Apologetic Argument - I'm an Atheist

 I'm an Atheist

I have seen this statement many times in different groups that I am a part of. It is a profound statement that boldly says "I do not believe in God, and I know there is no God." It is different than an "Agnostic" which is someone who professes that they "do not know if there is a God". but back to the Atheist, the person who has proven to himself, using some method that says without a shadow of doubt that there is no God. This is something that I recently have thought about and it makes me wonder what proof they have, or what method they used to convince themselves of such a bold proclamation.  

Here is what I have come to understand. Atheists want to be known. They want their position to be known to others and they need this self affirmation in order to give their lives purpose. Without God the only purpose they have is to randomly stumble through life, hoping that they live a Good life, because they have no definition of Good, so they can live however they want and say it is Good. So here is the basic understanding of what the truth of Atheism is. 

1. No long term goal. Any goal ends at death. so the best they can hope for is that by the time they die they don't find out there is a God. 

2. No Moral Standard, other than what they themselves develop, or what some other person develops for them.

3. No basis for a good life. Because there is no standard of Good, other than what is made up by you or made up by someone else for you. You live only for yourself or to be seen good by someone who made up the definition of good you subscribe to. 

4. Thoughts have no purpose. Any thought that is developed, is a random spark of energy that happens between cells inside of your brain, and those thoughts are random and may never happen again. 

5. The best you can hope for is that Christianity is not True. You have condemned yourself to going to hell, or to nothingness since you don't believe in hell.

6. Naturalism if that is an Atheist's belief, ends at death. the result is nothingness.

7. Legacy on the world is the hope of an Atheist, but it doesn't really matter does it?

In my opinion it is a very sad and depressing life that is presented to the Atheist. I am a Christian who will live forever in the presence of a loving God who has defined what is Good and he is the pure definition of Love. An Atheist will always go through life questioning if there is a God. He will argue against it, he will adamantly state scientific stats, or methods or tout about all the things HE heard about from other Atheists or Scientists or whatever things he uses to convince himself of his "truth". But in the end, when all is said and done he will know that he can come to God, Confess in his Belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and be Saved. God's Grace is so Great that even an Atheist's ramblings is not sinful enough to stop God from loving him. 

The WORST that can happen to me is the BEST that an Atheist can hope for. 

Apologetic Argument - I can't See it

 If I can't see it, then it's not true!

One thing that many people who feel they are grounded in science profess is that something has to be seen in order for it to be true. They base this on a loose understanding of scientific methods of Observation and Measurement. The principles that science is predicated on are as follows:

• Empiricism: Knowledge is gained through observation and sensory experience.
• Falsifiability: Scientific ideas must be testable and potentially disprovable.
• Reproducibility: Findings should be repeatable by other researchers.
• Objectivity: Minimize bias and subjectivity in research.
• Skepticism: Question existing theories and remain open to new evidence.
• Consistency: Scientific principles should apply consistently across contexts.
• Precision and Accuracy: Data should be precise and accurate.
• Cause and Effect: Seek to identify cause-and-effect relationships.
• Naturalism: Focus on natural explanations for phenomena.
• Theory Construction: Build overarching explanations based on facts and evidence.
• Occam's Razor: Prefer simpler explanations when multiple options exist.

These basic scientific principles guide the scientific method, which is the systematic approach scientists use to investigate and understand the natural world. They also help ensure the rigor, reliability, and objectivity of scientific research and inquiry.

The problem with these are that most are underpinned by observation, testability, and reproducibility. The belief that "if I can't see it, it isn't true" represents a philosophical stance known as "empiricism." Empiricism is the idea that knowledge and truth are primarily derived from sensory experience and observable evidence. In this philosophy, only things that can be directly perceived or measured are considered real or true, and anything beyond the scope of sensory experience may be regarded as either unproven or dismissed as nonexistent. Empiricism is a foundational perspective in philosophy, particularly within the branch of epistemology, which deals with questions of knowledge and how we come to know things about the world. It's important to note that while empiricism is a valuable approach in many scientific and practical contexts, it also has limitations, as it may exclude aspects of reality that are not immediately observable but can still be understood and validated through other means, such as inference or reason. 

