Does Evidence Exist That Will Satisfy Atheists? 

Sadly, that is one of the two most common responses to the query… The second is that I was born and raised that way in a Christian family… The failure lies with churches that ignore and don’t teach basic apologetics or present objective evidence for faith… far too many evangelical churches are in what William Lane Craig describes as intellectual neutral…In most cases, believers are taught apologetics as being unnecessary to support trust in the Gospel or just a means to win an argument… Both are inaccurate and shortsighted… my study of apologetics encourages my personal faith, allows me to encourage other believers who are in doubt, and as useful tool to share the gospel with unbelievers… I thank God for exposing me to the intellectual defense of the gospels a few short months after my conversion, some 40 years ago… if God exists, and he does, if Christianity is true, and it is, and if God is the greatest intellect there is, He is, then Christianity must be intellectually defensible…

@@jimfarnell5813 Great response.

That's actually a good question to ask a Christian. Because, do they believe The Word existed before the first book of the Bible was ever written? And they would have to say Yes.

Amen. No evidence will suffice when they have been blinded by sin, pride, rebellion, or the devil, either.

Wow! This is my favorite comment I've read this week! I assume you've intentionally used some hyperbole in it, to make your point - but I can totally see what you're saying! Several years ago, I realized the same thing for myself! And finally decided to stop wasting my time, and instead choose to be far more selective, about who I spend my limited time on. It took me less time to come to that conclusion, as it seems to have taken you though LOL. But I'll bet that even the time you fruitlessly spent, may have some beneficial use in the future! You've probably learned a thing or two (during those many hours, as you put it) that you'll later be able to put to good use, with the right person! God has a way of redeeming time that was seemingly wasted. May God further bless you yesica!

Rather than playing argument tennis with a non-believer who is not interested (a) leave, (b) have a beer with them and talk about fencing, or whatever your sport is, (c) ask them what they mean by "evidence" and how they think evidence conceptually aligns with the external reality we live in and how subjects handle evidence...then you can move to the problem of 'ground' in a contingent world and the nature of necessity. That will ready the conversation for Anselm's argument, or indeed, Plantinga's modal argument. Job done.

@@dagwould That would be nice. Here’s a scenario for you: You get one comment to make, and you’ll probably never communicate again about the current topic. And you’ve got maybe a a few dozen words before you exceed their attention span. But they said a lot of really dumb things. Now what?

Present your evidence to the apologists so that, they can make a better case.

A reasonable man asks for evidence. An unreasonable man demands proof.

@@ricksonora6656 a reasonable man does not tell me magic is real.

Thanks for demonstrating the truth of my first comment.

Give the time stamp where anyone in this video said magic is real. Provide it!@@arnoldjohnson3317

@@Yesica1993 I’m not anti theist. George Burns did a good job with John Denver.

I like Greg's approach to this at 9:56: while they have no belief in god, they also have a belief about God: that he doesn't exist. Otherwise their internal lack of belief is mere subjective curiosity and completely unimportant.

Yes, I need to remember that point about "belief in" and "belief about." It's very practical and helpful. @@dagwould

I'm curious, why does it anger you or at the very least annoy you if people don't believe in your god?

Let me put it this way, if I roll a die and cover it from your view are you convinced it is a six? You may say no, does this mean you’re convinced it isn’t six? You may also say no. So you can see that lacking a belief or conclusion about such things is actually something we do quite often. I don’t see why you should get annoyed at someone reserving a conclusion until more evidence can be presented.

It doesn't matter if you will stand for it or not, you still will and should hear it because it's absolutely valid. You're making a claim, the people who don't just accept it are saying "You have not convinced me, I don't accept your claim. Show me some evidence for it." It's not at all a game, it's simply a demonstration of a basic understanding of how the burden of proof works, an understanding which you don't seem to have. By the same "logic" you just used, I can dream up any type of deity (flying spaghetti monster, Odin, Thor, Antarctic penguin god, whatever) I want and you should either believe in it's existence or outright reject it. But to do either of those, you would have to make a claim you can't show evidence for. The fact that saying "I don't know if that's true or not, show me the evidence" is not only perfectly acceptable but is in fact the ONLY correct response in such a situation is something that a lot of people just don't seem to grasp. To be honest, it's also an extremely charitable response to any of these mythical claims we don't have evidence for. But strictly speaking, in order to be logically consistent it's the response we have to give while we wait on those making the claims to provide the evidence that isn't likely to come. You can try to shift the burden of proof all you want, but I have absolutely zero obligation to defend my position when I'm simply declining to accept the truth of a claim. You make the claim, you need to provide the evidence. Not the other way around. It's an incredibly simple concept.

What god are you talking about?

quote: Fulfilled prophecy when exactly did nature and physics change between 50 and 150 AD? You know that this is actually the only prophecy which matters. Mark in his gospel has Jesus curse the very figtree by which you would know the time. So Mark was not even a christian by the time of writing. Non of your other stuff is evidence for the christian god, about whom christians would not even agree.

@@iwilldi This reply is not for you. It is for readers. - Physics is part of nature, so “nature and physics” is redundant. - There’s no prophecy about nature changing until Judgment Day, so the initial question is nonsensical. - Taken metaphorically, the account about the fig tree is a prophecy about Israel being destroyed for rejecting Messiah. As a prophecy, it was fulfilled in 70 AD, when Rome completed a siege of Jerusalem and destroyed Herod’s Temple. - That something (what?) could be dated by a 2000-year old fig tree is unrealistic. Or, does he mean the tree wore a watch and, if you asked it the time, would respond, “Local, or Rome Standard Time?” - That this was “the only prophecy that mattered” is an ignorant opinion, since it excludes hundreds of Old Testament prophecies about the work of Messiah’s first advent, and even many prophecies by Moses, the prophets, Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews, about the same subject as the cursing of the fig tree (and many more). - That Mark apostatized from being a Christian is either a ridiculous non sequitur, or we are supposed to guess at the writer’s pretzel logic. - “Self-professed ‘Christians’ disagree, therefore, it is wrong,” is an ad populum fallacy. - God’s existence is a gateway issue. One cannot believe in a particular god when one rejects the existence of any god. The atheist can be addressed about one issue or the other or both. If I address existence, it is not intended or required to address identity. So the writer has invoked an imaginary requirement. Apologist: Sharpen your skill at explaining yourself. Literacy, logic, and apologetics go together.

@@ricksonora6656 quote: This reply is not for you. Marks gospel is not for christians but ex-christians. Of course you deny all that Paul said. Jesus would come soon with a new creation. You just are blinded, because you cannot read it. You know what i mean by nature. Animals hunting animals... humans contueing to be hypocrites and liars. Your fig tree is what your doctrine commands you to read, but it does not capture what Mark want's to communicate. And i am not interested in your doctrine but in what Mark wants to communicate. Then you offer the no true scotsman fallacy on top of it.

lol at the prophecy and archaelogy support :D

@@DeconvertedMan Proverbs 29:9: If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and lols, and there is no quiet.