Reddit mentions: The best christian apologetics books

I understand where you are coming from, and the point of this post was not to convince you that God exists, but to explain how a Christian that believes in the bible can honestly believe that all other religions are false and why that would make sense to them.

For the first point, God did imbue his followers with something that they can easily prove insurmountable to those forces, and that is the Holy Spirit. All other spirits bow to the name of Jesus and the followers of Jesus have power over them because of this. I have seen this first hand, but I cannot ask a stranger who has not witnessed this to believe that.

It is not consistent in other religions because they are lead astray by many different demons that all have their own will. They are doing a good job of keeping most of the world in the dark, but there are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world and God knows that not everyone will believe in Him.

I quoted the bible simply to show that Christianity can explain all other religions. If you do not believe in any religion then that doesn't really matter to you, lol.

Now there are many reasons why I think you should believe in Jesus but what you accept or not is up to you. Have you ever studied anatomy or genetics? I think it takes more faith to believe that random molecules just came together for no reason to form life on this earth, and from what we know scientifically just here. If you study physics and quantum physics you will realize how little how greatest minds really even understand the basic laws of our universe. Science has no answer that can explain why we exist, why the universe exist, or many other things, but Christianity does. If you study genetics and anatomy you can see the brilliant design and engineering the God of the universe has. If you believe in Christianity you know why the universe and all its laws were created, and know that you exist for a purpose. If there is no God you are a pointless collection of molecules floating through space on a rock making no impact on the universe. Your life is brief and pointless and exist for no purpose. Understanding Christianity helps you understand so many things and gives you hope and a purpose, because you actually have one! We are made up of neutrons, electrons, and protons, and those are made up of quarks. The God of the universe created all energy and matter in the universe, all of it. With enough power you can rearrange those atoms into whatever configuration you want. It is scientifically possible that with enough controlled energy you could form a person from the molecules of dust by rearranging the atoms. We are just made of atoms, which are energy. With a God of unimaginable energy anything is possible, including not being restricted by the force of time. The Christian God is not restricted by time and can exist at all points at the same time. This is a very hard concept for humans to comprehend which is why concepts like the trinity, and God knowing your actions before you make them, and how He reacts because of that, it so hard to understand. Understanding the concept and mechanics of time helps you understand how God operates. There is so much proof and testimony out there about why the Christian God is real if you wanted to find proof you could. I could go on and on about so many of these topics but there is not time for all of this!

If you want some basic proof that you can trust in Christianity read The evidence for Christianity https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Christianity-Josh-McDowell/dp/1418506281.

There are many people who can all testify that God is real and have seen it, but that is what other people. There is a book that just came out called The Case for Miracles. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Miracles-Journalist-Investigates-Supernatural/dp/0310259185. There is evidence there but if you don't want to believe it you can always find a reason not to.

I shared my testimony on this post so you can see why I believe. I believe because it is rational, scientific, and I have see multiple proofs for myself. If you cannot find it I can share it again.

I love Christianity because our God is actually real and still at work today. I believe because I have encountered him multiple times in supernatural experiences, and I am not alone in this. Many people encounter God, and it is something that I really want more people to see, so they can have something real to believe in, and not just the words of another person. Look at what the apostle Paul actually had to say about that:

1 Corinthians 2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Paul’s Reliance upon the Spirit
2 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the [a]testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my [b]message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not [c]rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,

“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”

10 [d]For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, [e]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

14 But [f]a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually [g]appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Christianity spread because God showed His power by the Holy Spirit, not by mere words or philosophy alone. I am not with you but just online so words are all I have, but I hope it makes you want to seek more. Seek a Charismatic Christian Church and you are likely to see a miracle first hand. There are many Christians that do not believe in the power of God and are more comfortable just learning about Him, so you will not find miracles in many churches, especially not the Catholic or Orthodox church.

I will also share with you what I gain by being a Christian. I know I am loved by the God of the universe with a love greater than any person on this Earth could have for me. I know my God is with me always and will never forsake me. I know I have a purpose and I have no reason to fear. I do not fear death or the opinion of other people. I know I can trust in my God and He will never let me down. I can see how science fits together explain the hand of my God and his universe. I can love others without wanting gain because God loved me first. I do not judge others so that I am not judged myself. I know my human life on this Earth is just a very small sliver of my existence. If I lived to be 120 years old my whole life would not even be a the first page in the story of my life when I will be raised by God and given an immortal body and live in a paradise. This life is only a brief test, and all injustice will be righted. I have freedom in Christ and know that His sacrifice earned my place with God, and not anything that I did or will do. I know I do not have to continually work to appease God or earn my way to anything. I live my life for Christ because of my love for Him and want to follow His teachings so I can be more like him, not to earn anything or avoid any punishment. God has told me many things that will happen in my life, and some of it has already come true. Prophecy in peoples lives is real and one of the gifts of the spirit. I can have peace and happiness regardless of where I live, how much money I have, or how other people treat me. I seek to impress no one and live free. Everything I have is not for me only, but for anyone who truly seeks God and gives their life to him. I want others to share in my joy which is why I share my beliefs and experiences.
I hope this makes some sort of sense, lol!

I made some edits for spelling and grammer. It is hard to proof read the small little reply window.

Wall of text incoming!!!!

OP, towerpill, greetings. If you intend to support your post in debate/discussion, and if you haven't already, message the mods and request to be put on the approved submitter list. Your negative Karma score may limit your participation otherwise.

> * 1) God gives us free will because He chooses to have a relationship with us.

Let's start with just this first premise shall we? The usual general questions....

• Which God? Ok, I'll answer that one for you. The God under discussion is one of the various Christian versions of יהוה/YHWH/Yahweh. Sine OP did not present a specific list of attributes and claims of intervention/actualization associated with this God, the standard Christian claims apply.
  
  
• Free will. OP, what is free will to you in the context of this submission? However, this premise makes the claim that "free will" exists.
  
  
• Relationship: What do you mean by relationship? Like a sheep to the shepherd? Where the shepherd requires, and enforces obedience of the animals in going where directed or else the sheep may suffer; and where the shepherd uses the sheep for resources (e.g., milk, fur, and skin), and sometimes eats the sheep?
  
  
• OP speaks for YHWH. Interesting. OP, do you always speak for God? :) Or are there references/citations that you can provide to bad up the claim that "YHWH chooses to have a relationship with us [humans]"? If so, please provide said references to back up your claims.
  
  Ok, now for the implicit and explicit claims contained just within point/premise 1:
  
  
• God (YHWH) exists
  
  The existence of this God is just asserted without any supporting basis, argument, evidence, or knowledge - and since this is /r/DebateAnAtheist, and not /r/truechristian, /r/cataocombs, or /r/ReasonableFaith, Presuppositionalism is not accepted - and what do we say about the fallacy of presuppositionalism OP?
  
  Calling upon an argument from authority, William Lane Craig, the Great Christian Apologeticist god (lower case 'G'), who has said regarding Christianity (but is applicable to other Theist belief systems):
  
  "...presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism....It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything..."
  
  Source: Five Views on Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, page 232-233
  
  Or we can go with Drs. John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, and R.C. Sproul ....
  
  “Presuppositionalism burns its evidential bridges behind it and cannot, while remaining Presuppositional, rebuild them. It burns its bridges by refusing evidences on the ground that evidences must be presupposed. “Presupposed evidences” is a contradiction in terms because evidences are supposed to prove the conclusion rather than be proven by it. But if the evidences were vindicated by the presupposition then the presupposition would be the evidence. But that cannot be, because if there is evidence for or in the presupposition, then we have reasons for presupposing, and we are, therefore, no longer presupposing.” (source: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics)
  
  Until OP, towerpill, can make a credible burden of proof to support that this God exists? If not, or you say you can but then do not do so, then the first point/premise fails catastrophically, and in doing so, renders the entire post - from the topic statement/question to the end of the submission statement - non-coherent resulting in a catastrophic failure of all points/conclusions OP is attempting to make.
  
  And thus ends the debate/discussion - on the first point/premise that OP makes. :( Well that's boring. Maybe OP can save the argument. OP, below the double line at the end of my comment is a generic challenge to support the existence of the necessary God of your argument/submission. If you can show, against refutation, that there is credible support or justification to accept the existence of the Christian version of the God YHWH, then we can continue debating/discussion.
  
  However, since OP will, of course, be capable of fully supporting the existence of YHWH, and will meet the challenge presented - for the sake of argument, let's play pretend and imagine that YHWH actually and credibly exists.
  
  
• Human free will is sourced from the God YHWH
  
  Ignoring for now what OP means by "free will" - let's examine this claim.
  
  YHWH is assigned the attributes of being the necessary Creator God of, well, everything, of all of existence (let's ignore the special pleading issue of 'what created YHWH?'), and also of having the attribute of omniscience (and other stuff, but these two claimed attributes will do for now).
  
  Which form of omniscience is being referenced when one says "omniscient"? The type of omniscience plays into support for some definition of "free will" or "free agency."
  
  For example; some external omniscience types:
  
  
• Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard espouses this position.
  
• Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker espouses this position.
  
• Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas espouses this position.
  
• Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they "will" obtain or that they "will not" obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they "might and might not" obtain. Greg Boyd espouses this position.
  
• Inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
  
• Total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
  
  Personally, I posit that the external application of omniscience is not-relevant. Rather, in regard to the free will vs. omniscience argument, the attribute of internal omniscience is the relevant attribute.
  
  Internal omniscience can be defined as: the God Entity has, at a minimum, true or perfect, and intentful, knowledge of the results or actualizations of all cognition's by the Entity. That is, the Entity knows, to a level of complete certainty, any event/effect/causation/interaction/whatever, the actual actualization that results from purposeful cognition by the God.
  
  In other words, God's willful creation is exactly as God cognitively intended.
  
  Additionally, internal omniscience has hierarchical priority (is a necessary logical truth) over claims/arguments of external omniscience (a contingent logical truth).
  
  Ignoring the effect of this internal omniscience on the concept/question of "Does this postulated God have free will?" - the combination of internal omniscience and the purposeful cognition of the creation of everything (as The Creator God) results in a wholly hard deterministic universe, or total and full predestination; free will is an illusion and all of existence (sans God - the issue how this God came to exist is outside this discussion area) is a script to be played out without variation (including your question and my response).
  
  So, with a true omniscient Creator God, you, OP, me and everyone else is a mere puppet against the emotional needs/wants/desires of this God. Dance puppet! Dance!
  
  And with this God-type, there is no free will except illusionary - which is to say, with the attributes assigned to this God, free will or free agency is refuted/negated. And the first point/premise again fails catastrophically.
  
  
• The God YHWH has the capability to make a "choice" (i.e., "He [YHWH] chooses..") - YHWH has free will of some kind.
  
  OP, can you support this claim? And in your supporting argument that YHWH has "free will," can you also provide support to show why YHWH, a God that is claimed to be sufficient onto YHWH itself and without needs/wants/desires, would make a choice? or choose one actualization over another?
  
  Until support is provides, the claim "He [YHWH] chooses..." is unsupported and rejected for lack of any, let alone credible, support.
  
  Finally,
  
  
• The God YHWH has a "relationship with us [humans]"
  
  And what type of "relationship" are you referring? Many Christians claims that YHWH has a loving relationship with YHWH's adherents (and where the cherry-picked canon scripture supports that the relationship YHWH has with non-adherents can be described as "You are either with YHWH, or you are fucked.").
  
  If this typical claim of Christians (the relationship with God is based upon love) is accepted, you if you mean "love" via inclusion of pain and suffering, then I concur the Bible supports a loving God.
  
  Many Christians claim a position that they have a relationship with Jesus (fully human/fully Yahweh), and with Yahweh (and some with the Holy Spirit). "Love" and "glorification" are examples of emotions/actions within a relationship. But what of the "loving" relationship of adherents with Yahweh and/or Jesus?
  
  [Character Limit. To Be Continued.]

>Really? Is there a place I can learn more about this?

I can recommend this publication of Pascal's Pensees, which has an excellent overview of the scholarship surrounding Pascal's postmortem publications.

As far as the errors of Pascal's wager, you shouldn't have too much trouble searching for "atheist responses to Pascal's wager". Although some don't recognize the simplicity of the error (false dichotomy of Christianity vs. Atheism), their responses, generally, are quite correct. Pascal's analysis leaves out the opportunity cost of the risk that Islam or some other religion will turn out to be true, and thus his analysis is incomplete. Also, Pascal essentially begs the question of whether the Christian God really is good. Of course Pascal would take that for granted, but unbelievers can be understandably skeptical on this point, given that this God supposedly killed a whole planet full of people in Noah's flood, and then commanded the Israelites to wage a bloody war against the Canaanites. If it is not established and agreed that the God of Christianity is good, then the cost/reward analysis becomes entirely subjective.