You can see then that there are things that do in fact exist that are not observable. Here is just a short list. 

• Electricity
• Gravity
• Love
• Knowledge
• Radiation
• Beauty
• Minds
• Thoughts

As you see there are in fact things that exist that do not fall into the category that can be observed and therefore accepted as proof

Apologetics and AI

What would AI do?

As an Apologist I have to say that Artificial Intelligence is based solely upon the knowledge that is only presented from the minds of humankind. It can be considered as evil as man is, and by asking it questions to certain topics you can see that it is biased towards the "truths" that man has stated as truths 

I asked it some Questions.

What is a Moral Standard
AI RESPONSE: 

A moral standard is a set of principles or criteria that are used to judge and evaluate what is considered right or wrong in a given society or ethical framework. These standards serve as guidelines for individuals and communities to make moral judgments and decisions about their actions and behaviors.

Moral standards can vary significantly from one culture, religion, or philosophical perspective to another. They often reflect the values, beliefs, and norms of a particular group or society. These standards provide a basis for individuals to assess the morality of their actions and to determine whether they are in accordance with the accepted principles of their community or belief system.

Examples of moral standards include concepts such as honesty, integrity, fairness, compassion, respect for others, and the prohibition of actions like lying, stealing, and harming others. Different cultures and ethical philosophies may prioritize these standards differently and may have their own unique moral codes.

It's important to note that moral standards are not universally agreed upon, and ethical dilemmas can arise when different individuals or groups have conflicting moral beliefs or standards. These differences in moral standards can lead to debates and discussions about what is morally right or wrong in various situations.

This prompted me to ask a follow-up question. 

Isn't a Moral Standard considered unchanging? and if so why would it be different between communities?

AI RESPONSE: 

Moral standards are not necessarily unchanging, and whether they are considered to be fixed or subject to change can vary depending on one's ethical perspective and cultural context. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Objective vs. Subjective Morality: Some people believe in objective moral standards, which means that certain moral principles are believed to be universal and unchanging, regardless of cultural or individual differences. These objective moral standards are often thought to be based on absolute moral truths or a divine source. In contrast, subjective morality suggests that moral standards are relative and can vary from one culture or individual to another.

2. Cultural Relativism: Cultural relativism is the idea that moral standards are culturally specific and can differ from one society to another. In this view, what is considered morally right or wrong is determined by the cultural norms and values of a particular community. Cultural relativism suggests that moral standards can indeed change over time and vary between different communities.

3. Moral Realism: Moral realists argue that there are objective moral facts that exist independently of human beliefs. While they believe in objective moral standards, they acknowledge that human understanding and interpretations of these standards can evolve and vary across cultures.

4. Moral Progress: Some ethical theories, such as utilitarianism and human rights theories, suggest that moral progress can occur over time. This implies that societies can evolve and improve their moral standards by recognizing and rectifying past injustices and adopting more ethical practices.

In practice, there are often significant variations in moral standards between different communities, cultures, and historical periods. These differences can be attributed to various factors, including cultural traditions, religious beliefs, historical context, and societal norms. While some moral principles may be nearly universal (e.g., prohibitions against murder or theft), the interpretation and application of these principles can still differ significantly.

So, whether moral standards are considered unchanging or subject to change depends on one's philosophical and cultural perspective. Different individuals and communities may hold varying views on the nature of morality and the stability of moral standards.

These two answers show that AI considers that Mankind's answer is correct and that any theological answer boils down to philosophical or cultural perspectives. So I asked the following question. 

Are your answers predicated on only mankind's collective agreement of what is truth?

AI RESPONSE: 

My responses are based on a combination of factors, including:

1. Human Understanding: I draw from the collective knowledge and understanding of humanity as of my last training data in September 2021. This includes widely accepted concepts, principles, and beliefs about various subjects, including morality and ethics.

