Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: Pachomius

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.​—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.​—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ʼe·limʹ, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·venehʹ ʼE·limʹ]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ʼE·limʹ by the singular form The·osʹ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”​—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.​—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”​—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.

Now for the definition of the God you probably are asking about, and not merely the meaning of the word or words translated to the English "God":

The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”

Proofs of the existence of “the living God.” The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. In looking into what might be called the Book of Divine Creation, scientists learn much. One can learn from a book only if intelligent thought and preparation have been put into the book by its author.

In contrast to the lifeless gods of the nations, Jehovah is “the living God.” (Jer 10:10; 2Co 6:16) Everywhere there is testimony to his activity and his greatness. “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps 19:1) Men have no reason or excuse for denying God, because “what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”​—Ro 1:18-20.

His attributes. The true God is not omnipresent, for he is spoken of as having a location. (1Ki 8:49; Joh 16:28; Heb 9:24) His throne is in heaven. (Isa 66:1) He is all-powerful, being the Almighty God. (Ge 17:1; Re 16:14) “All things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him,” and he is “the One telling from the beginning the finale.” (Heb 4:13; Isa 46:10, 11; 1Sa 2:3) His power and knowledge extend everywhere, reaching every part of the universe.​—2Ch 16:9; Ps 139:7-12; Am 9:2-4.

The true God is spirit, not flesh (Joh 4:24; 2Co 3:17), though he sometimes likens his attributes of sight, power, and so forth, to human faculties. Thus he speaks figuratively of his “arm” (Ex 6:6), his “eyes,” and his “ears” (Ps 34:15), and he points out that, since he is the Creator of human eyes and ears, he certainly can see and hear.​—Ps 94:9.

Some of God’s primary attributes are love (1Jo 4:8), wisdom (Pr 2:6; Ro 11:33), justice (De 32:4; Lu 18:7, 8), and power (Job 37:23; Lu 1:35). He is a God of order and of peace. (1Co 14:33) He is completely holy, clean and pure (Isa 6:3; Hab 1:13; Re 4:8); happy (1Ti 1:11); and merciful (Ex 34:6; Lu 6:36). Many other qualities of his personality are described in the Scriptures.

a reply to: whereislogic

Brilliant post. Well thought out. Which will probably result in being ignored by Pachomius. Or Pachomius will post some criticism that in all reality doesn’t help that persons own cause.

a reply to: Pachomius

Even if Elohim/God was to appear in front of atheists, most of them would still not believe in him. It's kind of ironic the lengths that atheists will go to deny the existence of a higher being, even when nature itself proves that there is intelligent intent even in particles/waves, such as the wave/particle duality, or quantum entanglement/spooky laws. Entangled particles when separated, no matter the distance will still affect each other. These show evidence that in the multiverse there is a higher sentient intelligence/being.

This is the definition of god according to Merriam-Webster

god definition

Problem solved...

a reply to: Pachomius

a reply to: Pachomius

Or in video-format (allowing a bit more options than mere text):







Coming back to my previous comment:

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Pachomius

Proofs of the existence of “the living God.” The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. ...

A closer look at the evidence for God's existence (mostly the earlier mentioned "microscopic" but also the "macroscopic" later on, as well as the last thing mentioned there):

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to unverified philosophies and stories

a reply to: whereislogic

No human being that ever existed can rationalize existence more
by denying the Creator. Trying to explain our existence without a
Creator? In all human honesty is laughable in any unbiased mind
and will never make more sense. Because it's like saying Henry Ford
didn't make automobiles just because Henry Ford isn't with us anymore.
Never mind the cars still bare his name as a product of the assembly line
he created.

"God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning." -Pachomius [ 17 words ]

This is the title of the thread from Pachomius:

Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.


And the OP is as follows:

[ posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 01:12 PM ]
On the assumption that mankind sincerely seeks knowledge, I submit that it is possible for any person to come to resolve the issue God exists or not, with honest intelligent productive thinking, i.e., thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas. Now, honest intelligent productive thinking on the said issue must start with working together to concur on the concept of God. What do you dear colleagues here say?

__________________________




Dear all posters here, Have you already read from atheists that if God is self-existing, why not also the universe?