The situation this has created appears to me somewhat like this: Christians perceive the intuitive force of applying game theoretical considerations to the problem of religion, and thus continue to push Pascal's Wager, which superficially appears to them unproblematic, as it represents the problem of religion as it appears to them. But, the problem of religion appears to atheists in a very different way, which makes the problems of Pascal's Wager very obvious in their eyes. In the end, both sides end up talking past each other.

I think my approach could, possibly, bridge the gap. Instead of looking at the problem of religion at the level of "Which of these 4,000 religions is true?", I take the analysis back to the fundamental questions of religions: "Does God exist? and, If God does exist, Is God good?" This amounts to a nested double-dichotomy, and thus a true trilemma. Game theory principles can then be applied in a consistent, coherent way.

>But if something is justified just because it'll make you happier, doesn't that apply to anything?

The fact that something will "make you happier" can only be considered one aspect of the total analysis. And not a very useful one, all by itself. Qualitative judgments like that are not super helpful, unless we have reason to believe that they amount to infinitudes of reward or cost. For example, it is not just that the existence and goodness of God can make me "happy", but that the happiness that that kind of being is capable of giving is INFINITE. Eating dirt might make you happy for an hour or so, but a good God can make you happy forever (at least in principle).

The reason this is critical is because, while it is difficult to compare qualitative elements (and a game theoretical analysis is essentially a comparative analysis), we can nevertheless easily compare infinitudes with finitudes. For example, it is hard to compare the "good" experienced in a moment of heavenly existence (being characterized by peace, pleasure, spiritual fulfillment, love, etc.), and the "evil" experienced in a moment of earthly suffering. Both momentary experiences will be qualitative and finite. However, because the "good" to be experienced in heaven can, at least in principle, endure forever, while on the other hand the sufferings of earthly existence are temporary, we can easily see that the good of the end outweighs the evil of the means.

Now, the game theory analysis is more complicated than that, but the principle remains in effect. Infinite qualities do beat out finite ones.

Did you read the blog post I linked? I tried to be very exhaustive in my analysis of the potential costs and rewards associated with the basic options in the trilemma of the problem of religion. You should see that my argument rests on much more substance than the mere fact that believing in the existence and goodness of God makes me "happy". At least, I hope that one can see that. Obviously, I am open to criticism on that count.

>Is there any known answer to this question?

Hehe. Not that I've found in my research. It looks like there is an epistemological gap, which cannot be bridged by the normal operations of science or reason. There are many proposed arguments on the various sides of the argument, and I'm still working through some of them. Feser's Philosophy of the Mind presents many of the currently and historically popular arguments from all sides, in what is intended to be a fair representation. This book is intended as an introduction, and might be a good pickup for you as well.

While I have "adopted", for the time being, a hylemorphic dualist position, it is early days for me, and this may become subject to change. However, as a personal testimony, it makes sense of things that have always been vague, loose, unconnected bits of understanding for me. As someone else represented to me, learning the A-T metaphysical worldview has been like going down the rabbit hole of Alice in Wonderland, but in reverse. The nonsense in my worldview is rapidly being exposed, and the coherence of reality seems to be coming into focus.

>I believe that they can but I'm having a hard time understanding how they exist. Probably in a more simple way. Does that make sense?

Yes. I think you have good metaphysical instincts.

In my concept map, connecting all of the concepts of A-T metaphysics, God is in the center as Pure Being Itself (as opposed to one being among many). Among the attributes of God which Aquinas proves through the ways of negation, causation... and something else having to do with the Principle of Proportionate Causality... is "simplicity". The attribute of simplicity took me a long time to understand, and I resisted the idea the whole time. But then it made sense.

The reason I wanted to resist it is because I thought that God being "simple" meant He had to be one thing, and one thing only; and by "things" I kind of meant the way I perceive things in the natural order. For example, I have intelligence and power, and these things come through totally different ontological pathways. Thus, in me, intelligence and power are two different things. So I took intelligence and power in God to be the same kind of things as they are in me, and thus took it as nonsense to say that God was both intelligent and powerful, and yet "simple".

That is where Aquinas' doctrine of analogy helps. Intelligence and power still exist in God, but in God, they are not different things from each other. They are still "analogically" like the intelligence and power that are in me, being not exactly the same, while also not being completely different.

These concepts work out so that God's existence just is His essence, which just is His power, which just is His intelligence, and so on.

Now, as we branch out from God, we find things other than God MUST have an essence which is distinct from their existence. It is possible to have both incorporeal things as well as corporeal things in this realm. But corporeal things will be more complex than incorporeal things. That is because the "essence" of an incorporeal thing will not include matter at all, while still having elements belonging to the concept of a "form".

And it is argued that the only kind of "incorporeal substance" can be intellect (and will, but will is something that follows from intellect). So, intellect belongs in the region lying between the perfect simplicity of God, and the accident-prone complexity of corporeality. And we find ourselves as bridges between the incorporeal and the corporeal: rational animals.

Aquinas is not terribly long. I think you would get a lot out of it.

>To me the Jews not eating pork or meat or touching money on the sabbath did not really translate to simple hand washing after touching a sick person or before eating but maybe they did so it's a good argument.

This was hardly the extent of it! They went much farther than we do today, with efforts that would seem extreme, in order to avoid even beaing near uncleanliness. They made women who were on their periods live outside the city for the duration of their menses + a few days, lepers couldn't be touched or gotten close to, they used separate hands for toilet dealings and eating, washed their hands fastidiously before and after eating, and took full baths at least weekly! Additionally, if you so much went near a building that had a dead body in it, you were unclean for a week! Even today traditional Judaism has some pretty strict handwashing laws.

>I'll have to revisit GENESYS as it's been a while but clearly woman was not made from a man's rib and man was not made from dirt like pottery. The person who was divinely inspired to write that in my view was not inspired enough to convey truth as to how we came about. But I'll let it slide.

There are types of truth, and scientific truth is certainly one of these. However, it's not the only kind of truth. Philosophy, for example, contains truths that cannot be discovered through the scientific method. Theological truth is another kind of truth. So most Catholics would hold that the story of Eve from Adam's rib holds theological truth, if not scientific truth. The Bible was never intended to be a science textbook. Just as you wouldn't use the rules of grammar to learn about biology, it's silly to use the laws of biology to learn about theology.

>When I was in the military we had one hour of sleep per day in basic training. After four days many people including myself started having hallucinations. One friend from church saw all the leaves glowing at night and felt it was a spiritual experience. But we had many dumb hallucinations like seeing a dog in the tent that wasn't there and seeing midget soldiers marching. That combined with learning about how the eye and visual software in our brain works helped me realize a few things. We can't always trust what we see or even what we hear or even what we feel (like the sensation of movement in a car wash). What's more likely? My friend had a spiritual experience or just another hallucination like several of us had? So what's more likely? That Paul heard the voice of god or had a hallucination in the desert?

Indeed. Hallucinations are very different from genuine spiritual experience. I can't say I've ever had the latter. Having also undergone some serious sleep deprivation, I have had hallucinations, though, and I can see how it would be easy for undiscerning folks to conflate the two. However, we also don't discount the possibility of something being both at once. Like with scientific and theological truth, a given pattern of neurology can be either/or, or both/and. I want to make it clear, though, that I'm not advocating for "praying your depression away" or anything like that! I have a degree in psychology, and before I decided to become a housewife to my awesome kiddos, I really wanted to continue my study into neuropathology and psychological disorders and their mechanisms.

>I've come to learn of many charlatans that pretend to heal people (e.g. Benny Hinn filled up a stadium where I lived). So what's more likely? That a man two thousand years ago healed the blind or that people were deceived and stories were told and miscommunication and exaggerations were propagated as people passed these stories down. The first account of Jesus in writing is from 70 years after they happened!!

I've read an excellent book on this topic called The Case for the Resurrection. My question back to you, then, is this: Given that this lie was likely to get people captured, tortured, and literally devoured by lions for profit, why would the original Gospel authors persist in it after watching so many people get martyred? I mean, if I saw someone claim to be God and heal the blind, and I knew I was likely to get shot for mentioning it, I'd have to have a damned good reason to continue telling people that He's right. Either the authors were collectively uniquely masochistic, were all incredibly stupid, or there was a good reason for them to, with one exception, march to their death proclaiming a unified truth for hundreds of years.

>And if ou see Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, Jonah in the big fish, a talking snake and all these stories as not literally something that happened (because it's impossible) then why stop there? A man dying for three days and resurrecting is even more impossible.
So to me I had to at some point stop and say to myself what do I REALLY believe? I want to know the TRUTH no matter what it is. Are muslims right? Budhists? Hindus? Or maybe there is no God at all.

The evidence for the Shroud of Turin is remarkable. Italy's ENEA ( National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, not in any way a Catholic institution) has just a couple of months ago calculated the amount of energy it would take to reproduce the image on the Shroud: 34 trillion watts, triple the entire world's current energy output. {link](http://www.lastampa.it/2011/12/12/vaticaninsider/eng/inquiries-and-interviews/the-shroud-is-not-a-fake-jdiKKEyJ0uDsE4XpV13TcK/pagina.html) Note that while Vatican Insider is obviously a Catholic source, the ENEA, who conducted the study, are a scientific organization devoted to studying developments in energy efficiency and high-tech production processes.

However, the Shroud isn't the point. (However, a piece of linen that corresponds with all known data about the Resurrection and would take 34 trillion watts of energy over an incredibly short span of time certainly corroborates the Resurrection.) The point is the atheist's baseline assumption of all things can be explained with naturalistic, scientific processes.

And to this, I ask, why? What makes you think that everything in this universe can be explained with the scientific method? I, along with innumerable Christian scientists (As opposed to Christian Scientists) have no doubt that scientific rigour has brought great things to the world. But is it the only means of knowledge, and if so, on what do you base that assumption? Scientific reliance upon natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled by natural processes.

Thank you so much for engaging in an intelligent, cordial, and respectful manner. You're a much kinder atheist than I ever was! I respectfully invite you to look again. As I mentioned earlier The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus is a excellent little book that goes through all possible explanations (apostles hallucinating, apostles are liars, etc) and looks at the evidence. It's not a preachy book, but tries to use the same means we look at for evidence of other historical events and applies it to all the available sources regarding the historical Jesus (many of which were written by people who were not Christian, and had good reason to disprove Jesus' divinity).

Again, thanks for the discussion. I'll flag you as a friend just in case we ever come across one another again on this little Reddit web. It's been a pleasure.

Hello Aeronautico! I'll answer as best as I can.

1.) I believe my faith comes from God. He is the one who has softened my heart towards the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is the reason I believe. When did I start believing? It wasnt because I was raised to believe. I made the conscious choice to believe as a teenager. This started with a blind leap of faith, to pray to God, and to follow Jesus, despite my own desire to remain sinful and disconnected to God. The good reasons for my belief came later, as I learned more about God and Jesus. I discovered that there are many good reasons to believe in God and Jesus, and my blind leap of faith was later vindicated.

2.) Only God himself can change my mind now. Nothing else. No argument, or piece of evidence will convince me that God does not exists or that Jesus is not his only son.

3.) You're not a good person, sorry to burst your bubble. You may do good things from time to time, but you are not good. Even one minor sin is enough to seperate you from God, and put you in Jeopardy of hell. No amount of alms giving and good deeds can ever reconcile you to God. For this is why he sent is Son, not to condemn us but through him we might be saved.

4.) Science and the bible rarely conflict. It is only when we talk about evolution versus creation that conflict arises. As far as I'm concerned, there are many problems with evolutionary theory, and the bible is my authority on creation. I wont get into it here, but there are lots of books and material covering just why evolution is wrong and creationism is the more sound doctrine. I'm reading one right now, although I havent gotten very far yet. Its called "the greatest hoax on earth? Refuting dawkins on evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati.

4.) The old testament relies heavily on Gods law, because the Christ had not yet come. I wont debate old testament morality here, because it is a big topic and I'm no expert, but as far as the 10 commandments go...well, its easy to see why thou shalt not steal or murder. If you will recall, Jesus, when asked which of the commandments were the greatest, said to love God above all else, and to love your neighbor as yourself. For if you keep these two commandments, you keep them all.

5.) The holy spirit allows us to know with confidence that Christianity is right and true. Imagine you are stuck with the problem of what does 2+2 equal? You have an infinite number of numbers to choose from for the answer, but only one of them can be right.

In truth, part of knowing that Jesus is truly the son of God is a leap of faith. I wont know 100% for sure that Christianity is true until I die, or Jesus comes. But there are good reasons to believe what we Christians believe. If you are looking for reasons to believe Christianity over some other religion, you should look into some Christian apologetics. William Lane Craig covers this in detail in his book "Reasonable Faith"

6.) Death is antithetical to life. Your question begs another question. If heaven is so great, why dont all Christians kill themselves? The answer is, to the best of my knowledge, that we are put on this earth for a reason. We are put on this earth, if nothing else, to tell others about Jesus so that they might be saved. Now if we welcomed death, we wouldnt be able to do our duty as Christians here on earth, and our reward would be little in heaven.

