility that there is a possibility of a being such as God, I think the conversation is probably at an end.

If the friend agrees that there might be someone or something, different from us in substance and being, that has the attributes we ascribe to God, well then my next question would be whether or not such a being would be capable of communicating with those he created?

If he’s capable of communicating and making himself known, why would it be absurd that he would do so by a mixture of direct revelation, inspiration of sacred writers, and full revelation through the Incarnation? Why is absurd that people would write these things down?

 

[Tannhauser]

Well, I suppose you could start the conversation by asking whether or not your friend can allow for the possibility that a being, one that we call God, could exist.

If my friend dismisses out of hand the possibility that there is a possibility of a being such as God, I think the conversation is probably at an end.

If the friend agrees that there might be someone or something, different from us in substance and being, that has the attributes we ascribe to God, well then my next question would be whether or not such a being would be capable of communicating with those he created?

If he’s capable of communicating and making himself known, why would it be absurd that he would do so by a mixture of direct revelation, inspiration of sacred writers, and full revelation through the Incarnation? Why is absurd that people would write these things down?

Good response!

 

[Tannhauser]

Well, I suppose you could start the conversation by asking whether or not your friend can allow for the possibility that a being, one that we call God, could exist.

If my friend dismisses out of hand the possibility that there is a possibility of a being such as God, I think the conversation is probably at an end.

If the friend agrees that there might be someone or something, different from us in substance and being, that has the attributes we ascribe to God, well then my next question would be whether or not such a being would be capable of communicating with those he created?

If he’s capable of communicating and making himself known, why would it be absurd that he would do so by a mixture of direct revelation, inspiration of sacred writers, and full revelation through the Incarnation? Why is absurd that people would write these things down?

Although then my imaginary friend would likely say: well, that’s fine, but there are so many different account of God, especially within the monotheistic faiths.

I know that both Judaism and Islam acknowledge Christ, however… and so there seems to be a continuity there, but I don’t know how we would prove that our faith, and our Scriptures, are indeed correct and divinely inspired.

 

[BlankFace]

Though many scientist won’t admit it, their research indicates that there was a creator. The math stops at the point of the big-bang, maybe you can make arguements for evolution and the way things came to be etc.— but the fact is at one time there was nothing, and then there was something.

I’ve talked to atheists that believe all will be answered thru science, and i’'ve talked to scientists that take after the quote said by albert einstien, (paraphrased) " the more i discover about our world, the more i believe in a higer power."

That’s why I like the Catholics view towards science, it’s to find the “fingerprint of God in our world.” While many protestant denominations reject science in the name of scripture, Catholics study science to prove scripture.

 

[Pax]

Tannhauser in Christ,

I would recommend becoming familiar with all of the logical arguments for the existence of God as well as all of the logical arguments typically used by atheists. A really great source for these is a book called the Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft and Tacelli.

Human being need grace in order to believe. They also need intellectual preparation and reasons for belief. This intellectual preparation is accomplished by God through his human instruments and the logic and evidence which are part of His creation. Atheists really need a logical presentation concerning the reasons for belief and the weaknesses of their own arguments.

Kreeft and Tacelli make a powerful point on all of this. It is important to appreciate the fact that there is “no proof” of God’s existence. Instead, there is evidence and logical arguments that in combination give us strong reasons to believe. The final step, however, is always a leap of faith, and it is God that provides us with the ability to make that leap by his love and grace.

Not all arguments used by Christians to establish the existence of God are logically sound and atheists will usually be able to see the flaws in those arguments. There are, however, a number of related logical arguments in favor of the existence of God that are completely logical and can not be logically refuted. Every argument, however, that is presented against the existence of God has some logical weakness or internal contradiction. If atheists can be made to see this, you have made progress with them. The problem is knowing and memorizing all of the arguments from both points of view.

Once again, Kreeft and Tacelli are a great place to start in dealing with non-believers. I hope this helps.

God bless.