2. Philosophical Perspectives: I provide information on different philosophical perspectives and debates related to topics like morality. These perspectives include views that consider morality to be objective and unchanging, as well as those that view it as subjective and culturally relative.

3. Cultural and Historical Context: I take into account that moral standards and beliefs can vary across cultures and historical periods. I aim to provide a well-rounded understanding of how different societies and eras have approached moral questions.

4. OpenAI's Guidelines: I adhere to OpenAI's guidelines, which include a commitment to providing balanced and informative responses that reflect a range of perspectives and avoid taking a position on controversial or philosophical matters.

It's important to note that while I can provide information on various perspectives and the consensus of human knowledge up to my last training data, I do not possess personal beliefs or opinions. My responses are generated based on patterns in the text data I was trained on, and I aim to provide information that can help users understand and consider different viewpoints on a given topic. Ultimately, questions related to truth, morality, and ethics often involve complex and multifaceted discussions, and my responses are intended to contribute to those discussions rather than dictate a particular viewpoint.

As you can see the answer is based a lot on the wording of the question and you can also spin the answers to your own bias if you would like, by adding what context you would like the answer to contain. The conversation could go on and on with AI. but as you can see the primary basis is on "text data I was trained on". Which of course means that it probably has no opinion one way or another but is a collective answer of the majority of text data AI is exposed to. 

Do I trust it? I am unsure, but let me ask it. 

Can I trust your Answers?

AI RESPONSE:

While I strive to provide accurate and informative answers, it's essential to remember that I am a computer program developed by OpenAI, and my responses are generated based on patterns in the text data I was trained on. Here are some considerations when using my responses:

1. Informational Purposes: My responses are intended for informational purposes and should not be considered as a sole source of authority. It's always a good practice to cross-reference information from multiple sources, especially for critical or important decisions.

2. Knowledge Cutoff: My knowledge is based on the data available up to my last training in September 2021. I do not have access to real-time information or events that occurred after that date.

3. No Personal Beliefs: I do not have personal beliefs, opinions, or emotions. My responses are generated algorithmically based on the text inputs I receive and the patterns in the data I was trained on.

4. Consider Diverse Perspectives: I aim to provide balanced and informative responses that reflect a range of viewpoints on various topics. However, I do not endorse any particular perspective or agenda.

5. Critical Thinking: It's important to engage in critical thinking and independent research when making decisions or forming opinions. My responses can serve as a starting point for exploration but should not replace thoughtful analysis and inquiry.

Ultimately, the trustworthiness of my answers depends on the context and the reliability of the information available up to my last training data. For important matters, especially those involving legal, medical, or personal decisions, consulting experts or reputable sources is advisable.

There you have it....the vague answer based on the text it has been trained on and if you want real answers it advises to go to other experts. 

Apologetic Questions

The Apologist's Questions

In the realm of theology and apologetics, a diverse array of inquiries may come the way of an Apologist, necessitating thorough consideration and study to attain a comprehensive grasp of potential responses. It's important to bear in mind that not every interaction with non-believers or those exploring the Gospel of Jesus Christ requires the presence of an Apologist.

In my theological perspective, the role of an Apologist becomes particularly relevant when individuals harbor questions or concerns that might otherwise act as obstacles to their faith. The purpose is to address these inquiries to a degree where they become more receptive to the profound truths and blessings that God extends to them. In essence, the Apologist steps in to remove stumbling blocks and facilitate a clearer path toward embracing the message of God's grace.

The truths to remembers are these. 

• The Apologist does not bring the non-believer to faith, only the Holy Spirit can do this. 
• The Apologist is the arguer, the Evangelist is the one who makes the call to faith. 
• Evangelists should have access to an Apologist that help remove barriers to non-believers obstacles to belief. 

The following are some of the questions that are important to consider.

Question: Did Jesus die on the cross and was he resurrected?