7.) Neither. I would vote for someone like Ron Paul, who is a Christian, yet does not believe in forcing others to be Christian by law. I believe in the constitutional freedom of religion.

8.) Assuming the God of the bible exists, he would be the ultimate source of all the talent that allows surgeons and doctors to perform their duties. God is the source of all life. Without him, no one would live. And God is the source of all wealth and resources. Without God, how could one pay their astronomical health care bill? Indeed, if the God of the bible exists, he is most certainly due all the thanks when someone is healed, by miracle, or by doctor.

9.) It is my belief that all changes and alterations made to the documents of the bible have been ordained by God, to arrive at what we know today as the holy bible. Its not as though we dont have many original ancient manuscripts still preserved to this day that confirm and corroborate much of the bible. Take the dead sea scrolls for example. I'm not saying all translations are good. I personally prefer the KJV as a foundation and the ESV as a companion translation. But the holy bible is unique. There is a whole field of research dedicated to the accurate translation and maintenance of the bible, that has existed for as long as the bible itself has. Think of the scrutiny placed on the bible throughout history. Any major changes in translation can be traced and verified through objective historical research. If some major change was made to the bible, I would have to appeal to the Christian authorities and bible scholars to know what to believe.

The "problem" you seem to have is something that every Christian on earth struggles with - the disconnection between knowing something in your head and knowing it in your heart.

This is something I struggle with - there's a stark difference between being intellectually convinced of the existence of God and actually feeling like He exists.

There's a difference between knowing "Yeah, yeah, God loves me." And actually feeling the incalculable, unrestrained love of God.

There's a difference between knowing theologically that you're forgiven and actually feeling forgiven.

It's a difficult hurdle. Fortunately, God is there to help you.

God sends the Holy Spirit to us so that we can experience the presence of God, so that our knowledge of Him can drop down from our head to our heart.

For a long time, I sought an experience. I'm an extreme skeptic, so I'm always incredibly doubtful of any of the miraculous stories I hear from others. At the same time, it's because of this doubt that I so desperately wanted to experience God for myself.

I decided that, if I were to take God seriously, I would need to do whatever I could on my end to "press into" God and leave the rest up to Him. This meant that I would go to the front of the church during worship, or ask people lay hands on me and pray for me. As a skeptic and an introvert, these were huge steps for me. And many times, I wouldn't have a tangible experience with God, and I would get disheartened.

However, there have been a number of times now when I really did have experiences with God.

God lives in you. You have the Holy Spirit inside you; Christ Himself lives in you. However, for whatever reason, God sometimes gives us strong, palpable experiences and awareness of His presence, whereas most of the time we're not aware.

As someone who was originally skeptical of the "charismas," or of personal encounters with God and His Holy Spirit, I now urge you to pursue relationship with God.

That means spending time in prayer. I grew up always praying in my head with my eyes open, because I knew that God could still hear my prayers. However, I've discovered more and more that the act of going in my room, closing the door, kneeling, and praying out loud is richly rewarding. That's how people prayed throughout the Bible. I think that it helps me to connect that I'm praying the God of the universe, rather than just thinking to myself and projecting my desires.

For me, personally, walks alone and in nature have brought me closer to God. I'm someone who's always been deeply affected by nature - even in my doubt, I see the hand of the Creator in His Creation. And some of my encounters with God have been when I've been on a walk alone, not in a church.

Nonetheless, Christian community is extremely important. The Bible affirms repeatedly the importance of the church. If you're not already, try to attend church regularly and get involved with a youth group. I'm incredibly introverted, and in high school I would have thought I'd never be involved in a social group like that. However, our desire to know God should be higher than our desire for personal comfort. We need Christian friends and community surrounding us - people who will love and encourage us, people we can confide our sins and struggles to, people who will pray for us.

Worship is also incredibly important. I didn't used to sing in church. In fact, I went to a Christian school, and I would often remain seated during chapel worship. I was a Christian, but I thought that worship just "wasn't the way I connected with God." I thought that other people who are into praise music can connect with Him that way, whereas I connect with Him in other ways. While it's true that some people connect to God through certain channels more than others, we are all called to worship. I was making worship about myself - What can I get out of it? - instead of it being about God. Ironically, the more you make worship about God and not about yourself, the more you're bound to actually get out of it. This is one of the radical truths of Christianity - the more you give up of yourself, the more you truly are yourself. The more you live for others and for God, the more you're truly alive. It is more blessed to give than to receive.

Lastly, I must mention that good sermons and good books are really helpful, especially if your mind works similarly to mine. I mentioned in another comment Mere Christianity and The Reason for God - I consider them both must-reads for any Christian, but especially the one struggling with doubt. There are other good books, some specific to a particular doubt. (For instance, if your doubt has to do with the relationship between Christianity and science, then The Language of God is a must read.)

As far as sermons go, I really recommend Timothy Keller. If you have a smartphone or mp3 player, you can easily get podcasts for free.

I'll be praying for you. Feel free to PM me with any additional questions, or any particular doubts.

If you don't mind, I'll add some additional resources to your answer:

The Trent Horn book, "Why we're catholic" found here is supposed to be a really excellent resource; and since it's so new, you know it's current! Only $3.99 for a kindle copy, it seems. Born again Catholic is another book that gets recommended a lot.

But my personal favorite (she could read it in a weekend) is Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn. It presents his and his wife's conversion in alternating chapters written by him and his wife. I can also recommend Surprised by Truth as a good source of testimonials.

When, and if, those appeal, I would recommend Crossing the Tiber, which is a great book to read alongside a Catholic friend who is willing to help you through the process.

Of course: You should also involve a priest if you can. They're often really happy to help potential converts, or even just people who are interested in the faith. In general (because they're human), they're also really big on lunches, so if you invite your local priest out to lunch just to chat he's likely to say yes! Try to figure out who recently converted a the local parish and ask them about their experiences, or where they came from.

Also, and I say this with a bit of caution: The Catholic church (just like your current Church) is made up of people, and those people will disappoint you in some way or another at some point. Don't look for the Church to be Perfect, (inasmuch as it's made up of sinful people) it's not. It is, however, the source of Truth, and so it's worth checking out!

I can also recommend the following podcasts, which you can listen to any time!:

Catholic Stuff you should know: Four priests in two teams, one (up until recently) in Rome and the other in Denver. The Rome guys are Fr. John Nepil and Fr. Michael Rapp and the guys in Denver are Fr. Nathan Goebbel and Fr. Michael O'Laughlin. You really get a sense for their personalities etc. and they talk about Catholic topics with depth, humor, humility, and joy. They're all priests, they drink scotch, they talk about some topic (in the title of each post). It can be kinda bullshitty at times, but theres almost always something good to take away!

Lanky Guys : A priest (Fr. Peter Musset) and a lay theologian (Dr. Scott Powell) talk about the Sunday readings in DEPTH, and I mean in DEPTH, but they keep it light. They make connections I can't even dream of, really good if you want to ponder the Sunday readings (or if you want to sound smart at bible study!)

Fr. Mike Schmitz: Sunday sermons (posted the tues/wed after he gives them. He's super good at making it sorta age-appropriate for college students, but he's not talking down to them, so others will definitely get good stuff out of it. He's also very good at "awe", where most of the previous ones are more academic/conversational. He's also got a youtube channel that's got great content, and where you realize just how attractive he is.

Word on Fire (sermons): Other Sunday sermons, always 15 mins, always have to listen to them twice. They're PACKED. Bishop Barron is my spirit animal. He's a genius. If you want to get a flavor for him, you should listen to the Three dogs north podcasts that he's in ("the one with Fr. Barron")

Word on Fire (Show): Topics-based show with Bishop Barron, one of the recent ones about "The five things we can learn from the woman at the well" is INSANELY good, maybe the best spiritual podcast episode I've ever listened to. Sometimes these can seem very produced, but there's always good content, and I love how evenhanded Bishop Barron is.

Catholic Answers Live: A radio show that's turned into a podcast for easier consumption. You can choose to listen to them more or less based on the topics in the title. I find the whole program to be very well produced, well researched, and orthodox; occasionally a bit cringey when, for some reason, the host doesn't understand the caller's question properly. They have a couple of other offshoot shows (Hearts and Minds (super meh on this one, basically if you want to complain about "the culture" with very little apologetic content this is your podcast), Catholic answers focus (recommended, excellent interviews, though I'm not sure what'll happen to it now that Pat Coffin left CA) that are all right.

Pints with Aquinas: Matt Fradd does a topics-based podcast based on individual excerpts from the Summa, really excellent, light hearted, and still quite deep work. He occasionally has guests on. Sometimes I think he takes the trope a bit into annoying territory, but it never last very long before he gets back into the meat. I really like this podcast, and it's an excellent one for apologetics.

Hi /u/iwillyes, I'm glad you're here! Let me start by talking a bit about what the Reformed tradition of Christianity is.

The Reformed Tradition is a branch of Protestant Christianity that developed during the Reformation in Switzerland, Scotland, France and the low countries. John Calvin was (and is) the most influential theologian in the Reformed tradition. While we share many similarities with Anglicans, Baptists and Lutherans we are usually seen as a distinct strand. We disagree on the meaning of both Baptism and the Eucharist, for example (in both regards Lutherans are closer to Catholics). Pentecostals and Anabaptist are quite different.

In terms of what makes the Reformed different from other Protestant groups, I love this quote by Cornelius Plantinga:

>>Our accents lie more on the sovereignty of God, on the authority of Scripture, on the need for disciplined holiness in personal Christian life, and finally, on Christianity as a religion of the Kingdom.

That emphasis on the sovereignty of God over all things is in my mind what most clearly distinguishes the reformed tradition. Part of that is understanding God to be sovereign in salvation - what is commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. Basically we believe that because of we are dead in our sin, man is utterly unable to do anything to save himself - even unable to turn to God. It is only through God's grace of drawing us to him that we are able to have the faith that saves us. This means that we contribute nothing to our own salvation - it is entirely a work of God.

In the U.S. there are two main groups of Reformed churches: Presbyterians (the Scottish Reformed) and the Dutch Reformed. Historically Scottish Reformed have put a bit more emphasis on personal piety (the Puritans are part of this group) while the Dutch Reformed have put slightly more emphasis on declaring the Lordship of Christ over all creation. But, we are very, very similar. The Reformed tradition is a deeply confessional one. We hold to historic documents that describe what we understand scripture to teach on a wide range of matters. The Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Dutch Reformed hold to the Three Forms of Unity. While different documents, the two sets of confessions essentially teach the same doctrine.

In terms of churches the large (100k+ members) Presbyterian denominations in the US are the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Presbyterian Chrurch in America. the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and ECO: A Covenant Order of Presbyterians. The PC(USA) is a more "liberal" church while the others are more "conservative" to varying degrees. The two large Dutch Reformed denominations are the Reformed Church in America and the Christian Reformed Church. There are also many smaller Presbyterian and Reformed denominations. Many of them are part of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council.

What complicates things a bit is that in recent years, many Christians in other traditions have started using "reformed" to mean they have a Calvinistic view of salvation, even if they don't fit into the broader reformed tradition in other ways. You will find a lot of Baptists who have a Calvinistic view of salvation, but not of the sacraments or the church, for example. This sub tends to attract both the more conservative branch of the Reformed tradition as well as those who just have a Calvinistic view of salvation.

In terms of books, my number one recommendation for you is Letters to a Young Calvinist: An Invitation to the Reformed Tradition by Jamie Smith. It's a quick easy read best digested in small parts. It does a great job of providing an overview of the Reformed tradition that is accessible, theological, and pastoral. It's aimed at those who have a 'come-to-Calvin' moment from within other theological traditions (Smith was pentecostal), but would benefit everyone.

Also read through some of the Reformed Confessions. The best place to start is with the Heidelberg Catechim and the Belgic Confession. If you want a more modern approach, I'd encourage you to also read the Christian Reformed Church's Contemporary Testimony Our World Belongs To God, too.

Other good "intro" level books:

• Reformed: What It Means, Why It Matters by Bob DeMoor. This is more of a booklet that a full book. It'd be a great option for a newcomers class at church.
  
  
• Deep Down Faith by Cornelius Plantinga. This one is a devotional aimed at young adults, but an excellent explanation of Reformed Faith.
  
  
• Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul. This is the book that made me a Calvinist. Best explanation and defense of TULIP out there. Sproul's The Holiness of God is anothe excellent choice, as are all of his books.
  