Okay, atheists, suppose you tell us if you have any definition of God, and also any definition of universe?


Present your definition of God and of universe in less than 40 words each, that should make you really think, instead of regurgitating stale kimchi memory nonsense from your - addressing atheists, masters of deceit.


Here are my definitions of God and of universe, which I copied from a web forum thread proffered by a thinker with the surname of Dejess.

For God, my definition is the following: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

For universe, my definition is the following: universe in concept is everything observable to man, in particular to scientists to study - most importantly in regard to its origin.
What about you, dear readers, and in particular my opponents here.

I wish you happy honest intelligent productive thinking!

originally posted by: neutronflux
...
What religion is this?

Not really responding to what you were talking about, but just wanted to remind you that a broad definition for "religion" is:

A form of worship. It includes a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; these may be personal, or they may be advocated by an organization. Usually religion involves belief in God or in a number of gods; or it treats humans, objects, desires, or forces as objects of worship (worship means "the rendering of reverent honor or homage", nationalism is a form of worshipping a nation, also see the related topic of the Flag Salute and its religious nature). Much religion is based on human study of nature; there is also revealed religion. There is true religion and false.

Here's an example of a set of false/incorrect religious(ly motivated*) philosophies/ideas (*: or as described in the title as to where its roots can be traced back to):


To better recognize it as false/incorrect though, it helps if you see the context, possibly as far back as the first video in the playlist below that has that context. But if you want to see more examples of false religion or false religious philosophies/ideas/beliefs, doctrines/teachings and dogma, you can pretty much continue from those 2 videos above, so I'll link the first, you can pick which direction you wanna go:

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

a reply to: whereislogic

That is not what religion is. Religion is the governing of people in a theocracy. Religion is a form of government managed by humans.

Theology is the right word.

God is a concept thought up by mushroom eating hippies.

Mother Nature is the real god for she created all that is wonderful.

The Universe is something that any man cannot yet comprehend

a reply to: SecretKnowledge
Eating mushrooms reveal what actually is.........
What is, is!

Thoughts make believe........thought stories veil the truth.

When thought ceases God is obvious!!

a reply to: Pachomius

Listen buddy, if you aren't genuinely interested in dialogue then just say so. You haven't responded to ANY of my posts so how about you stop giving us instructions on how to respond to your thread because it appears you are more interested in telling people how to write than asking them what they think.

a reply to: whereislogic

I was just responding to Pachomius false accusations that individuals were talking about their personal relationships with God as religion.

originally posted by: Pachomius

I see that you all wrongly conflate God with religion, you can have religion without God.

It’s actually a pretty crap and smug thing to post. With very little truth in regards to what actually people post.

The author of the opening post Pachomius has no intention of an honest debate of God.

Especially when the individual makes the accusation of religion. But keeps posting the same spiritual free text book dogma definition of god. It seems the individual cannot handle the spirituality of God.

If you want truth of the Christian God and Jesus, Ravi Zacharias has class and intellect. And makes the postS of the person wanting “honest” discussion a mental basket case.

Ravi Zacharias (26 March 1946 – 19 May 2020) was an Indian-born Canadian-American Christian apologist.[1] Zacharias was the author of more than 30 books on Christianity,[2] including the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association's Gold Medallion Book Award winner Can Man Live Without God? in the category "theology and doctrine"[3] as well as Christian bestsellers Light in the Shadow of Jihad and The Grand Weaver.[4] Zacharias was the founder and chairman of the board of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM) and host of the radio programs Let My People Think and Just Thinking.[5][6]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.[2

en.m.wikipedia.org...

How can I believe in God when there’s so much suffering?

Firstly, let’s deal with the argument against God’s existence. Ravi Zacharias has dealt with this brilliantly in his book, Can Man Live Without God? If you argue from the existence of evil to the non-existence of God, you are assuming the existence of an absolute moral law in order for your argument to work. But if there is such a law that would also mean that there is such a God, since he is the only one who could give us such a law. And if there is such a God to give us this law, then the argument itself is flawed, since you have had to assume the existence of God in order to argue that He doesn’t exist. It is an attempt to invoke the existence of an absolute moral law without invoking the existence of an absolute moral law giver, and it cannot be done.

www.zachariastrust.org...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Pachomius

Listen buddy, if you aren't genuinely interested in dialogue then just say so. You haven't responded to ANY of my posts so how about you stop giving us instructions on how to respond to your thread because it appears you are more interested in telling people how to write than asking them what they think.

a reply to: FingerMan

Theocracy is a form of government, religion is a form of worship, including a system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices that may be personal.