Question: Is the Bible trustworthy given all the different copies and translations?

Question: Why does God allow Evil to happen?

Question: What about all the people who never hear of Jesus?

Question: How can Jesus be the only way to God?

Question: Isn't Christianity just an excuse for people who are scared?

Question: There are so many religions, aren't they all just different ways to God?

Question: I couldn't be Christian, because they are so judgmental, why is that?

Question: How do we know that the Interpretations of the Bible are accurate?

Question: Why do Schools and Universities still teach Evolution if it is not true as Christians assert?

These questions are not all inclusive but are some of the ones that I personally have encountered. They are difficult to answer in a singular setting, and they take real contemplation and study to ensure that the answers are accurately articulated in a manner that someone who has not studied them can understand and really find the answer they are looking for. 

One persistent challenge that Christians and Christianity face is the presence of atheists who approach discussions with a closed mindset. These individuals typically have no genuine interest in engaging in a meaningful conversation or a learning experience. Instead, their primary intention seems to be centered on engaging in arguments, already firmly convinced that Christians are irrational and lacking in knowledge regarding their beliefs. 

As I progress in writing and exploring my Apologetic journey I hope to provide my research and answers to the questions I pose above. 

Simple Apologetic Argument - Cosmological Argument (Causation)

 Apologists sometimes over complicate arguments however, sometimes they are very simple. 

The Apologetic Cosmological Argument is a way of explaining why we believe that God exists based on the existence of the universe. It goes like this:

Everything has a cause: We observe that everything in the universe has a cause. For example, a tree grows because it was planted, a cake is baked because someone mixed ingredients, and so on.

The universe exists: We see that the universe itself exists. It's the grandest thing we know, including all galaxies, stars, planets, and everything on Earth.

So, the universe must have a cause: Since everything has a cause, it makes sense to think that the universe, being the biggest thing we know, also had a cause.

The cause of the universe is God: This is where the argument connects to the idea of God. The Apologetic Cosmological Argument says that the cause of the universe must be something incredibly powerful and outside of the universe itself. Many people call this cause "God."

So, in simple terms, this argument says that because everything in the world has a cause, the universe must have a cause too, and that cause is what we call God. It's a way some people use to explain why they believe in God's existence based on the existence of the universe.

The leap presented in this argument that many people especially those that argue against God, is; "just because there is a cause it doe not mean God".

From my personal perspective, when considering this matter, the apologetic standpoint asserts that although one could raise objections, the sole reasonable conclusion points to "something immensely powerful, beyond the constraints of time, and outside the boundaries of the created universe." Without any other defining term to describe this entity, it becomes only logical to refer to it as God, representing the force responsible for the creation of everything.

Apologetic Argument - Presuppostions

 Is the Christian Worldview the basis for all thought and rationality?

Transcendental argument for the existence of God seeks to demonstrate the existence of God by showing that certain necessary conditions for rationality, knowledge, or the intelligibility of the world depend on the existence of God. The logical assumption then is Presuppositions.

Presuppositionalism, from my personal perspective, posits that only the Christian worldview can adequately explain concepts such as logic, morality, science, induction, and even the nature of consciousness itself, branding all other worldviews as inherently irrational. This approach, though it may appear tempting for some, can be perceived as a somewhat simplistic strategy for apologists.

Presuppositionalists often take it a step further by deeming both classical and evidential apologetics as sinful, as they argue that these approaches place human reason in the position of evaluating God's existence, a stance they see as asserting human autonomy.

According to presuppositionalists, those who do not adhere to the Christian worldview (a category that, in their rhetoric, encompasses a broad spectrum of individuals, from atheists to Christians of differing persuasions) must, in their view, effectively adopt the Reformed/Westminster Confession worldview to even engage in the act of denying it. Essentially, this implies an accusation of "stealing the concept" and is often argued through various Transcendental arguments for God. Unlike classical and evidential apologists who directly argue for God's existence, presuppositionalism takes an indirect route by attempting to demonstrate "the impossibility of the contrary." In other words, they aim to highlight the internal inconsistencies and absurdities within opposing worldviews.