  
• Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport: Making Connections in Today's World by Richard Mouw. Another book focused on TULIP. This one's goal is to show how the doctrines of Grace affect the way we live out our lives and correcting common misunderstandings about Calvinism.
  
  
  Once you feel ready for higher level stuff, I recommend:
  
  
• Reformed Theology by Michael Allen. If you want a book that covers the breadth of Reformed Theology at a deep level than Smith or DeMoor, this is for you (think intro college level).
  
  
• Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation by Michael Allen and Scott Swain. This book is a clarion call: “to be Reformed means to go deeper into true catholicity, not to move away from catholicity.” A must read.
  
  
• Reformed Dogmatics (Abridged) by Herman Bavink. My appreciation for Bavink grows every time I read him. This abridged version is much cheaper and more accessible than the full four volume edition.
  
  
• Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. This one needs no explanation. Get this one if you want to splurge for a nice reference edition, the Beveridge Translation is available for much less (and free online).
  

Love is the single most important Universal Truth that is common to all of humanity. Everybody is born innocent and pure, with the capacity to Love. We are NOT born as sinners. We only become sinners once we develop an ego. Children are NOT sinners. The whole purpose in life is to learn to suppress the Ego and become like an innocent child again. This is the whole point of the example that Jesus gave us. The new testament presents God as Love.

The most important thing in the Bible, the main message of the Bible is this:

Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version (NIV)
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

The very fact that I'm writing this message to you and you are reading this message of Love, is all the proof you need that God exists and is real. "God" wants you to know, that all that matters is Love. Keep Love in your heart, make every decision in your life based on Love. Agnosticism is based upon fear, the polar opposite of Love. Choose Love, man, just choose Love!!! This message of Love, has been brought to you directly for you, from God. This is not a joke. In this very moment, as you are reading this, God has touched you and wants you to know that God is within your heart at this very moment, with you, right now and always is there, no matter what, all you have to do is remember that God is Love. So any time you feel Love for another person, be it your parents, relatives, friends or anybody, that is God shining through YOU. Any time you receive Love from another person, that is God. That is all that God is, it's very simple and pure. This is the basis of Christianity, if you have Love in your heart, then you are being like Jesus Christ. Don't let other people over-complicate it for you with religious dogma, traditions and other fundamentalist nonsense.

Just as you have no doubt that Love is Truth, believe that God is Truth, because they are One and the same exact thing. If you have Love in your heart, then you have God in your heart. "God" is just another word for "Love". Don't get stuck on the semantics.

What is the absolute proof of Love? Can science detect Love? If so, then it can detect God.

Alcohol is only "evil" if used to an excess. Lots of things can be evil. Ethanol has lots of valuable and useful purposes. You can use it to disinfect a wound (painful, but effective), mouthwash, gargle, soothes a sore throat, in small, infrequent quantities there are health benefits. "Evil" is merely an intention to do harm. Anything can be used for "evil". A screwdriver is just a tool, you can use it for good or you can stab someone in the neck with it, if the intention is to be evil, then it's evil, if you are defending your life, then even killing another person isn't evil. So you need to be aware of the context, and the intention behind things and actions.

Why Christianity? Because Jesus gave us a perfect example of how we should live our lives, full of Love and compassion towards others. That is not to say that all other religions are wrong. In fact, there is much spiritual Truth, knowledge, and wisdom to be learned from other religions. For an intelligent person such as yourself, you can find a lot of valuable answers from the teachings of Buddhism, for example, which is NOT in any way in conflict with being a Christian. Buddha was a very enlightened master and you will find great peace in reading about him.

The Old Testament is loaded with crap, throw most of it out if you want. That's not at all representative of what God is according to Jesus Christ.

As a Biomedical Engineering major it is CRUCIAL that you read this book:

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins
If you don't know who the author is, check this out:

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP). He currently serves as Director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Prior to being appointed Director, he founded and was president of the BioLogos Foundation.

Here is another book:

The God Theory: Universes, Zero-point Fields, And What's Behind It All

[Video] The God Theory

Now do you believe that if you ask God for answers, they will be given to you? Is this not the proof you wanted? How can you deny that you've asked and now you've received? You can't deny it. You asked God to prove that he is real to you and this is it, right here, right NOW.

>Your point about God creating a young earth that looks old is theological. Sure, it's possible, but it's not a scientific position (and it's theologically dubious as well, because God isn't a liar or a deceiver)
>My point was that young earth creationism is actually a falsifiable scientific theory. Unlike evolutionary theory.

Actually, you've done my work for me here; young earth creationism cannot be divorced from its theological origins. There is no way to reach it as a conclusion without theological assumptions or assertions; it cannot possibly be derived by empirical evidence as it stands, and that's before we talk about its lack of predictive power As such, it cannot be described as a scientific theory - and your assertion raises questions about whether or not you know what a scientific theory actually is.

Evolution, on the other hand, meets and exceeds the definition; it makes falsifiable predictions with accuracy, it is the most parsimonious explanation, it is supported by many independent strains of evidence, it's consistent with all the evidence we have to date and capable of predicting the results thereof, and it's been subjected to changes as new data has revealed issues and become more predicatively powerful as a result.

>You didn't address my point about the basis for finding that "it just makes sense" that this data points to common descent. This is not a scientific question at all, it is purely philosophical.

Perhaps I misunderstood; would you mind repeating or rephrasing said point?

If you're merely looking for why the evidence points to common descent, it's simply that common descent is the most parsimonious explanation and provides the most accurate predictions when coupled with what we know of evolution and its mechanisms.

>Epigenetics addresses point 1.

No, I'm afraid epigenetics is not a problem for evolution; heritable epigenetic factors generally take the form of modifications to DNA or the histones that carry it, affecting not the sequence but the expression. Not only is this not an issue to evolution, since differences in gene expression have long been part of the theory, but certain epigenetic factors may actually make organisms more evolvable.

>Irreducible complexity addresses point 3 (small changes are advantageous at the margins, but changes to systems are extremely problematic).

Nope; irreducible complexity doesn't disprove evolution either; irreducibly complex systems may arises thanks to the simplification of earlier, systems with additional supporting factors which were able to be removed for efficiency or by the repurposing of independently-useful systems or parts of systems. For a bit more detail, as well as an addressing of common creationist misconceptions and falsehoods, please watch this video. It's only ten minutes long, and well worth your time.

>http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf

And here's an explanation of why it doesn't say what you say it says.

>The fossil record addresses point 6, since it shows that small changes over time have not actually resulted in large-scale evolution.

How does it show that, exactly? As I recall, transitional fossils demonstrate rather well "large scale" evolution.

>Punctuated equilibrium has the serious problems that the earlier saltationist theories had: it defies what we know about genetics.

Oh really now? Tell me, what exactly does it defy? As a geneticist, I'm extremely interested to know.

>Dawkins in particular is very critical of their theory, and thinks the gaps are just gradual changes that didn't get picked up in the fossils.

Frankly there's no reason it can't be some of each - and debating between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium really doesn't help your case.

>Behe has several peer-reviewed articles.

Yes, just none that actually support ID. If I recall correctly, Behe confirmed this with his testimony in court. For more detail on why Behe is underwhelming, see here.

> cited the one above, and here is another one showing the problems of evolution producing large-scale change by iterations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/ .

Long refuted. Indeed, in the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones noted that "A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used."

If you go to the citations of said paper on pubmed, you'll find a couple of other papers that dispute and refute Behe's conclusions as well. But I figure that will do for now.

>I think I would be close to Hugh Ross' theory of old earth progressive creation. This seems to bets fit the evidence available from all disciplines.

Um...yeah, that's not a scientific theory.

> It acknowledges what we know from the social sciences and philosophy, that humans are of a different order of intelligence from animals, and therefore must have been specially created or purposely evolved with a created soul and spirit.

Right, there's two things wrong here. First of all, there is an increasing body of data demonstrating the similarities between other animals and humans; while I would agree that humans are more intelligent than most animals, you're making some pretty big leaps with awfully little supporting data.

Second and more importantly, the conclusion makes no sense whatsoever! Humans are smarter and therefore they have souls? Where do you even get that from? Do you have any evidence that "souls" exist in the first place? Intelligence is merely another trait; to say that having more of it suggests we have a soul is like thinking that gorillas have a "soul of strength" or that cheetahs carry a "soul of speed"; merely being good at something in no way suggests a supernatural origin for those abilities. It simply does not follow.

>It also acknowledges what we see in the fossils, which would contradict a reading of Genesis as referring to literal 24-hour days, ...

Yup; we agree on that

> ... and instead advocates the days as orders of creation (again fitting what we see in the social sciences and philosophy).

Well, except for the bit where we have no evidence to support "creation" at all, including from the social sciences and philosophy.

>It acknowledges what we observe in biology, namely natural selection on the body of genetic information present at creation, with possible minor modifications based on mutations (i.e. sickle-cell trait).

Yet fails to acknowledge the broader changes that can occur, or what will result from a buildup of minor traits.

---

However, setting aside those objections brings us to a bigger point: Hugh Ross is making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions, beginning with "there exists a god". His postulation is not parsimonious by any means.

---

>http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Revealing-Testable/dp/0801014425

Oooh, that book! Sorry; not impressed; here's a brief summery as to why. I expect I could go into more detail at a need, but it's easy enough to say that it relies on unjustified religious rhetoric, gets wrong a great deal of its science, and generally straw mans "naturalistic" views.

>I'm open to both the idea that god exists and that the bible is true. I am open to it.
But there is not sufficient evidence, and so I do not believe either of those two things.

I understand this completely, trust me. I was raised in a secular household and was an atheist most of my life (most of my comments on reddit are discussing religion so I feel like I mention this in every comment, haha).

I think the biggest thing for me is defining sufficient evidence. It's not a question that lends itself to unquestionable, empirical evidence. On top of that, some answers to the question require not just acknowledging the answer but living it (religious piety and devotion). It's not an easy problem to solve (if it can be solved at all).


 

>I've done just that, and now I am an atheist.

One thing I've realized about atheism is that it's pretty easy to align with, since it doesn't make any bold claims. I'm not saying belief systems need to make bold claims to be valid - that would be ridiculous. I'm saying atheism basically says "We know how works, and we don't know how works, so we'll keep trying to figure it out and see where it goes." There's nothing wrong with that (and in no way should we ever discourage research and the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of religious affiliation).

But, at the same time, I think that when atheists are looking at the questions that religion tries to answer, the evidence used isn't right for the problem. Knowing how the universe works doesn't contrast or disprove a designer of the universe, or a metaphysical realm. The fact that the universe exists means that a metaphysical realm is very likely - it just might be "empty" nothingness. An atheist looks at scientific discoveries as a replacement for god(s), but a religious person looks at these discoveries as an explanation of how god(s) did it. My point is that the truth that is resonating for atheists (or at least most of it) also resonates for religious folks, including Christians. We just have our own spiritual, metaphysical aspect in the picture as well.


 

>Who says I need to get far? Who says I haven't? And what do you mean by getting far?

When I say "getting far" I just mean exploring religion beyond lightly reading the texts while constantly fighting rolling your eyes. I meant actually giving them a chance, even if you end up deciding they're all nonsense. With a question like this, "getting far" is extremely subjective and all I can do is give you my own take on it.


 

>Let's say we didn't know what 2+2 evaluated to. If one religion gave the answer 72, another 42, another 620, is that in any way valid? No, just because we might not have a naturalistic answer to some questions doesn't mean that religion is valid.

I think understand what you're saying, but math isn't necessarily good example. Math is a constructed language to describe its real physical counterparts. We defined what "2" is and have thus defined what "4" is, in the sense that it is "2 + 2" or "1 + 1 + 1 + 1." The system very accurately describes the mathematical components of the universe, but the actual language of math is arbitrary. It is metaphysical in a sense, but it is mapped to a physical reality.

In the case of religion, the physical mapping is literally the universe. At least, it is in a way (and it depends on which religion you're talking about). Religion doesn't try to provide a language to discuss an existing system inside of the universe, it tries to explain the universe itself and the context of humanity and life within it. On the other hand, in a similar way to math - it explains self-aware humans as having souls and our gifts that put us above other animals as gifts from God. We are self-aware with intelligence and morality either way, regardless of whether or not you view them as God-given or as a result of pure natural evolution. In the case of religion, though, these aren't necessarily just arbitrary man-made ideas to explain physical realities. There is a potential that they are the system. Does that make sense? This particular answer was a little stream-of-consciousness-esque.


 

> Could you provide a demonstration? I do not believe this to be the case.

This is an answer that has been written as books for a reason - it's long. I have a blog and am planning on writing a page on this eventually, but in the meantime I don't want to look like I'm dodging your question. So here's something I wrote in another comment:

>Here are some of the examples of questions that, when I approached them with an open mind to the possibility (however small it was to me at the time) of a supernatural or external being, they made sense in that context.

>* Why are we so far above animals in terms of intelligence and self-awareness?

