CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

[mikempb 0]

I just thought I'd see if there was any interest in here with all the discussions about God? not God talk, for another aspect other than using the bible for your argument. Apologetics is proving BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that God exists, by using SCIENCE, OBSERVATION, AND REASONING. I know people want 100% proof from you when defending your faith, problem is there is no 100% proof for either side, but when you see all the information, the evidence is stacked much more to support a creator. What do you think??

[TKoontz 0]

It seems your views lie on the side of apologetic (assuming I read that correctly), I'd be interested to hear your views and proof/evidence/observations/reasoning in support of God.

This is such a big topic as well, can you narrow it down a little so we can discuss one or several smaller aspects of the case for a creator?

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[JohnRich 4]

Christians don't need to apologize for, or explain to anyone for their beliefs.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Christians don't need to apologize for, or explain to anyone for their beliefs.

Perhaps you're kidding a bit (re: definition). Anyhow, apologetics has noting to do with "apology"; it is an intellectual exercise - sometimes just for the sake of the philosophical exercise, and (historically) sometimes for the sake of promoting a certain agenda.

Also, to the OP: apologetics re: God need not necessarily be Christian-oriented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

[TKoontz 0]

Agreed, I've always been confused by the nomenclature there.

"apologetics" just seems strange in my mind, are they literally apologizing, or is it some slightly different meaning of the word and means 'explanation using science'?

ETA: @Andy, ah that clears things up much better. So, back to the OP's stance?

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[billvon 2,400]

>Christians don't need to apologize for, or explain to anyone for their beliefs.

Note here - "apologetics" is a historical term, not a description of an action. Christian Apologetics is a field of Christianity dedicated both to rational explanations of the faith and to the study of the history of famous apologists like C.S. Lewis.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

>>christian apologetics

I took a detailed course in it once at a private school. The result was me going from cultural christian to atheist. Perhaps if you give a more specific topic I could try and recall what I was taught and state why I disagree.

I think that the whole approach is wrong. Instead of starting with the result and working backwards to distort and misrepresent the evidence to fit your inflexible conclusion based on an ancient book, why not just follow the physical evidence and be skeptical of everything?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

>>christian apologetics

I took a detailed course in it once at a private school. The result was me going from cultural christian to atheist. Perhaps if you give a more specific topic I could try and recall what I was taught and state why I disagree.

I think that the whole approach is wrong. Instead of starting with the result and working backwards to distort and misrepresent the evidence to fit your inflexible conclusion based on an ancient book, why not just follow the physical evidence and be skeptical of everything?

NB - your 2nd paragraph answered your 1st one.

[VTmotoMike08 0]

What does NB stand for?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What does NB stand for?

Nota bene... basically, a Latin "FYI"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[devildog 0]

Quote

>>christian apologetics

I took a detailed course in it once at a private school. The result was me going from cultural christian to atheist. Perhaps if you give a more specific topic I could try and recall what I was taught and state why I disagree.

I think that the whole approach is wrong. Instead of starting with the result and working backwards to distort and misrepresent the evidence to fit your inflexible conclusion based on an ancient book, why not just follow the physical evidence and be skeptical of everything?

Some apologists subscribe to the philosophy of you have to start with the top (God) and move down (to us). Sounds like this was the case for you. There are many others that see this as a wrong method and begin elsewhere.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[mikempb 0]

Ok so now I'm at work typing on my little iPhone so there will plenty of spelling mistakes.
I guess a good starting point would be to realize that one can know the truth then there are 3 major arguments
The cosmological
The design argument
The moral argument
All I ask that once starts let's stick with it before jumping around

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Some apologists subscribe to the philosophy of you have to start with the top (God) and move down (to us). Sounds like this was the case for you. There are many others that see this as a wrong method and begin elsewhere.

That would be Dogmatics, not apologetics.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

but when you see all the information, the evidence is stacked much more to support a creator.

Or not.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[TKoontz 0]

Sounds like a good starting point.

Cosmological
Design
Moral

What arguments do you make in favor of god for each of these?

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[mikempb 0]

Cosmological
Unless we disagree here its probably agreed the universe had a beginning. My premise is that something can not come out of nothing. Space Time Matter according to Einstein must all be present this is Natural law. So if there is a creator and I said IF then he must be timeless. Space less and immaterial. Any objections so far?

[billvon 2,400]

>My premise is that something can not come out of nothing.

Actually, particle-antiparticle pairs come into existence (and then recombine) all the time. It's where the Casimir effect comes from.

[DanG 1]

Quote

So if there is a creator and I said IF then he must be timeless. Space less and immaterial. Any objections so far?

I object. Why must the creator be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial? If you assume this, then there's no point in going any further. You just assumed God.

- Dan G

[mikempb 0]

I brought this up in the other thread. They are in a vacuume and there is plenty of energy in there.

[jclalor 12]

You need to look up the definition of "Christian apologist" it's not what you think.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Cosmological

My niece is studying cosmology. She's really quite the artist at it.

[mikempb 0]

What im trying to establish is the circumstances how a designer created the universe. That isn't my evidence for a God simply what kind of being he would have to be

[billvon 2,400]

>They are in a vacuume and there is plenty of energy in there.

Well there you have it. Something (energy and particles) from nothing (vacuum.)

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Some apologists subscribe to the philosophy of you have to start with the top (God) and move down (to us). Sounds like this was the case for you. There are many others that see this as a wrong method and begin elsewhere.

That would be Dogmatics, not apologetics.

Negative. It's still apologetics, which simply means defense of the faith, in reference to Christianity. Any position taken on anything must hold certain givens, and in that line of thought, a God/gods are given.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[DanG 1]

Quote

That isn't my evidence for a God simply what kind of being he would have to be

Okay, why would he have to be timeless? Why couldn't he have created the universe in such a way that we can't perceive time before the Big Bang, but he can?

- Dan G