But I don't think there's much point in me debating that with you. This is also a sort of a response to neutronflux, another reminder that a personal form of worship, including a system of personal religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices, is still a religion.

God does not need worship or churches or theology.
If you ask for Gods help, or ask the wrong question, and then you ignore what comes back.
He goes
WTF? (as the holy spirit)
and waits until you try again.
God is not in the business of punishing people, that esteemed job is given to Satan, physics, and the pride of human nature.
Science and rationalism, has not begun to scratch the surface of what it is to be a human being.
Before asking of the nature of God, ask it of your own nature.
Luckily we are given an example in Jesus.

a reply to: neutronflux

Ravi Zacharias is the type of teacher Paul warns for at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. He's a product of Christendom. This counterfeit form of Christianity is not the religion that Jesus established. Rather, it is a man-made version and is practiced by most professed Christians today.

“Be on the watch for the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves.” (Matthew 7:15)

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

Hundreds of years after Christ’s death, a distorted form of Christianity was made a favored religion in the Roman Empire. No longer unwelcome outsiders, members of this group of professed Christians soon found themselves at the center of the political and social mainstream of Roman society. Church leaders, such as Augustine, reacted to this change by teaching that the awaited Kingdom of God had now arrived. Such leaders taught that their newly acquired political and religious influence was the means of bringing about the will of God on earth. Thus the value of human effort in directing earth’s affairs was emphasized.

As a result, many have come to believe that a Christian has a role to play in the political fabric of society. To do that, most believe, a Christian must at times subordinate certain aspects of his beliefs to the will of the society in which he lives. For example, many people pay lip service to Christ’s teachings of love and peace, while at the same time supporting vicious wars. For the same reason, churches may encourage their followers to pray for the Kingdom of God but at the same time lend support to rulers who act oppressively.

Regarding Ravi Zacharias, wikipedia mentions that "his family was Anglican" and "in 1990, he participated in guided study at Ridley Hall, a Church of England theological school in Cambridge." Also "Zacharias spent the summer of 1971 in South Vietnam, where he evangelized US soldiers, as well as imprisoned Viet Cong members." The blame for the lack of interest in God and his Word must rest largely with the clergy. They have so confused people that they no longer know what to believe. Notice how this is shown in the book A Church Without God, written by clergyman E. Harrison:

“Werner Pelz, who entitled a book God Is No More, is a Church of England vicar; William H. Dubay, who asserts that Christ ‘did away with religion,’ is a Roman Catholic priest . . . Father Jackson, who says, ‘If there is a God, we can’t speak of him as a supreme being,’ is a university chaplain; Thomas Altizer [God is dead], who wrote The Gospel of Christian Atheism, is an Associate Professor of Bible Studies at an American university; I am on the staff of an Anglican parish in Toronto. I claim to be a Christian and an Anglican; yet I can say, in all seriousness, that there is no God.”

Observing how far Christendom’s clergymen have strayed away from Christian standards, author Berton, a former member of the Anglican Church in Canada, stated:

“It has all but been forgotten that Christianity began as a revolutionary religion whose followers embraced an entirely different set of values from those held by other members of society. Those original values are still in conflict with the values of contemporary society; yet religion today has become as conservative a force as the force the original Christians were in conflict with.”

Yes, the clergy of Christendom have abandoned true Christian teaching and practice. They have become the very thing that Jesus and the first-century Christians exposed as working contrary to God’s will. They are like the ones to whom Jesus said: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”—Matt. 15:6-9.

