General Christian apologetics

[EphelDuath]

While it is very simple to defend Catholicism, since scripture is so explicitly Catholic, I find that I have difficulty arguing the very basic questions. For example, it’s hard to argue against “there is no proof for Jesus’ miracles,” or “there is no reason to believe God exists,” or “an all-loving God would not send people to an eternal Hell.”

In the past, I’ve used C.S. Lewis’ and Peter Kreeft’s points, but I don’t find them very convincing, nor do the people I debate with. I’ve checked out William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton and more “classic” apologists (such as Augustine and Aquinas). Are there any people here who have fierce debates with atheists or non-Christians who focus on a particular apologist or book when defending the faith?

 

[AgnosTheist]

I have difficulty arguing the very basic questions. For example, it’s hard to argue against “there is no proof for Jesus’ miracles,” or “there is no reason to believe God exists,” or “an all-loving God would not send people to an eternal Hell.”

Yup those are the weak spots in Christian beliefs. Even priests and scholars are plaqued by it.

 

[ssms27]

you can try focusing on one particular miracle, like the resurrection. William Lane Craig has many article, debates on this subject. If you can believe in the resurrection then I would think other miracles of Jesus would be easier to believe.

leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/

I don’t think the existence of evil or suffering is illogical but I don’t think any argument will satisfy our emotions. I thought Peter Kreeft did as good a job as anyone on this problem but no it probably won’t satisfy.

 

[EphelDuath]

Yup those are the weak spots in Christian beliefs. Even priests and scholars are plaqued by it.

They aren’t weak, I just have trouble explaining them to nonbelievers.

 

[Fidelis]

Yup those are the weak spots in Christian beliefs. Even priests and scholars are plaqued by it.

Not weak, but complex, and hard to explain to people that don’t have the philosophical base to build on.

The trouble is, folks these days fancy themselves deep thinkers when they ask the profound questions of life (everyone’s a philosopher after three beers, and a theologian after five). They are often frustrated, however, because not having learned the basics of logic, abstract and existensal concepts, and philosophical bases, they expect simple answers to these complex questions, which there aren’t. They therefore deduce that there are no answers at all.

That’s why hacks like Hitchens and Dawkins are so successful. They capitalize on peoples hunger for answers, but count on the unwillingness or inability of those same folks to do any serious study. Thus, they are able to simplistically pooh-pooh their own straw man caricatures of religion.

 

[punkforchrist]

Craig has a new site up that includes audio links of some of his debates. You may be especially interested in his debate with Bradley: “How can a loving God send people to hell?” Here’s the link.

reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=audio_visuals

Overall, I’ve found that a Thomistic approach is often the most successful (call me old-fashioned ). If you can get a good handle on the argument from motion, or even Craig’s kalam argument, then a lot of inferences can be drawn from the Prime Mover. For example, this being must be immutable, one, eternal, immaterial, and even personal. Kreeft, as you’ve mentioned, is an expert on Thomistic philosophy.

I’ve also just bought Craig’s The Son Rises, which is a popular and condensed assessment of his other work concerning the historical evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection. I’ll read it and let you know what I think if you want. Has anyone else read it?

 

[cpayne]

While it is very simple to defend Catholicism, since scripture is so explicitly Catholic, I find that I have difficulty arguing the very basic questions. For example, it’s hard to argue against “there is no proof for Jesus’ miracles,” or “there is no reason to believe God exists,” or “an all-loving God would not send people to an eternal Hell.”

In the past, I’ve used C.S. Lewis’ and Peter Kreeft’s points, but I don’t find them very convincing, nor do the people I debate with. I’ve checked out William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton and more “classic” apologists (such as Augustine and Aquinas). Are there any people here who have fierce debates with atheists or non-Christians who focus on a particular apologist or book when defending the faith?

Ask questions. “What do you mean by ‘no proof’?” “What would you accept as proof?” “What do you mean by no reason for God’s existence?” “Do you accept logical arguments as proofs or reasons?” “How familiar are you with the classic reasons or proofs for God’s existence?” (At this point you usually get, “Oh, I’ve heard them all.” So just call them on it: “Which ones?” ) “Would God let people go to hell if they chose to do so themselves?” And so on.

 

[Sideline]

That’s why hacks like Hitchens and Dawkins are so successful. They capitalize on peoples hunger for answers, but count on the unwillingness or inability of those same folks to do any serious study. Thus, they are able to simplistically pooh-pooh their own straw man caricatures of religion.

Out of curiosity, would you call C.S. Lewis a hack? How about G.K. Chesterton? Peter Kreeft? How about anyone who has the same beliefs as you?

Your post was so well written until you started flinging mud. If you could have remained above the fray you might have even won a convert or two. If you ask me this is one of the biggest problems not only with religious debate, but society at large. There is so much name calling and such a dismissive attitude people who disagree with the mainstream, that it drowns out all of the meaningful debate.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither a Hitchens or a Hawkins fan, but to call them hacks is to do no better than they are doing. Personally, I wish more well educated people would make well-reasoned, careful, and respectful arguments for their beliefs instead of dismissing their opponents from the outset.

 

[Sideline]

While it is very simple to defend Catholicism, since scripture is so explicitly Catholic, I find that I have difficulty arguing the very basic questions. For example, it’s hard to argue against “there is no proof for Jesus’ miracles,” or “there is no reason to believe God exists,” or “an all-loving God would not send people to an eternal Hell.”