• Why did life appear in the first place? The amount of chance chemical combinations required for an amino acid alone is pretty impressive. I understand given an arbitrarily long amount of time it's possible. It just doesn't give a stronger (or weaker) answer than religion, to me. I'm not denying evolution, I'm just skeptical about it happening on its own from the point of no life to life.
  
• Why do we have altruistic tendencies and a moral system? We know what we should do even if nobody is actually doing that. This awareness is another thing that separates us from other animals.
  
• How is the universe such a fine-tuned system containing (IMO) irreducible complexity? The fact that there are observable and repeatable laws that govern the universe is pretty impressive. That it would happen by chance seems implausible to me.
  If there is a Creator, what kind of Creator would that be based on observing the universe that it created? This question is more for addressing current world religions or attempting to connect (or recognize the inability to connect) to a Creator. I think the universe has elements that point to design, and I think the Creator would need to be a personal God based on how human beings (and other social animals to an extent) interact and function psychologically.
  
  If you're interested in how I came to faith through reasoning it out, I highly suggest [The Reason for God](https://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/1594483493?ie=UTF8&Version=1&entries*=0) by Timothy Keller. Another great book that helped me and that also discusses the perception of science and faith being at war is The Language of God* by Francis Collins. He's the leader of the Human Genome Project and has some good input for questions like Christianity and evolution.
  
  
   
  
  One final thing I feel the need to say is that you're not going to wake up one morning and be 100% sure of God's existence, or any god's existence. It's called a "walk of faith" for a reason, and it's a complex answer to a very complex question. But just because it's not "easy" to believe doesn't mean it directly contradicts scientific evidence or all forms of logic, it's just that once you honestly don't believe in the supernatural it's hard to wrap your head around it. But that particular aspect doesn't reflect the validity of the supernatural answers, it's a result of our limited perception confined to the physical universe.
  
  Regardless of what you land on or if you even take any of this to heart, I wish you the best of luck with this journey (or, if you don't budge, I wish you luck with your life as it already is). :) If you want to talk to me more about it, you're welcome to do it via commenting or personal message if you'd prefer.
  

Blessings to you. Have you tried reading “the case for Christ” and “letters from a skeptic”
Those two books have helped me in the past when I struggled with the same questions you have. They’re a bit older books, but I hope you find them helpful as you search for answers.

I know God is TOTALLY OK with you having those questions and wants to answer them and to develop a relationship with you where you ask Him and He answers back.

So you can just talk to Him like you’re talking to us.

Or telling Him exactly what you told us. That you want to believe in Him but have so many wuestions about His goodness and don’t understand the bad in the world.

Also, remember that one of the first questions in the garden was to question the goodness of God. It’s an ancient lie that God isn’t good or that He isn’t good to us. It’s the oldest lie in the book.

So please, take your doubts and concerns to Him as only He can give you the answers you’re seeking. He won’t turn you away as you come to Him with an open heart and open mind to know Him.

Praying you find Him in ways bigger and better than you’re expecting, because He loves you and wants to show himself real to you.

Big hug!

Edit : pls excuse typos, on phone typing quickly. And your English is great!!

Edit 2: here’s the link to the books I referenced. I read them in college (I’m in my 30s now) so they’re very easy reads. Hope you find them helpful if you do read them. And find a couple things in them that can help you in your journey.

letters from a skeptic


the case for Christ

I'd recommend against Barth's Church Dogmatics unless you are quite well versed in theology, and like reading long and sometimes confusing sentences.

Interested in Church Fathers?

Oden's Classical Christianity is pretty decent. It tries to break down the typical "systematic theology" headings using the early church (and some later ones). Not perfect, but there isn't one I've read yet that beats it.

Augustine's Confessions is a must if you haven't read it yet. Its autobiographical yet very spiritual and insightful at the same time.

Chrysostom's On the Priesthood is a great writing that can apply to anyone, not just those seeking ordination.

Athanasius' On the Incarnation focuses on the person of Christ, and what it meant for God to become man.

Basil's On the Holy Spirit is a great exposition on not just how the Holy Spirit is argued to be part of the Trinity, but also Christ. Very great reading for people questioning it or curious about it.

Reformation Fathers?

Peter Martyr Vermigli's Predestination and Justification is great. John Calvin in a letter said Vermigli had a better understanding of Predestination than he did, which is funny since Calvin is known for predestination today.

Martin Luther's Theological Works has most of his important works, including Bondage of the Will.

Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vol. but try not to pay $325 for it. Its out of print so might be a bit hard to find for a reasonable price. If you are able to find it though, it's a gold mine. Also check out other of his books.

More contemporary?

Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism is a classic on the Reformed faith.

Herman Bavinck's Abridged Reformed Dogmatics is great, and in my opinion one of the best Systematic Theologies available. More of a Dutch Reformed than Presby bent, but essentially the same.

Karl Barth's Dogmatics in Outline is a very abridged version of Church Dogmatics, and would recommend it over the original source unless you have a lot of free time or want to be a Barth scholar.

Thats what I can think of off the top of my head. If you have other specific ones I can find other stuff.

> Dinosaurs contradict creation theory.

Possibly. But many branches of Christianity do not endorse YEC.

> Evolution contradicts 'god made humans to be above all others', since our ascendance is based on (essentially) chance.

For some this is true. But again, many Christians are theistic evolutionists.

> Other planets and the nigh-certainty of extraterrestrial life contradicts 'god made earth/the entire universe. The (measurable!) Big Bang theory already does that though, of course.

I don't see the contradiction unless you mean that it contradicts that God made the universe specifically for human beings. In that case, this is a point of contention that was shared by many early natural philosophers, even non-Christians. The Ptolemaic geocentric system of the universe was valued because it put human beings at the center (among other reasons). But, this seems to be a problem less about Christianity and more about human importance in general.

> If Christianity is not the first religion, it suggests that people will make up origin stories to comfort themselves, and Christianity is just one of them. This is of course a different branch of science (anthropology I think?), but a valid one afaik.

Good point. There is a reason why anthropology has one of the lowest proportions of religious people of the scientific disciplines. But, a religious person could argue that people generate origin stories so as to fill a God-instilled void in themselves (I am not making this argument, I'm just saying that it is a possible one).

> Furthermore, if God made the world and everything in it, why would he a) make other religions; and b) let people carry on for thousands of years without knowing about God, and in fact believing in the wrong gods. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Good point, but this is venturing beyond science into theology.

> Now I agree every single one of those points can be refuted if you try hard enough. The point is though, you have to try.
In order to refute the points above, you have to decide that the first christians were flat-out wrong in taking the bible factually and that it was always meant to be allegorical.

Good points, and this is why some Christians have such difficulty with certain scientific discoveries. If one holds a literal interpretation of the Bible, it is much harder to reconcile modern science with Christianity. But, is this a flaw in Christianity itself or a flaw in certain human doctrines about Christianity? Personally, I do not see logical inconsistency with people who adjust their doctrine according to new scientific discoveries. In the book I linked, several of the authors discuss how Christianity helped shape modern science, but the inverse can also be true; science can help shape Christian theology. Isaac Newton, who is "Mr. Science" for many and often used as the posterboy for atheism, invoked the concept and several attributes of the Christian God to explain several of his scientific findings in his Letters and General Scholium. But, he also made theological arguments about the nature of Christ and the timeline of Christ's return based on his scientific beliefs. Adapting one's beliefs according to new evidence is never a bad thing in science or theology.

> I could also bring up the fact there are other religions in the world today, and THEY all claim to be the only one. Or the fact that kids who are taught things at an early age internalise them. Or the fact that there is no such thing as a miracle with evidence and that they haven't happened since the advent of portable cameras.

These are interesting arguments, but again, they are theological (or at least philosophical) ones, not scientific ones.

> There are other arguments of course. But I think it comes down to this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of an omnipotent being in the sky watching us, leaving us entirely alone, and judging us when we die is an incredibly extraordinary claim with an equally extraordinary amount of evidence and logic stacked against it - and frankly, not much for it.
If you, claiming to believe in science, can see all the evidence and still believe in God...there's a problem. They are mutually exclusive.

Here, you hit on the primary conflict that people perceive between science and Christianity. How do we find truth? In post-Baconian natural philosophy/science, evidence is seen as the gold standard for establishing truth. But, what is evidence? For a data scientist, evidence might be a statistically significant difference between two populations. For an evolutionary biologist, evidence might be certain aspects of the fossil record. In general terms, one may consider evidence to be the end result of an inductive line of reasoning or a correctly predicted outcome from a hypothetico-deductive reasoning. But, as it turns out, even these last two are not "proof" in the traditional sense (see The Problem of Induction and Hypothetic-deductive model Discussion. Many Christians also see evidence of God in nature. Francis Collins, for example, is a brilliant scientist who played a pivotal role in the Human Genome Project and is the director of the National Institutes of Health, and he sees evidence for God in evolution The Language of God. Does Collins offer evidence? You may not think so, but it is worth thinking about how his account is fundamentally different from "scientific evidence." Evidence is not a bad criterion to use for establishing truth, but there are many kinds of evidence, and very few forms of evidence provide logical proof. Now, I am not trying to discredit the value of a scientific approach for understanding truth; of course, such a method has proven to be incredibly useful for understanding and manipulating our world. However, I am suggesting that science, at least in the eyes of many people, does not hold sole authority over truth.

>I don't deny the profound effects christianity has had on the human race, including the development of science, literature, art and contribution to law and government. I just don't think it's real, nor do I think it's possible to logically reconcile belief in god with science

The great part about this debate is that you alone have sole jurisdiction over your own beliefs, and I certainly am not trying to convince you to think in another way. But, it is sometimes worth thinking about why so many people see science and Christianity in a different light.


I certainly understand the insistence that science and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible, but I hope that I have given you a few points to consider. If you are interested in this topic, it may be worth reading more about the relationship between science and Christianity. It's a great opportunity to be exposed to new ideas and to avoid falling into the historical fallacies that both Christians and non-Christians are prone to.

> if requiring a sound basis in evidence matters to you, then faith will never satisfy because it is by definition a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

I wholly (but respectfully) disagree. What you linked contains multiple definitions of faith, and the one you quoted is not one I've ever been encouraged to embrace by any religious teachers I've had. While I'm sure that some Christians discourage asking hard questions, my experience with Presbyterianism (which, granted, has a reputation for heavy intellectualism) has been anything but what you described.

While I have heard that logic must be paired with faith, I don't think it's ever been in a sense different from, say, a physics major might take to learning. It's well beyond most people to conduct experiments to figure out what the gravitational constant on Earth is, yet almost everyone is content to just believe what their physics textbook tells them. This faith in academics is well justified, as we can see the incredible effects physicists have had on our world over the centuries. These effects include not only improvements to the overall quality of human life, but horrific tragedies such as the dropping of the two atomic bombs.

In the same way, most people don't have the time or education to verify everything a pastor might preach to them. However, many people learn what they can (when they can) and, seeing their religious leader's lives changed by their genuine search for truth and desire to serve others, trust that what they are being taught is true.

So, this notion (that redditors seem to live in) that being Christian means automatically dismissing objective thinking isn't true. As for me, I have very little free time as a full time student with a part time job and dreams of grad school. However, in my spare time I do explore apologetics and happily welcome any objections as long as they are presented as you have acted: with respect.

I am currently making my way through Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict as it was recommended to me by one of my most influential teachers. Again, I'm happy to explore objections to Christianity from anyone as long as we're both genuinely seeking truth.

> So you admit that your senses can be wrong and that leads people to delusions. How do you know you're not deluding yourself into believing in God?

Great question! As I mentioned, there is still a "softer" version of "knowing". Even though when examined logically, there are doubts as to whether my keyboard (or anything) actually exists, obviously I still assume it to be true. The level of doubt approaches zero (but never actually reaches it!) as time goes forward.

We all display our varying levels of faith in our lives. For example, you have faith that the airline pilot -who is most certainly in control of your life and death for a time- will arrive to your destination. Some people's doubts in the pilot are so high they choose not to fly.

Some people doubt a political party's ability to keep promises, some have faith in them.

Some people doubt microwaving styrofoam is bad, some people have faith that it does.

Some people doubt climate change scientists, some people have faith in them.

All this to say, practically at some point, you overcome the incredibly unlikely doubts (eg, my keyboard doesn't exist) and take a step of faith without even thinking about it.

Likewise, in my personal experience have I found the existence in God to proven over and over, to the point where the philosophical doubts became less and less.

> How do you go from this skeptical mindset, to full on believing in an omnipotent figure which has absolutely ZERO physical evidence?

In short, I believe in God's irresistable Grace. He gives you the faith first, and one cannot resist it.

> You can NOT prove God is real, or Christianity would no longer be a religion.