One of the main reasons for the decline in esteem that the clergy are suffering is their involvement in the politics and wars of this world (see what I quoted from wikipedia about Ravi Zacharias' involvement in Vietnam, which is just a hint of this, wikipedia won't tell the whole story). More and more persons are coming to see how inconsistent it is for clergymen to support both sides, especially in military struggles. In this regard the New York World-Telegram and Sun reported on March 11, 1966:

“Representatives of three religious faiths sought yesterday to convince a group of Brooklyn students that the Biblical injunction against killing did not apply to the war in Viet Nam.

“In general, the attempt was unsuccessful. The audience . . . left with the feeling, as one student put it, that the speakers were ‘putting us on.’”

The clergymen involved were Catholic, Jewish and Protestant. In attempting to justify involvement in war, one of them said: “Killing must be done with a pure heart.”

In a poll taken of clergymen serving as military chaplains (like Ravi Zacharias did), it was discovered that their views in no way differed from those of other military men as to the morality of modern warfare. As author Berton notes: “None felt that the individual soldier had any more responsibility in the matter except to serve his country. This outlook is very similar to the one that formed the core of Adolph Eichmann’s defence during his trial in Israel.”

Bertrand Russell said that in England “the Anglican Church has upheld every Government view including those concerning war and killing.” He noted that the church actually had become a force for establishing “resistance to conscientious protest.”

Of the Catholic church, the New York Times of December 29, 1966, reported:

“Traditionally Catholics support the nation’s war efforts and leave moral responsibilities for the wars’ conduct to the political authorities. . . .

“In the past local Catholic hierarchies almost always supported the wars of their nations, blessing troops and offering prayers for victory, while another group of bishops on the other side publicly prayed for the opposite outcome. And while this took place, the Vatican usually maintained a careful neutrality and advocated an early end to hostilities. . . .

“The contradiction between the Christian spirit and the conduct of the war, which was often obscured by theological subtleties, seems increasingly clear to many, as weapons grow more brutal.”

At the funeral of a soldier killed in action, the pastor of a Lutheran Church in Des Moines, Iowa, performed the service. The Register of February 10, 1968, related: “The Rev. Martin Haerther, church pastor, said . . . he knew it was God’s will.” The clergyman added: “When a soldier dies in line of duty in a just war, not only is it a glorious death in the service of country but it is a blessed end for him . . . I am sure the angels were on hand to carry his soul into heaven and he is now enjoying peace.”

This clergyman mentioned a “just” war. A booklet, The Church and War, published by the National Council of Catholic Men in the United States, comments on this. In reviewing the booklet, United Press International writer Louis Cassels observed that “the mainstream of Christian tradition is represented by the doctrine of the ‘just war,’ spelled out in the 5th century A.D. by the great St. Augustine.” What were Augustine’s rules for a “just” war? (1) It should be waged only as a necessity; (2) its only legitimate objective is to achieve a just and stable peace as quickly as possible; (3) it should be fought with mercy, avoiding all needless brutality and restricting use of violence to the minimum.

When reporting on this booklet’s publication, Cassels pointed out: “In World War II, however, both sides abandoned any pretense of ‘minimum’ force in favor of all-out, ‘total’ war. Each side rained bombs on the other’s cities, and millions of civilians, including women, children and the aged, were killed, maimed or rendered homeless.”

Yet all the time the clergy of both sides regarded the war as a “just” war. Clergymen of the same religion prayed for victory on each of the opposing sides!

Is a war that pits “brothers” of the same “Christian” religion against one another really a “just” war? By whose definition? Augustine’s? But is Augustine a greater authority on Christian conduct and doctrine than Jesus Christ, or the apostles, or God’s written Word, the Bible?

Jesus said to those who would claim to be Christian: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35) The apostle Paul said to Christians: “You should all speak in agreement, and . . . there should not be divisions among you, . . . Does the Christ exist divided?” (1 Cor. 1:10, 13) Could there be any division greater than that which results in members of the same religion killing one another?

Some clergymen do admit that there is no basis whatsoever in early Christianity for the support they have given to this world’s wars. Clergyman I. Evans, former editor of Blackfriars, a British journal, acknowledged that such shedding of blood was incompatible with the “inherent Christian tradition of turning the other cheek.” The Eugene Register-Guard of January 22, 1967, reported: “Until 313 A.D., Evans said, Christians took no part in the wars of the Roman Empire. With the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. the Emperor Constantine gave the minority group of Christians full rights and obligations as Roman citizens. This, Evans said, was the beginning of the just war theory.” Later, Augustine elaborated on it.