In the past, I’ve used C.S. Lewis’ and Peter Kreeft’s points, but I don’t find them very convincing, nor do the people I debate with. I’ve checked out William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton and more “classic” apologists (such as Augustine and Aquinas). Are there any people here who have fierce debates with atheists or non-Christians who focus on a particular apologist or book when defending the faith?

Why do you believe?

It seems from your post that you didn’t find your faith through any particular argument. So why are you trying to find one now?

How did you come to your faith? Were you brought up with it, or did you change faiths at some point? If you were brought up Catholic, it is probably hard to think of any other way of looking at the world. I’d just be honest about that. I’d come right out and say, “Proof or no proof, this is as real to me as any theory cooked up in a laboratory! I see God everywhere, and I am dumbfounded that you don’t.”

You might never convince anyone, but it might bring you a whole lot more satisfaction to share your faith rather than try and find a suitable answer for a debate.

Just my two cents.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Have you read Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli. It is rather thorough in its discussion of some of your questions on basic Christian beliefs.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Not weak, but complex, and hard to explain to people that don’t have the philosophical base to build on.

its both weak and complex. like Jesus’ miracles. its weak because these miracles are entirely based on speculations, since there is not one drop of objective evidences to support any of them. its complex because you have to perform a lot of philosophical acrobatics to convince people that a speculation is true.

 

[AgnosTheist]

“What do you mean by ‘no proof’?”

the absence of objective evidences that supports a claim. for meaning of ‘objective’, please look up webster.

“What would you accept as proof?”

evidences that are of the same nature as your claims…or: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences”. like if you claim a murder, then you have to at least show a dead body. likewise if you claim a miracle, you have to produce something that only miracles could have produced.

“Do you accept logical arguments as proofs or reasons?”

thats a case to case basis. sometimes pure logical rationalizations are acceptable enough as proof. like in mathematics.

“Would God let people go to hell if they chose to do so themselves?”

Not if God is a compassionate being. Like what kind of father would allow his 6yr old do cocaine simply because the child wishes for it?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi AgnosTheist,

Regarding miracles, do you believe that supernatural events are possible, or should we rule them out a priori? I agree with you that extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but what counts as “extraordinary” and what counts as “evidence”?

The Resurrection of Jesus, I believe, is highly evidenced by the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the disciples’ belief. If these three facts are confirmed as true, would you agree that this counts as extraordinary evidence?

Blessings

 

[AgnosTheist]

Hi AgnosTheist,

Regarding miracles, do you believe that supernatural events are possible, or should we rule them out a priori?

Hello

I personally believe in God, so I personally believe that miracles could happen. However I dont think there are any evidences that miracles did happen before.

I agree with you that extrordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but what counts as “extraordinary” and what counts as “evidence”?

extraordinary would be something that defies a natural explanation.

The Resurrection of Jesus, I believe, is highly evidenced by the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the disciples’ belief. If these three facts are confirmed as true, would you agree that this counts as extraordinary evidence?

only if those things are confirmed as true. i think its unlikely since those claims are thousands of years old.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Out of curiosity, would you call C.S. Lewis a hack? How about G.K. Chesterton? Peter Kreeft? How about anyone who has the same beliefs as you?

Your post was so well written until you started flinging mud. If you could have remained above the fray you might have even won a convert or two. If you ask me this is one of the biggest problems not only with religious debate, but society at large. There is so much name calling and such a dismissive attitude people who disagree with the mainstream, that it drowns out all of the meaningful debate.

Your post sure resonated with me. Go to Catholic life- Spirituality and the thread “Differences of Opinion” and see where I got with my plea for decent discourse. LOL…These are some really angry ultra conservatives, and sadly have no desire to engage in discussion unless you agree with them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

As the to question. I think the resurrection has the most objective evidence. Something extraordinary must indeed have happened. Miracles are not susceptible of proof and so by definition must be accepted on faith. However, the evidence that they were widespread and certainly believed by many is some evidence I would think. The issue about bad things happening is difficult and i think depends on how you view God in the world. There are ways around the discomforture, but they tend to be out there a bit theologically I would think.

 

[cpayne]

Sideline;2842244:

Out of curiosity, would you call C.S. Lewis a hack? How about G.K. Chesterton? Peter Kreeft? How about anyone

who has the same beliefs as you?

Your post was so well written until you started flinging mud. If you could have remained above the fray you might have even won a convert or two. If you ask me this is one of the biggest problems not only with religious debate, but society at large. There is so much name calling and such a dismissive attitude people who disagree with the mainstream, that it drowns out all of the meaningful debate.

Your post sure resonated with me. Go to Catholic life- Spirituality and the thread “Differences of Opinion” and see where I got with my plea for decent discourse. LOL…These are some really angry ultra conservatives, and sadly have no desire to engage in discussion unless you agree with them.

Hi. I was reading along in this thread and just wondered if calling someone “ultraconservative” counts as name-calling or mud-slinging.

No, wait! I’m not derailing the thread! Don’t delete m

 

[AgnosTheist]

As the to question. I think the resurrection has the most objective evidence. Something extraordinary must indeed have happened. Miracles are not susceptible of proof and so by definition must be accepted on faith. However, the evidence that they were widespread and certainly believed by many is some evidence I would think. The issue about bad things happening is difficult and i think depends on how you view God in the world. There are ways around the discomforture, but they tend to be out there a bit theologically I would think.

Logical Fallacy:

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers)

 

[cpayne]

The Resurrection had observable, definable consequences in the history of those who witnessed it. But there have already been very long threads discussing this claim, so—

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

AgnosTheist: What exactly is your religious affiliation?