Unfortunately the Bible teaches that the evidence of God is "clearly visible" around us, but we all ignore it and delude ourselves to some degree.

Discussing with an atheist coworker once, we were on the subject of what would it take for him to believe. Given the premise "any significantly advanced technology is indisguishable from magic", he would dismiss anything supernatural as "there must be a scientific reason behind it!".

If all the TVs and websites in the world suddenly said "World, this is God, believe in the Christian Bible", he would dismiss it as probably a hacker group playing a prank.

If a giant hand descended from the sky and pointed at him and said "Joe Q. Smith, I am God, believe in the Christian Bible", all he knew was he saw a giant hand and a heard a voice. That doesn't mean it was God. As unlikely as seeing a giant hand in the first place, it could have been advanced aliens. Or a hologram / optical illusion ala Tupac on stage last week. Or someone could have slipped him LSD and pranked him with a megaphone.

The point being, I believe the only way someone to come to faith in God is if God gives them that faith. I could tell you that I have lots of friends who have [read books](http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307
) on the historical evidence and logical proofs for Christ and came to believe that way, but the whole time you'd be reading them saying "sure that sounds true, but I'm sure there's another explaination" or "I read on a blog that an obscure scholar says that's not how history happened".

Not saying you're necessarily wrong to be naturally skeptical and test everything (Christians are called to that as well), but for many atheists I know, no evidence would ever be enough. However, for many former atheists I know, they were convinced by the evidence they found.

TL;DR: I believe that God first gives one faith.

I can't speak for the general population, but from my experience there seems to be a shift in understanding moving from "Genesis is literal" to Genesis is an awesome picture of what happened, written in practical language people of the day could approach and understand.

I believe in the big bang (and that God caused it), and that the 6 days of creation were not "days" (it has been almost 14 billion years after all), but more like a musical "count off" to the main point of the whole story: humanity and our relationship with God.

I love science. It simply explains the "what" and "how" of creation. Theology provides the "why".

For miracles, I believe they happened in the Bible. If you move in the right circles you can see (and experience) that they continue to happen- but then you get labeled as extreme and weird- even in Christian groups. It's always interesting talking about them- it's like there is a weird hushed tone you have to talk in because it's so counter-cultural and off the grid.

Hope that helps!

Edit: If you're interested there are a couple great books you may enjoy. The language of God written by the head of the human genome project and The Genesis Enigma. Both address how the Bible is scientifically accurate when read correctly.

Hello!

Yes I really do believe there is evidence! There is good evidence and plenty of it, it isn't hard to find.

I've got four things that you can do right now:

1. Pray to God and ask that He would prove/reveal Himself. If God is not real, you have lost 60 seconds of your time. If God is real then this is the best thing in the world that you can do right now. That seems like a very good tradeoff!
   
2. Start reading the Bible. Maybe start at John's historical account of Jesus' life. You can do so here if you don't have a Bible already: https://www.bible.com/bible/111/JHN.1.NIV
   
3. Get properly reading the evidence, don't stay uninformed. This really matters. Three books I'll recommend:
   
   But Is It True? - Michael Ots
   
   The Reason for God - Tim Keller
   
   Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig
   
   
4. Watch this video as a good start point for looking at the evidence for God. You can go through the bethinking website as much as you want to. It was really helpful for me: https://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/case-for-christian-theism
   
   Please do message me if you have any questions or want any other help/ideas. I'd love to chat to you more. I'm convinced there is evidence, please do tell me why you do agree/disagree and what you're thinking :)

Here are some books, articles, websites and YouTube Videos that helped me on my journey from a hardcore creationist to a High School Biology teacher.

BOOKS

The Language of God - By Francis Collins ~ A defense of Evolution by the head of the Human Genome Project (Who also happens to be Christian)

Only a Theory - By Ken Miller ~ Another Christian biologist who accepts and vigorously defends the theory of evolution

Your Inner Fish - by Neil Shubin ~ The wonderful story of how Tiktaalik was found

Why Evolution is True - By Jerry Coyne ~ A simple and thorough treatment of evolution written for the mainstream

The Greatest Show on Earth - By Richard Dawkins ~ A wonderful and beautifully written celebration of evolution

The Panda's Thumb - By Stephen Jay Gould ~ A collection of eloquent and intelligent essays written by SJG. Any of his collections would do but this one is my favorite.

ARTICLES

Crossing the Divide - By Jennifer Couzin ~ an article about an ex-creationist and his difficult journey into enlightenment.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - John Rennie ~ a nice rundown of the major objections to evolution.

WEBSITE

An index of Creationist Claims - Via the TalkOrigins archive ~ an impressive index of the major problems creationists have with evolution, as well as good, evidence based rebuttals.

YOUTUBE VIDEOS/PLAYLISTS

Why do People Laugh at Creationsts? - Via Thunderf00t ~ a scathing review of outrageous sins of logic committed by creationists. Thunderf00t's style isn't for everyone, since he can come off as smug and superior

How Evolution Works - Via DonExodus2 ~ a nice and thorough overview of how evolution works

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - Via Potholer54

Evolution - Via Qualia Soup ~ short (10 minutes), simple and well made, this is one of my go-to videos to help logically explain how evolution happens.

Ok, well it all depends what stage of the journey you are at. Since you have been an atheist, the first priority will be to convince yourself philosophically of what exactly God is, and that God exists. Probably the best concise reference for this would be Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser (a professor of philosophy who was, in fact, an atheist himself, and is now a Catholic). Once you are in relative certainty about the existence of God, you need to know why the Christian theology represents a direct revelation of God to mankind. Obviously, the best record to attest to this fact is the Bible itself. I would really just recommend reading through the whole thing front to back if you haven't yet. If you get stuck in some of the Old Testament, flip over and start reading through the New Testament, and just make sure you cover all your bases there. Don't be afraid to come back with questions you might have about any scripture you read. Another good read might be an exposition on why we can trust the narrative on the resurrection of Jesus, where you might be interested in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas, an evangelical Christian scholar. Once you're there, you'll be most of the way along your journey into the faith and you might still question why the Catholic Church is the "right" one. There are dozens and dozens of resources responding to various Protestant objections to the faith, but honestly the best thing you can do is probably Catholic radio and podcasts. And actually, if you listen to "Catholic Answers" podcast (just search it on YouTube, daily podcast that you can listen to on Catholic radio or on YouTube live 6-8PM EST daily), you'll get a variety of quality information that runs the gamut from classic philosophical proofs for God from Aristotelian arguments to details of objections to the historical office of the Papacy in the 16th century, and everything in between, and the guys who do the apologetics on there are really humorous sometimes.

So if you're really detail oriented and want to wade into some books, maybe start by taking a look at those. If you just want an enjoyable and easy way to broach all these topics at once, I'd suggest start looking at the "Catholic Answers" videos. You could even call in to the podcast and get your specific question answered on air!

Hope this helps!

Sure. Well, let me make a couple suggestions:

• My personal favorite not-an-apologetic is GK Chesterton's Orthodoxy (the link includes a free online version). That book sums up, paradoxically and romantically, Chesterton's views on God. It doesn't go out of its way to be convincing and doesn't take itself too seriously, which I love about it.
  
  
• If you're looking for convincing yet personal (and not too lofty) accounts of a couple of scientists who are believers, I recommend theoretical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne's Exploring Reality or geneticist Francis Collins' The Language of God.
  
  
• The best logical arguments for God that have been around for centuries (and have been pretty well defended by the likes of men like Victor Reppert and William Lane Craig) were developed by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. I suggest reading Peter Kreeft's easier-to-swallow shorter version.
  
  
• I believe that Craig's Reasonable Faith does a very admirable and scholarly work of defending the faith philosophically.
  
  
• William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience have nothing to do with apologetics, but have affirmed my faith in God personally. I add it here just to demonstrate, I suppose, that faith is highly personal and that God is revealed as well in the beauty and mystery of the poetic and artistic as He is in nature.

I would suggest to move on to Leibniz or Spinoza so you can see how Descartes influenced the rationalist tradition. Taking a peek at the letters that are often included in recent editions of the Meditations—especially the letters to and from Princess Elizabeth—would be quite helpful. The motivation for Passions of the Soul comes out in these letters, and they are well-worth studying if you intend to take the latter work seriously. Leibniz and Spinoza both have texts dedicated to interpreting and criticizing Descartes' Principles of Philosophy. Spinoza's text can be found here, while Leibniz's text can be found here. I recommend Spinoza's text as a good point of entry for his thought, whereas I recommend reading Leibniz's text only after reading other early writings ("First Truths", "Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas," "Discourse on Metaphysics," and "Elements of Natural Science"). The Leibniz text on Descartes' Principles is a helpful bridge to his later writings (including "Monadology") and are indispensable for understanding his dynamics. Leibniz's text on Descartes' Principles will be more or less helpful for you depending on what you want to get out of these authors.

In short, I think you've put in a lot of time with Descartes, and I think it will pay off when you move to other thinkers. There is plenty more to get from Descartes, but you may not appreciate it as much until you dive into other thinkers. Understanding the problematic of the Passions of the Soul—that is, how the passions aim to bridge the gap between the soul and the body—will be useful to you for understanding various elements of Spinoza's philosophy (the central role that affect plays in his thought) as well as empiricism and idealism, but you need not read the whole work until later. I would also suggest checking out Blaise Pascal if you're looking for a fun read. Pascal and Hume work quite well together, I've found. If you want a break from rationalism, then that might be a good path for you. I have a sheet with the passages from the Pensées dedicated to skepticism if that problematic interests you. You can find it here. The notes follow the pagination of the Penguin edition of the text, and they should be followed in no particular order (maybe start with passage 44 and the starred ones?). Best of luck!

Just want to start off of with saying that I am currently a christian sort of non-denomoninal I guess but I might think about that in more detail in the future. But I understand that you could be confused about the different accounts in the bible from the biblical writers. However humans tend to have somewhat different accounts of the same historical events which can be due to a few reasons, one is that they somehow interpreted the event somewhat differently, another possible reason could be due to the fact that the biblical writers got there at different times or may not have been paying attention the whole entire time thorefore it would not be shocking if they did indeed have somewhat different accounts. But my beliefs are that Jesus was who he said was which is the son of God and that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. However I do think that is indeed some truth in the majority of the widely followed religions, since if we observe them more closely we can see that they have similar fundamental themes from different cultures who for the most part did not interact that much globably with other cultures since the world was much less connected back in that era. But I say though that you might be interested in philosopical theism here is an wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_theism , and this wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnism , and this wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology also possibly look at some books at christian metaphysics, and look at scholastic philosophy here is an wikipedia article on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism, read some of works by thomoas aqunias he was known as one of the greatest Christian Theologian/Philosophers who ever lived. I would also recommend the book the Experience of God by David Bently Hart, and the Atheist Delusion by David Bently Hart I have not read these books though yet but I have listening to some videos of him speaking on youtube and his ideas make a lot of sense and are very profound. I do plan on reading this books tho.

​

I would also recommend mere christianity by C.S. Lewis who was an atheist himself before he converted to christianity. And also some books by edward feser who was himself an atheist for a period of time after he lost his christian faith but then returned back to his faith. I would also recommend this book by Francis Collins who is an well-respected scientist in his field has a PhD in Physical Chemsitry from Yale University and also earned an MD degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is director of the NIH since 2009, and he has founded the biologos organization which has a goal of making the christian faith compatible with science in which is always has been until we got into a postmodern state of science vs fundamentalism religion which of course is certainly not the case and this us vs them is of course a false dichotomy science and religon are perfectly compatible insofar that they are not extreamly dogmatic with everything in the bible being the literally true word of God without there being any metaphores or similar literary devices. But anyway I should at least also mention that Francis Collins was an atheist during his time completing his higher eduction and ended up converting to the christian religion. Anyways here is the book he has written https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence-ebook/dp/B000NY12E6

If by 'lacking' you mean 'nonexistent', then yes.

I went to public school but with heavy influence from my folks and church, all of whom seem to be involved in some sort of Fundamentalism competition. I learned exactly as much as I had to in order to pass the test, but I was always convinced it was a lie because scientists are all "out to get" Christianity.

I'm still wrapping my head around just how unhealthy this worldview can be.

I'll echo /u/Cognizant_Psyche - kudos on taking that first step and deciding to get smart on this topic.

I talked to my church pastor, who passed me off to his wife (who has apologetics degrees out the ass). She recommended The Language of God, a tactic which soundly backfired on her. That book was fantastic. It explains evolution from a DNA perspective but then tries to tell me I can still believe in God if I want to. For me, from such a fundamentalist, literalist background, the bible had to be true word-for-word, yet this book flew in the face of the entire Genesis account of creation. If that wasn't real, how could I trust any of the rest?