Interestingly, 1 Peter 3:15, as I interpret it, advises believers to provide reasoned arguments for their faith when engaging with non-believers, thus endorsing evidential apologetics.

1 Peter 3:15 - "but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

The essence of this thought process is that God Exists, and because he exists all thought is possible, in its logical manner as we experience it. An example of a presupposition based on the existence of God might be found in the realm of morality. Some individuals and belief systems presuppose that moral values and duties are grounded in the existence of a divine being, such as God. In this view:

Presupposition: Moral values and duties exist.

Basis: These moral values and duties are grounded in the nature or commands of God.

Implication: Therefore, moral principles are objective and absolute because they reflect the character or will of God.

This presupposition is often associated with religious and theistic worldviews, particularly those within the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). It implies that without the existence of God, there would be no objective foundation for morality, and moral values would be subjective and arbitrary.

Critics of this presupposition argue that it can be challenged by secular moral theories that seek to provide a basis for ethics without relying on the existence of a deity. These secular theories might ground morality in human reason, well-being, social contracts, or other non-theistic principles. The debate over whether morality requires the presupposition of God is a longstanding one in philosophy and theology.

Apologetic Argument - Creation vs. Evolution

 Creation vs. Evolution

Apologists need to understand that the argument for Creation is sometimes turned into a defense of Creation, when in fact the argument for Creation is more scientifically supported that the argument of what Evolution proposes. 

Evolution has a huge issue to solve with what came first the Chicken or the Egg. 

If the Egg came first, then where did the Egg come from? However if the Chicken came first then how did two Chickens come into existence to create an Egg?

The Reality from Genesis is that God on the Fifth Day created Chickens and gave them the ability to lay eggs. 

Genesis 1:20-22 "20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth."

The contrary to this is that a magical concoction of ooze in some distant timeframe, came together in some manner. I am no evolution expert but I understand what was taught to me and to every other child raised during my time. 

Some amoeba formed, it then divided in some manner in order to create an additional amoeba. 

The amoeba had silica which allowed it to swim or move through the damp ooze. Then through trial and error and the splitting process to create additional amoeba it started to form legs. 

Then because it had legs and could move it started moving then perhaps it ran into things and then needed to see where it was going so it wouldn't bump into things. 

Somehow an eye formed. The complexity of the eye is another Apologetic argument that goes against every concept put forth by evolution but somehow it happened. then because now the amoeba could walk and now it could see it started to not bump into things as it walked around. 

So because it was walking and not running into things it now was exerting energy it needed to eat, so its internal organs now evolved in order to change what it was eating in order to create energy, because it no longer was moving through the ooze. 

It's mouth changed, its stomach changed, the entire makeup of what it is changed. but according to evolution it did this over extremely long periods of time. slowly changing for the better. 

However the extraordinary need for all of these interrelated parts of the newly formed chickens body to function effectively in order for the chicken to live would have to happen almost simultaneously in order for them to function in such a manner as to support the chicken being healthy enough to survive. 

The similarity between the functioning of all species of life does not lend to a random happening of things getting better and better through changes to improve efficiency of function. 

It's intriguing to consider that the finely-tuned existence we currently experience enables scientists to explore the concept of creation. Paradoxically, these very scientists advocate for the idea of random chance and luck as they delve into the intricacies of a finely-tuned universe.

God knew what he was doing when he created the Universe, our World, and Everything in it. 

Romans 1:19-20 - "19 because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

From my personal perspective, those who place their faith in evolution as the sole explanation for our existence appear to disregard the fundamental principles that underpin the construction of our world. When we embark on any endeavor characterized by order and structure (and our world undeniably embodies these traits), we typically commence with a predetermined design in mind. In essence, we work toward a specific goal. Evolution, on the other hand, seems to challenge this foundational concept by suggesting that what we see today is the outcome of countless eons of life building upon itself, without a clear direction or purpose in mind. According to this view, life simply progressed and evolved over millions of years, with no inherent knowledge of where it was heading. Examining the intricacies of the human body and concluding that there was no intentional design behind its construction seems, to me, highly illogical.