Note the sources of the “just” war theory. It comes, not from God, not from Jesus Christ, not from the apostles, not from the first-century Christians. Instead, it originated with politicians and with clergymen who had already turned apostate by the fourth century of our Common Era.

During World War II the vast majority of the clergy of all major religions in Germany accepted Constantine’s and Augustine’s unscriptural views. They supported Hitler’s war machine. Yet after World War II the Nuremberg trials of Nazi political and military leaders found them guilty of carrying out Hitler’s murderous orders. The clergy, however, were just as guilty, since they encouraged their followers to obey Hitler’s orders for mass murder. On the other hand, Jehovah’s witnesses upheld the true Christian view and unitedly refused to carry out the murderous designs of the Nazis. They went to concentration camps rather than violate the Christian standard of neutrality in war, knowing that “we must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.Context.

we can not explore the whole universe to be able to check God does not exist.

The only evidence so far is that the God entity can communicate.

I find it hard to believe to believe most sciences these days. I am taught from a book what someone else has supposedly learnt. I am then meant to understand that as truth.

I am taught about God through books. Stories of communications, visitations , group witness and personal witness. I also believe these books. I am taught from that book about others experiences. I am meant to understand that as truth.

I think we have been given plenty information that proves there is a God through Religion and Science. I feel Pi is almost a word of Gods language.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: whereislogic

Christian apologetics (Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defence, speech in defence")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity against objections.[2

en.m.wikipedia.org...

No need to remind me of what so-called "Christian" apologetics means, I'm well aware; and I've spoken with many self-professed apologists). On the wikipedia page for Ravi Zacharias it says:

Era: 21st-century philosophy
School or tradition: Christian philosophy
Main interests: Philosophy of religion, Christian Apologetics, Worldview

When looking at the history concerning so-called "Christian" apologetics, an interesting question emerges or could be raised:

The Apologists—Christian defenders or would-be philosophers?

Incest, child murder, cannibalism​—these were some of the absurd charges leveled against Christians in the second century C.E. This led to such a wave of persecution that professed Christian writers felt obliged to defend their faith. Later known as the apologists, or defenders of their beliefs, these writers set out to prove that their religion was harmless so as to win over the Roman authorities and public opinion.

It was a risky undertaking, for the empire and public opinion were usually appeased only by giving in to them. There was also a real danger of stirring up more persecution or of watering down the Christian faith by unwarranted compromises. Just how did the apologists defend their faith? What arguments did they use? And what were the results of their efforts?

The Apologists and the Roman Empire

The apologists were educated men from the second and early third centuries. The most famous among them were Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian.* Their writings were principally addressed to pagans and the Roman authorities, with the intention of explaining the Christian faith, and included frequent references to the Bible. Above all, the apologists stood up against the persecutors, denied their accusations, and presented the Christians in a favorable light. (*: There were also Quadratus, Aristides, Tatian, Apollinaris, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Melito, Minucius Felix, and other lesser-known writers. See the article Tatian—Apologist or Heretic? and Who Was Theophilus of Antioch?)

One of the apologists’ major concerns was to convince the political authorities that Christians were not enemies of the emperor or the empire. Tertullian said of the emperor that “our God has appointed him,” and Athenagoras defended the hereditary nature of the imperial throne, thus getting involved in the politics of the time. In so doing, they ignored the words of Jesus Christ, who said: “My kingdom is no part of this world.”​—John 18:36.

The apologists also suggested links between Rome and the Christian religion. According to Melito, the two entities formed a pair and contributed to the welfare of the empire. The anonymous writer of The Epistle to Diognetus likened Christians to the soul that was ‘holding the world together.’ And Tertullian wrote that Christians prayed for the prosperity of the empire and for the end of the system of things to be put off until later. As a result, the coming of God’s Kingdom somehow seemed less necessary.​—Matthew 6:9, 10.