Once I was 'cleared' to learn about Evolution, I grabbed Dawkins' The God Delusion. I watched the Ham-Nye debate. I grabbed Who Wrote The New Testament, and Misquoting Jesus. That pretty much did it for me.

Alright here are some of the best resources I know as a Catholic. Hope they help!

Edward Feser's blog as well as his The Last Superstition and 5 Proofs of the Existence of God

Stephen Barr's Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

Francis Collin's The Language of God

Anthony Flew's There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Thomas Wood's How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization

Brant Pitre's The Case For Jesus

Tim O Neill on the Church and science, the Inquisition and the Galileo affair

Jenny Hawkins on Jesus and God, early Christianity and form criticism

Al Moritz on the Fine Tuning Argument

>There is a reason someone should believe in the supernatural and mystical aspects of Christianity. This is a large issue for me. Solely based on supernatural and mystical ideas, from an outsider perspective, Christianity is no different than animism or Buddhism. I can't have faith alone.

Well when you look at the world's religions, Christianity has a clear and impressive advantage in the miracles/mystical department. Historically, in Christianity, there have been numerous cases of Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, miraculous healings and the spiritual gifts and religious experiences of countless Christian saints -- men and women of great virtue whose admirable character only add to the credibility of their testimony. Examples of these include Paul, Benedict of Nursia, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Hildegard of Bingen, Anthony of Padua, Thomas Aquinas, Catherine of Siena, Vincent Ferrer, Joan of Arc, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Catherine Emmerich, John Vianney, Anna Maria Taigi, Genma Galangi, Faustina Kowalska and Padre Pio. We also have a pair of impressive relics, the shroud of Turin and the sudarium of Orvieto. I'll also throw in Catholic exorcisms.

And these Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions and religious/mystical experiences continue to happen today.

What do Buddhism and animism have in comparison?

>Anything that discusses and argues against some common tropes from atheists such as Mother Teresa being a vile, sadistic person.

Honestly, I'm quite stunned at the portrait atheists have painted of her. At worst, she wasn't perfect and made mistakes. She cannot be a vile monster like Hitchens claims she was, that's ridiculous. Here are some articles that defend Mother Teresa -- here, here, here and here.

Check out any of Mother Teresa's personal writings (e.g. No Greater Love, A Simple Path, Come Be Thy Light) to see what she believed in, what she valued and how she saw the world. Check out books written by people who actually knew her such as that of Malcolm Muggeridge, an agnostic BBC reporter who ended up converting to Catholicism because of Teresa and ended up becoming a lifelong friend of hers. Or that of her priest, friend and confessor, Leo Maasburg, who was able to recall 50 inspiring stories of Mother Teresa. Or that of Conroy, a person who actually worked with her. Or any biography of hers. Find out what she was like according to the people around her. Then afterwards, determine for yourself if she resembles Hitchen's "monster" or the Catholic Church's "saint".

My wife too came from a charismatic non-denominational church background. The process for her took a bit of time, and I think it was mostly accomplished through introduction to and then love of the liturgy. In college, we attended a non-denom church that did communion every week and did passing of the peace every week. After college, we were at a Presbyterian church for 7 years that had weekly communion, passing of the peace, confession of sin, and an OT reading. These were steps in a liturgical direction, which made the transition easier.

Have you guys been to mass yet? That definitely would be a good thing to do. I would read up about what goes on at the mass so you'll know what to expect, and then don't hesitate to participate (everything that's said and done is orthodox). Most of the responses should be in the front cover of the missal in the back of the pews. The order of the mass is also in the Missal, so you can follow along.

In terms of books, my wife loved Evangelical is Not Enough. She also liked Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. Both of those books really helped her overcome the Catholic prejudices she had from growing up (Catholics worship Mary, etc).

I've also heard good things, but have not read, Girl at the End of the World: My Escape from Fundamentalism in Search of Faith with a Future. The author, Elizabeth Esther, comes from a very fundamentalist upbringing. She also has a blog you might be interested in checking out.

Can't recommend any videos, but I've heard Fr Robert Barron's Catholicism series is good - but expensive. Maybe your local Catholic church has a DVD you could check out? Here a preview.

Don't hesitate to PM me if you have any questions! I did a ton of research and would be happy to point you toward resources I found helpful.

It's not a good apologetics book. It's a good encouraging read if you are a believer, and are talking to other believers who have a worldview rooted in the 1950s; they will think it's great!

But it's a bad apologetics book because it requires that both you and the person you are attempting to convince of the faith have a certain worldview even before the discussion happens--modernism.

McDowell's form of apologetics is called "evidentialism" because it seeks to overwhelm objections with answers, and seems to think that if you give enough right answers, you win.

(Many of his answers are satisfying to Christians and particularly older Christians. So don't get me wrong, this book can be encouraging to some and useful.)

But with postmodernism and more radical doubts about sense perception, this all plays into another apologetics method that's actually biblical and effective; presuppositionalism.

A great starter for you would be Five Views on Apologetics:

https://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764

Then read Richard Pratt's Every Thought Captive--easy reading, and gives you the basics of Presuppositionalism.

https://www.amazon.com/Every-Thought-Captive-Defense-Christian/dp/0875523528/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499447338&sr=1-1&keywords=pratt+every+thought+captive

Then read Dr. John Frame's deeper look at the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Justification-Christian-John-Frame/dp/1596389389/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1596389389&pd_rd_r=ME8D58N4T49Q53W9FBQM&pd_rd_w=RvQkE&pd_rd_wg=bXNAh&psc=1&refRID=ME8D58N4T49Q53W9FBQM

When you see the different views, you may want something other than presup--totally understand. But you hopefully won't pick Evidentialism. It's only useful today in certain parts of the world, like Eastern Europe, ex-Soviet areas, they seem to really gravitate to Evidentialism.

I'm a Christian and a scientist. I struggle with questions like yours often and find myself returning to belief after each
'wrestling match'. As /u/sunnyEl-ahrairah said, this kind of wrestling is a good thing. If God exists, he wants us to use our minds.

Food for thought, as I certainly don't have all the answers:

>How do I know I have the right God? Maybe I only believe in the American Jesus... While another part of the world believes in Vishnu. What if they're right? It seems like it's just fixed on wherever you are....

It comes down to the person of Jesus. Who was he? The actual son of God, a malicious liar, or a crazy person? This is CS Lewis' famous 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' argument, you may have heard it. The answer is a matter of belief and faith -- is the Bible reliable testimony? Does it quote him accurately? The things he claimed couldn't have been made by a mere 'good man'. So who was he? Figuring that out has to be part of your search for God.

>How does the physical world reconcile with scripture (genesis, when read literal, appears to deny evolution)?

A literal interpretation? It can't. Reading the Bible out of context, translated into English, and without considering the culture just does not square with the discoveries of science. But modern cosmology and evolution can both be squared nicely with the Bible, especially when recognizing that those chapters in Genesis match well with someone's vision of we see today. Check out Francis Collins' (former head of Human Genome Project) book The Language of God for one perspective. You might also be interested in Hugh Ross, a pastor and astrophysicist, and his website Reasons to Believe.

>If there is a god, and he created all of this, isn't he just a powerful alien? How is religion really that different from science fiction?

Aliens would be within the Universe, God outside of it. Aliens would be in the same boat that we are, part of creation. We define God as the Creator, separate from the rest of Universe (somehow!).

>How can someone who created the universe care about me individually? I've started to feel like that is just brought in to encourage the peasants to listen to the church.

It's a mindblowing idea, especially in light of the size of the Universe, and it takes faith.

Some things that I see that convince me that there is design to the Universe and a Creator (apart from the Bible):

• The existence of the Universe - something from nothing?? - with all the right constants to form galaxies, stars, planets... us.
  
• DNA Transcription and other biomechanical processes
  
• The apparent independent existence of mathematics -- mathematicians debate whether we invent math or discover it.
  
• The existence of human consciousness, unlike anything we know elsewhere in the Universe (so far)
  
  All of these highly ordered things exist in a Universe that tends toward disorder, entropy. With those in mind, it's actually easier for me to believe that God exists than doesn't. How he might interact with humans is a whole big other question, and that's where I consider the case of Jesus and my own observations of love, inherent right and wrong, and the arc of human history.

In addition to Mere Christianity here are a few more worth checking out. Despite the need for faith there is far more evidence for Christianity then I ever knew until recently. These are just a few of the resource that have helped me.

GodQuest

I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist

Stealing from God

The Language of God

The Fingerprint of God

I have put them in the order I would recommend reading but they are all great resources.

Another good resource for spiritual journeys are church small groups. A number of larger churches often have weekly groups or 6-8 week meetings geared for new believers and seekers. All the resources in the world are great by my journey was more shaped by talking through these things then anything else.

Glad to hear where your journey has brought you. I will be praying that God helps you find the resource and people you need to fill in the gaps.

I've been reading Dr. William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith and finding it to be pretty stimulating so if you want something on the more academic end then that could be good.

CS Lewis's The Great Divorce is a good, quick read with an interesting take on the natures of Heaven and Hell.

Rev. Dr. Mary Kathleen Cunningham is a very good scholar who I studied under during undergrad and who has put together a very nice reader which surveys the spectrum of belief in the creationism/evolution debate called God and Evolution which is good if you're interested in that kind of thing.

Dr. Craig Keener has a good, cohesive commentary on the New Testament which you can buy as a single volume called The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.

So there's a few to start out with. Let me know if you're looking for anything more specific and I can try to help (I have a budding theological library in my apartment).

Mr. Syme has offered a good list to begin. I would like to follow that list up with a number of other good works:

• The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton
  
  
• Theology and Sanity by F.J. Sheed
  
  
• Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie
  
  The NAB you have is an approved translation, but I highly recommend using the RSVCE.
  
  It is certainly a good idea to buy Sacred Scriptures and the Catechism right now. These two pieces of literature are essential to any Catholic's library. The Missal is very good for your devotional life, especially if you are converting and have no prior experience with our Church.
  
  Be sure to balance your reading of non-fiction works with some good, rousing fiction as well. The brain needs to find itself in fantasy every now and then. Chesterton, Tolkien, Lewis, and Waugh are all good authors.

I have "seen" things that have convinced me. Not visually, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually my search for truth has always eventually lead me towards a belief in God. I'm not going to get into the individual things that lead me to be convinced of God as they are my lifetime so far of personal experience, education and seeking. But there is enough personal evidence to convince me to have faith.

I think you haven't seen anything convincing because you're looking for the wrong thing.

I could say that I don't believe in atoms, that I haven't seen demonstrable proof for them, you'll ask what would convince me, and I could say "I'll know it when I see it." You would conclude that I haven't examined the evidence properly. You'd find the fault in my view, not reality. How I look at it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You trust yourself to be the judge of what constitutes adequate proof, but how do you know you're judging that properly.

God is something that would by nature be outside the realm of complete human understanding. We are biological beings with a limited subjective view trying to understand the existence of something limitless, something non-biological, something relational, spiritual, metaphysical. Yet you expect this very thing to physically manifest itself before your eyes before you'll even consider that it exists.

Even if it did physically manifest itself to you, through the lens of science, you wouldn't end up believe in the thing itself, just the bit that physically manifested.

What I'm getting at is that science can only prove the physical, so when asking questions about non-physical things you can't rely on science to reveal them. You can believe that there is only the physical, and science is therefore the only metric you need for assessing the truth. But as science can only measure the physical, you can't use it to prove that a non-physical doesn't exist.

You'll ask why this non-physical, if it does exist, hasn't reached out and confronted you, hasn't revealed itself to you. I'd say it has, but you choose not to listen, because you don't believe in it. You have to open yourself to it first. It's there. What you want is for it to take the last step, to make you believe in it. But you want it to do that on your physical terms.

Someone much more wise and eloquent than I can explain this idea better than I can:
Jordan Peterson on why he believes in God.

For the record I think the scientific case for God is also pretty decent. This book has helped me with that.

Yeah, the counterpoints series is a GREAT introduction on each of the five major apologetic approaches.

Five Points

Return to Reason by Kelly James Clark is a fantastic book on the virtues and methodology of Reformed Epistomological apologetics

Return to Reason

If you've noticed my username, you'll see I'm a proponent of Presuppositional apologetics. For a great introduction to it, I recommend Matrix of the Atheist by James D. Lashley

Matrix of the Atheist

and for a more in depth review and understanding of both the negative (deconstruction of a non trinitarian worldview) and positive (construction of the trinitarian worldview) argumentation I reccomend Greg Bahnsen's book Always Ready

Always Ready

If you or anyone else who happens upon this and doesn't have the means to purchase either one of the presuppositional books, PM me with your address and I'll gladly have one or both shipped to you (though they may be used).

Hope you enjoy!

Maybe this book might be a good start.

50 Simple Questions for Every Christians

DISCLAIMER: I've read a chapter or two from this book but haven't read the entire book. The few chapters I've read were written in a non-confrontational manner but again I haven't actually read the entire thing. So check out the Amazon reviews and proceed with caution.

