Hello! I strongly disagree with some of the positions you’ve taken. Maybe I’ll tackle one or two of them. But this is supposed to be a thread about doing apologetics generally, not specific topics to debate.
Some worthy said this, and you replied:
Which still means you put God in a gap where nobody, which includes you and the authors of the bible, can know anything.
I’m not filling in the “gaps” of my knowledge with God. I enjoy filling in my understanding of God learning about how his creation works. I fully understand that at a certain level of knowledge my ability to understand ends. From there I must rely on faith.
Note how Worthy Poster just asserts exactly what is debatable between you and he. This isn’t real engagement. You may still be wrong, but apologetics requires *some* real engagement. If an opponent insists, then you and he ‘lack common ground’ in that area. Time to shift ground. Shifting ground is not always a fallacy (it’s just usually introduced when teaching about fallacious uses of various tools for debate).
Here’s a different problem:
You seem to suppose that miracles exist. Not very scientific.
I believe God is the creator, the cause, of the universe. I also believe that in everyday life God can affect, or influence, his creation. For me, science is just one aspect of many which informs my understanding and what I believe. Since I’m limited in the amount of time I can spend on it and my own lack of ability to understand, science is not the main influence in my life.
Heh. Your opponent seems to think he’s insulted you. ‘not very scientific’ is supposed to show just how stupid you are. Yawn.
The trap here is to be deceived that the other guy was open to some reply. Not ready to be convinced, just open to considering the other side, imagining it, turning it over in his mind as if it were true, giving it its best light.
Sometimes your opponent is so eager to deliver a cheap insult, he trips over his own untied shoelaces:
When I grew up, I learned however that in no science we find any reason to believe in God.
This sound crushing - until you remember that the natural sciences aren’t about God; and as far as I remember, physics gives me no reason to believe in living things.
Of course there are questions that no science can poss But then science does not support your belief. It is just silent about it.
Ask politely “If there are question on which science is silent, then there’s no good reason to drag in science when I want to ask those questions.” Watch eyes blaze and Faithful rush the stage. (Because naturalism! And Science! and those questions don’t count! because scientific method!) And if you really want to leave some blood on the waters - not that I recommend it - be sure to occasionally Capitalize Science, add an exclamation point (Science!) or add a trade-mark, Science(tm), since many secularists think they own it. It’s cheap shots, but you’ll feel better. Briefly. Then you’ll be ashamed you stooped that low even for a minute. Like I just did.
You’re not innocent of howlers either, however:
I believe in God because I believe
Ouch! It sounds touching, but in bloodless words you just said nothing. *Nobody* believes because they believe. ‘I believe ripe oranges are sweet because (although I’ve never tasted an orange) I believe ripe oranges are sweet.’ Maybe you meant something special by re-using the word ‘believe’; this is not the crowd to be paradoxical with.
You have reasons for your faith; this crowd will naturally push you to accept a false dichotomy, reason *or* faith. ‘Faith’ is not opposed to reason: in every other use of ‘faith’ it’s used to mean a reasonable belief. You believe in your doctor (although you have no real medical knowledge) because… You believe in the ski instructor (altho’ you are a noob on the slopes) because ...
science can never take away my faith in God. Science in its understanding of the universe is ever changing. Everything scientists say today may change tomorrow. [Rhetorical question:] Why would I give up my faith in God for a learned guess?
I don’t disagree with this, though I’d put it a lot differently. But avoid rhetorical questions. They are for use with an audience who is sympathetic. The purpose of a RQ is to let the audience answer the Q in their heads: “By thunder, I wouldn’t!” Here however your audience is hostile, and will take the RQ as a challenge. Just state: ‘I would not give up my faith in God for a learned guess.’ Just my opinion on rhetorical questions; i use them too often myself.
Some opponents are addicted to mean-spirited insinuations:
And you can neither. To do as if you can is, yes, I cannot say it otherwise, dishonest.
Since in some it is a real addiction, they hardly know they’re doing it. Really? the opponent *could not* have said it otherwise? Really, it reflects poorly on the opponent. He seems to claim that his position is so obvious - despite it being common knowledge that it’s debatable - you just *have* to be stupider than a palm-tree, or else a bounder. Of course, you probably are both stupid and wicked. I’m just sayin. It’s just an honest evaluation!
On the other hand:
I believe the Theory of Relativity would support the claim that from our time reference on earth at this point in the expansion of the universe the passage of time at the beginning of the universe would appear very different. And what is dishonest about saying I don’t know how the passage of time during the six days of creation was measured?
Avoid answering every attack. You’re *not* being dishonest.
However, relativity theory has nothing really to do one way or the other with the passage of time at the beginning of the Universe. Are you really ready to argue that the early Universe expanded in *just* the right way to make for six days?
You accept Genesis as somehow true. But don’t get into a debate with just anyone about it, IMO. The chief reason to avoid getting down in the dirt about this, is not your putative ignorance of relativity - or of the book of Leviticus, or of first-century Palestine, or whatever. For of course you’re intelligent: you could just learn about it, and *could* then start swinging with a heavy club. But that this is not really about the core of Christian life.
For this forum is clogged with foolish posts where claims of ‘just sayin’ gleefully point out rules from Deuteronomy about shellfish, or try to screw weird results out of pairing rules together, or how dumb Genesis is (‘how could there be ‘day and night’ before the Sun was made?’) or crap like that. Yes, crap. And unfortunately such ‘honest inquiries’ are doomed to irrelevancy. Worse, putative masters and teachers allow this wallow in irrelevancy. Why is complex of course; and of course a teacher or moderator or forum administrator isn’t every posters’ nanny. But sadly, I know experts who are atheists who simply refuse to support the average atheist group because of this. IMO, they shouldn’t refuse. They deny intelligent people of the benefit of their expertise.
All this needling about Genesis or the Bible may irk you, but it’s good news for Christians: with enemies like the average atheist/secularist, you hardly need friends.
I disagree with many of your positions, but you’re obviously intelligent - in the sense of rational, and capable - and of course you’re not dishonest. Like you need me to tell you that.
Finally, don’t get me wrong. I’m no saint of debating. I make a lot of mistakes, I’m not always clear, I’m thin-skinned, I ignore things the poster might have thought very important and thus he feels insulted. I can get lost in minutiae.