In essence, when I contemplate the complexity of creation and the exceedingly improbable nature of the elements aligning perfectly to form the world as we know it, it defies both logic and any semblance of rational hope. Those who reject the existence of God often find themselves lacking a satisfactory explanation for why the universe displays such a remarkable level of precision, detail, and order. In my view, a meticulously designed world inherently implies the existence of a Designer.

Apologetic Argument - Morality

 Is there a Moral Standard?

An Apologist will always run up against regular people who will put forth the idea that Morality is an evolutionary thing that can change as man changes, they will argue that something that is Wrong or considered Wrong, in modern times, may have at one time be considered Right. An example that many people try to use is the idea of Slavery. They also would point out that Slavery is not considered Right because man has evolved. 

Slavery mentioned in the Bible is not of the same context. The assumption that the word "Slavery" in ancient Israel had the same definition as we use it today is an incorrect assumption. The Bible actually forbids Slavery as we know it. Here are the verses which are referenced to support this statement. 

Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

This is one reference that strictly forbids slave trading. Which would mean that there would be no way to transact a purchase of a person that would have been taken without his free will surrender to slavery. This would mean that the Bible would and does forbid the type of Slavery that is in the context of the current modern world. 

There is a further explanation of debt slavery in Leviticus. Specifically Leviticus 25:39-43 explains the contracts and limitations of bondservants. 

"39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 40 but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: 41 and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen."

Therefore when things are proposed that go against a Moral Standard or against a Moral issue that is to be compared to the Biblical acceptance of such an action, there should be a heavy amount of research done into the context of the stated Moral issue. 

However, there does exist a Moral Standard, a Transcendent set of Moral Standards that explain what is right and wrong. Morality is not an evolutionary element that is forever changing. Murder since the time of Cain and Abel has been wrong and continues to be wrong. This is a good example, that even those who do not want to accept the reality of a moral standard, can agree that murder is wrong. 

I have had arguments with others who say that Morality changes with the acceptance of man as they evolve and things change to accommodate the entire community's acceptance or become morally accepted as a community standard. I argue that this does not constitute a Moral Standard, because a Moral Standard cannot be considered a standard if it is based upon a subset of the entire group of humanity. 

An example is that it is Right to be able to Murder someone. If a group of people, lets say all the people in one Nation, lets say Australia, all decided that Murder was Morally right and it was Right as part of the Moral Standard of Australia. I argue that it is not morally Right but would instead contend that it is considered an acceptable action, in Australia. Because the rest of the world may not accept murder as Right. 

This then becomes the argument of opinion based morals. A Moral that is based upon the opinion of man is not a moral standard but is an Accepted Activity  if one nation, makes an action acceptable then another nation could make the action unacceptable, therefore creating a shifting Morality and not a baseline Standard. 

God has set the baseline for Moral Standards, he has engrained it into our being and from the time he created us he has given the understanding of Right and Wrong to us within our being. He did not give us the ability to determine Right or Wrong from our own decisions. 

It would be very conceited if I myself were to say at somepoint in time that something is morally Right. There are a few things that are wrong with this. 

1. What Authority do I have to make that decision?

2. Who does it apply to? Since I would not have influence over all of mankind.

3. Opinion based Morality is not a standard. 

4. A Standard cannot be a Standard if it is not applied equally across all of those who would be affected. 

Drawing from my personal perspective and faith grounded in the Bible, I've observed that when individuals deny the existence of God, they sometimes use this denial to justify heinous actions, as it allows them to determine their own moral standards. This is far from being a trivial matter. The pages of history bear witness to the gravest of atrocities, such as the Holocaust, abortion, and genocide, which can be traced back to a rejection of God's existence, resulting in the absence of absolute moral guidance.