“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. “On some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching,” wrote Justin. Adorned with its new philosophical finery, “Christian” thought now claimed the dignity of old age. The apologists pointed out that Christian books were far older than those of the Greeks and that the prophets of the Bible lived earlier than Greek philosophers. Certain apologists even concluded that the philosophers copied from the prophets. Plato was made out to be a disciple of Moses!

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma. ( For further information on Tertullian’s beliefs, see the article The Paradox of Tertullian)

The word “soul” appears over 850 times in the Bible, including more than 100 times in its Greek form. It basically refers to mortal, living creatures, either human or animal. (1 Corinthians 15:45; James 5:20; Revelation 16:3) The apologists, however, twisted this Bible teaching by linking it with Plato’s philosophy that the soul is separate from the body, invisible and immortal. Minucius Felix even asserted that belief in the resurrection had its early beginnings in Pythagoras’ teaching of the transmigration of the soul. How far Greek influence had led them from the teachings of the Bible! ( For further information on what wikipedia referred to as "Philosophy of Religion" and "Christian apologetics" see my very first ATS thread called and based on the series of articles beginning with One Myth Leads to Another)

The Wrong Choice

Some apologists sensed the danger that philosophy could pose to the Christian faith. Yet, even though they criticized the philosophers, they still loved the intellectual approach of philosophy. Tatian, for example, denounced the philosophers for accomplishing nothing good but, at the same time, called the Christian religion “our philosophy” and indulged in philosophical speculations. Tertullian on the one hand decried the influence of pagan philosophy on Christian thinking. On the other hand, he stated that he wanted to follow in the steps of “Justin, philosopher and martyr; Miltiades, the sophist of the churches,” and others. Athenagoras called himself “a Christian philosopher of Athens.” As for Clement, it is said that he felt that “philosophy can be judiciously used by the Christian as an aid to wisdom and the defense of the faith.”

Whatever success these apologists might have had in defending their faith, they had nonetheless committed a serious error in their defense. How so? The apostle Paul reminded Christians that among the spiritual weapons at their disposal, none is more potent than “the word of God,” which “is alive and exerts power.” With it, Paul said, “we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”​—Hebrews 4:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4, 5; Ephesians 6:17.

On the night before he was killed, Jesus told his disciples: “Take courage! I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33) The trials and tribulations that he experienced in the world had not overcome his faith and his loyalty to his Father. Similarly, the last surviving apostle, John, wrote: “This is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith.” (1 John 5:4) Although the apologists wanted to defend the Christian faith, they made the wrong choice in adopting the ideas and the approach of worldly philosophy. In so doing, the apologists allowed themselves to be seduced by such philosophies and, in effect, allowed the world to conquer them and their brand of Christianity. So rather than being champions and defenders of true Christian faith, the apologists of the early church, perhaps unwittingly, fell into the trap set by Satan, who “keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.”​—2 Corinthians 11:14.

The clergy and theologians of the churches today have largely followed in the same path. Instead of defending true Christianity by using God’s Word, they often downgrade the Bible and resort to worldly philosophy in their teaching in an effort to win over public opinion and the establishment. Rather than sounding a warning against the dangers of following the unscriptural trends of the world, they have become teachers who do their best to ‘tickle the ears’ of their listeners in order to win adherents. (2 Timothy 4:3) Sadly, as did the early apologists, these teachers have ignored the apostolic warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” And we are reminded that “their end shall be according to their works.”​—Colossians 2:8; 2 Corinthians 11:15.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [“We do not wage warfare.” Lit., “we are not doing military service.” Gr., ou . . . stra·teu·oʹme·tha; Lat., non . . . mi·li·taʹmus.] according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God.”​—2 CORINTHIANS 10:3-5

To Justin, imitating philosophy was “safe and profitable”

Clement saw philosophy as “true theology”

Tertullian’s philosophizing helped to pave the way for the Trinity doctrine

Tatian called Christianity “our philosophy”

Modern-day clergy and theologians have followed the path of the apologists (including Ravi Zacharias)

The apostle Paul warned against the philosophies and deception of men

Although interesting, spamming the thread with copy pasta is bad form, and does not convince anyone.
rather use an executive summary and post the links to the more extensive information.
.