However, it is paramount to acknowledge that humanity does not possess the authority to arbitrarily define what is morally right or wrong. From my personal faith perspective, I believe that one day, we will all be held accountable before God for the deeds we have undertaken, both good and bad. This divine judgment serves as a reminder that there is an ultimate standard of morality beyond our individual opinions.

Apologetic Argument - Causation

 There are a Lot of Apologetic Arguments that are used to support Christianity and the major tenants of the existence of God. But if we look at them one by one there are multiple arguments that should be considered as BASIC elements of any Apologist's knowledge base. 

Always remember 1 Peter 3:15 - "but sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

And as most Apologists know Paul, was possibly one of the most adept Apologist who ever existed if not the most Christian of all Christians. Remember he puts forth an argument for the truth of Jesus Christ from the very onset of his writings.

Acts 1:1 - "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,"

Causation: is the idea that everything has a Cause. 

In today's world most people tend to relate everything that is provable to Science, what they tend to forget is that God allowed Science to come into the world to show the natural laws that he created to further the knowledge and proof of his existence. 

Through my own exploration and understanding, I've come to recognize that our existence is intricately woven into a realm of cause and effect. Moreover, my personal journey into the world of science has illuminated the fact that our universe is not timeless; instead, it is in a perpetual state of expansion. This expansion, by its very nature, implies a definite beginning, challenging any notion that the universe has endured infinitely. Therefore, asserting the eternal existence of the universe appears to me both logically inconsistent and at odds with the scientific evidence I've encountered.

This supports the logical Scientific attitude of modern times that we live in a world that relies upon the laws of Cause and Effect. Everything that happens has a Cause with the resulting Effect. 

To support the existence of God then Causation gives us the notion that Something Caused the Universe to come into being. The Universe had a Start Point! The Universe is the Effect, and therefore something was the Cause. The real force that would cause the Universe would also have to be timeless, always existed, has no real stake in the physical elements, and would have to exist outside of the created universe. This would lead us to a supernatural conclusion of a cause which would effect the resulting universe. 

Hebrews 11:3 - "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

An unseen creator. 

Romans 4:17 - "(as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

God the creator.

Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "

Historically Accurate.

ISRAEL TRIP - 2023 - Videos

 Attached are the links to all the Israel Trip Videos. 

DAY 1 - Travel Day 1 - NPR to Miami - Miami to Istanbul, Turkey - https://youtu.be/uGAJzuUhYRs (5:17)

DAY 2 - Travel Day 2 - Istanbul, Turkey to Amman, Jordan - https://youtu.be/M-Mx2XKcOds (4:34)

DAY 3 - JERASH - https://youtu.be/G3e8lyOkkRg (19:32)

DAY 4 - PETRA - https://youtu.be/8sJcKCkKcUw (Short) (7:29)

DAY 4 - PETRA - https://youtu.be/wPtOpB2RS_c (Long) (23:56)

DAY 5 - MADEBA, Mt. NEBO - https://youtu.be/IV3mgcVKnBQ (10:45)

DAY 6 - CAESAREA, Mt. CARMEL - https://youtu.be/oOzsb0Su--o (17:54)

DAY 7 - DAN, CAESAREA PHILLIPI, CAPERNAUM, Sea of Galilee - https://youtu.be/EoI7xlQXhUA (18:37)

DAY 8 - JORDAN RIVER BAPTISM, BET SHEAN, BETHLEHEM - https://youtu.be/qVB-xB_zj6M (13:12)

DAY 9 - MASADA, QUMRAN CAVES, DEAD SEA - https://youtu.be/4wjLq2FTWEE (17:20)

DAY 10 - WEST WALL (Wailing Wall), Rabbinic Tunnels, GETHSAMANE - https://youtu.be/GDAjNo7OE8M (12:26)

DAY 11 - VIA DELAROSA, Mt. Of Olives, Golgotha, Garden Tomb - https://youtu.be/JYM-b41fj-4 (20:54)