Also, if she is open to it I would recommend checking out the internet show, The Atheist Experience. It is a call-in internet show where theists and atheists call-in and discuss religion. It is hosted by the The Atheist Community of Austin (TX). This and other YouTube videos may be the best introduction into being an atheist. They are easy to digest and to the point.
Here are some of my favorite videos from The Atheist Experience.
Video 1
Video 2

Here is another YouTuber you can visit for more info on atheism.

Lastly, check out the the wiki for /r/atheism. It has tons of resources to checkout.

Good luck!

If your looking for good philosophical and logical arguments for the existence of God that might get him thinking, then you might want to pick up Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig.

I think someone up higher was correct when they said that only God changes hearts, but I found this book very thought provoking. Even if it doesn't convince him it might produce some very good and thoughtful discussions.

And cheers to you for wanting to share the joy! It's the best basis for a relationship that I can imagine.

There is a profound and serious difference between not taking the time to respond to every irrational conclusion you’ve presented and forcing my opinion. You may note, that I haven’t really given my opinion, I’ve only pointed out the flaws in your initial and subsequent statements.

>What has is authority in one field to do with his authority in another?

Let me try to make this very simple for you. You are claiming that Collins is “unbelievably stupid.” Unbelievably stupid people do not become internationally regarded scientists. You are trying to divide out one slice of an individual and judge that person based on the narrow area you’ve selected. That’s exactly like saying that a person of a particular skin color must have some trait regardless of what all the other evidence might show. In any case, to make a judgment about an individual based on your frame of reference in one narrow area is irrational.

>My word for what?

You are claiming by implication that you know that Christianity is false.

>Putting words in my mouth, much?

Le sigh. If you are making the argument that people who believe in Christianity are unbelievably stupid, we can reasonably infer at least one of three things. Either a) You believe that Christianity is false, b) you actually didn’t intend the two parts of your sentence to be related or c) you are quite insane.

>Exactly. That's also why evolution and Christian mythology don't mix... except you are a cherrypicking hypocrit.

That isn’t a reason that evolution and Christianity don’t mix. You may recall that I said you are (compared to Collins) relatively unqualified in the realm of evolutionary biology? This is exactly the reason for my raising that issue. You aren’t (comparatively) qualified to say that they don’t mix because you don’t know as much about the issue as Collins.

He’s an expert, you aren’t, pretty simple logical chain really.

>Blah, blah, blah. Seriously. Cherrypicking for the sake of your argument is not my kind of debate.

So we don’t care about definitions of terms then? Or is it just that you get to decide what the definitions are and I have to go with them?

You can’t just arbitrarily decree what the definition of Christianity is based on what you want it to be. Or rather, you can, but then it isn’t really a debate, it’s just you talking. Debate has rules. One of those rules is that terms have to be agreed upon. If I am using the standard, widely accepted, definition of a term it isn’t cherry picking; it’s common (or I guess not so common) sense.

>Read this, then explain to me how Christian faith (in this case Evangelical faith, which the doctor we are talking about shares) is compatible with basic reasoning and scientific concepts.

Please refer to the section of the article you reference entitled, “Christian Left” alternatively, check out the entire article on theistic evolution.

>Yes, his unknown and cherrypicked beliefs…

If his beliefs are unknown, how do you know they are cherry-picked?

>which make him a vague, unscientific bigot

Yes, your name-calling is incredibly persuasive as an argument.

>he claims that God is BEYOND human comprehension

Most evangelicals claim that God is beyond human comprehension. This doesn’t make him anything other than typical in the evangelical community.

>Listening to any of his lines of reasoning he sounds deeply confused about his faith. He is very vague concerning everything he says about faith and even if he was actually sure about his own faith…

Yes, very vague. I mean, it’s not like he’s ever written a book about his beliefs. Or set up a foundation to promote them. Clearly he has been very nebulous…

Also, hypocritE

>I'm just very fortunate that my parents were right.

That's an assertion. If they were not right, how could you tell?

So are you saying that the most important factor is your feelings that it is right? Are feelings a good way to know if something is true or not? If I feel in my heart/mind/soul/body as a die-hard Broncos fan, that they are going to win the Superbowl this year, is that a reliable method of knowing that they are actually the Superbowl winners this year?

So what is the point of these questions? They are intended to have you think. It is easy to critically analyze other people, but it is very difficult to critical think about your own views. Here is a youtube video that explains it in more detail, it may help you more here in r/philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

I used to be just like you, where I had learned all the answers from my pastors, being raised a very devout, born-again, Bible-believing Christian, who led Bible studies and served in ministries. But I kept studying the Bible and asking questions. You would be amazed at what Evangelical Christian Seminaries actually teach about the historical Bible, that they don't share with the lay people. There is a lot more uncertainty than you can imagine.

Anyway, I am not sure how many more times I will respond, but if you are interested in more questions, I would recommend this book for you. It's called "50 Simple Questions for Every Christian".

https://www.amazon.com/50-Simple-Questions-Every-Christian/dp/161614727X/

Best of luck.

wildberryskittles recommended the classics but teaching methods have improved since then in my opinion.

You should revisit algebra, geometry, and trigonometry before tackling a book like Calculus Made Easy. For algebra, Practical Algebra: A Self-Teaching Guide seems like a great place to start. After that, head on to geometry with something like Geometry and Trigonometry for Calculus. The book Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell might also be helpful.

In apologetics there are a couple of different methods. The first method is Classical Apologetics which is a two step process. The first step would be 1) prove theism is true. The second step is 2) prove Christianity is true. Evidential Apologetics basically says that if you prove 2) Christianity is true, you thereby prove God exists. The arguments will basically hinge on the Resurrection of Christ and the historicity of the New Testament. If Jesus did in fact rise from the dead, then it validates his claims, or at least that's the idea behind it.

Presuppositionalism is much more complicated. It basically says that every person has to make assumptions about the world. For instance, if I am a person who believes that our senses accurately inform our minds, then I have to presume a number of things. They will argue that worldviews such as atheism don't have the necessary presumptions, and move to showing how Christian Theism has all the necessary assumptions.

For example, if you believe in the reliability of the senses, logical axioms are immutable, and cause and effect, then the principal of best explanation dictates that Christian Theism is true. I'm not sure, but they might actually simply say that Theism is true from there, and then do the 2 step model of classical apologetics, but I'm not either one.

If you want an awesome book on meta-apologetics, here is a really good book I found. A pastor friend of mine used it in a class, it details 5 views of apologetics very well.

If he's not already, get him into praying the divine office. You can get the single volume set or the four volume set.

It would be lovely if the two of you prayed together. I would recommend (if this is foreign to either of you) to start with Night Prayer (compline). It's the shortest version, to be prayed before you go to bed (or 9pm if you keep the Hours) and it introduces you to the style of prayer.

Morning Prayer (matins lauds) is great - I love starting my day with it.

For you I would recommend reading Rome Sweet Home and/or Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic.

Some of these have been mentioned in this thread, but I wanted to make a thorough list, so here goes:

• Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn (as you've already experienced)
  
  
• Evangelical Exodus by Douglas Beaumont
  
  
• Crossing The Tiber by Steve Ray
  
  
• Evangelical Is Not Enough by Thomas Howard
  
  
• Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie
  
  
• The Protestant's Dilemma by Devin Rose
  
  
• Navigating The Tiber by Devin Rose
  
  
• Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn
  
  
• Surprised by Truth: Volume One, Volume Two, Volume Three, compiled by Patrick Madrid
  
  
• No Price Too High by Deacon Alex Jones
  
  If you would like books on various topics (The Eucharist, Mary, the Sacraments, etc.), let me know and I'd be happy to provide. Also, feel free to PM at any time. :) I'll say an extra prayer for your journey right now!
  
  DK
  
  
  

Sorry I've been out of state the past week and didn't get a chance to see this.


> Morals are formed by the need for us to function as a society, how is that evidence of a god? Just because a religion has a moral code is not evidence that a god is required to have them. It's pretty simple, if there were just one living thing, would anything it did be moral or immoral?


You're stating one of the two most widely understood theories on the origin of morality - I'm sure everyone on this sub is familiar with that idea. Obviously what I was saying is that what I observe about morality makes me believe in the other widely spread theories about moral origin - absolute morality.


> What research papers say DNA has an intelligent language behind it?


It's a pretty significant debate right now. Here is an article discussing a book from Harvard about DNA evidence for intelligent design, [Here] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744) is a book by Francis Collins. These are just the first two things a google search turned up.


>Order in the universe, the ability for life to create life and ways to survive, does not automatically mean there is an intelligence behind it. It can mean that things are subject to the same constants.

I agree. I don't think I was saying otherwise before, I was just saying that it's more difficult to understand how design could come out of no design than from design. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

> It's still a story, just like every other religion. John took the most creative liberties of them all.

That doesn't change the fact that having more sources gives something more credibility than something with less sources - which was my point.

You are so smart to do so my friend! You're probably a philosopher at heart, too inquisitive to "just believe." That's great, I wish more Christians were like that.

The fact is there's plenty plenty of evidence for the truth (both historical and philosophical) of Christianity though it just takes time to read through it all. It's something you kind of have to get a bug up your butt about, or in my case you get strong-armed into it mentally, in which case you become obsessed with it which is what happened to me.

For some lay-level reading I'd check out (in no particular order)

Cold Case Christianity

Reasonable Faith or really anything by William Lane Craig

Evidence for Christianity

There are a TON more...

Also, read the old Church fathers, really fun stuff.

Please feel free to PM me anytime, I will gladly talk to you about whatever you want.

Catholics claim to be followers of Jesus. They follow rules from tradition, handed down from Jesus through a continuous succession of popes. They think the Bible is a great book, but not exactly the word of God.

Fundamentalist Christians generally believe that Catholics have drifted from Jesus teachings. Instead, they believe the only true way to follow Jesus is through the Bible. They think that the Bible is the literal word of God and is exactly true.

EDIT:

For those interested in the apparent conflict between science and religion, a great book to read is by Francis Collins, one of the leaders behind the sequencing of the human genome, the current head of the NIH, and a deeply religious man, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

As I see it, here's the core problem: The Bible isn't a scientific document that can be easily parsed into data, despite creationists and atheists wanting to treat it as such to raise it up and tear it down, respectively. In reality, there's little reason to think that humankind is capable of a full understanding of the spiritual dimension. It's even less reasonable to hold the Bible accountable for being scientifically accurate when such talk would have gone WAY over the heads of the people the books and letters were written directly to, who knew nothing of astronomy, electricity, etc, etc, etc.

It's fine to focus on the the absurdity of the creationist approach by pointing out scientific issues, but the Skeptic's Annotated Bible goes overwhelmingly too far and lists tons of "contradictions" that are actually paradoxes, antimonies, misinterpretations, or mistranslations (even more prevalent since the SAB's source is a an 18th-century King James Bible).

If you want some interesting reading on the subject, check out The Language of God, written by one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, who sees the Bible and nature as two books through which we see reflections of God's truth. At the heart of things, he states that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible."

> Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

That book cherry-picks scientific facts when it serves its purposes and dismisses others when it does not. The author knows Creationism is indefensible so he settles for the middle ground, Intelligent Design. The scholars cited are at the fringe of their fields of study. There are medical doctors out there who are anti-vax, or who advocate homeopathy. Does that lead any credence to the anti-vax or homeopathic movements? No, it does not. So, the book you presented is a great example of alternative facts, and your sentence "The only alternative facts come from unbelievers who suppress the truth in exchange for a lie such as Dawkins, Harris, and others" is absurd, there are plenty of honest believers out there who spouse untruths regarding a wide range of topics due to ignorance. To be clear, I believe in the Creator, but His modus operandi, His method of creation, is imprinted upon the Earth itself and not to what Christian tradition thinks it should be. As Paul said, God's attributes are perfectly seen through the things that were created.

I in turn respectfully recommend you read The Language of God by evangelical author and one of the heads of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins.

>our religion, ie: for Judaism

I was under the impression that you didn't believe the Torah. Do you?

>Put up or shut up.

I'm not sure how you would like me to, but I'll list some resources below. If you would rather delve into it by having a strict dialogue between the two of us, that's cool too. I may not be able to respond quickly every time, depending on how this carries forth, but I'll do what I can. As you mentioned, your soul is "at stake and all that."

Gary Habermas and N.T. Wright are the top two resurrection scholars. Michael Licona is also a leading scholar on the resurrection debate. Philosophers such as Richard Swinburne and Antony Flew have even shown their faces on the scene as well.

Books

• The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas & Michael Licona
  
• The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Michael Licona
  
• The Resurrection of God Incarnate by Richard Swinburne
  
• The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright
  
• The Resurrection Factor by Josh McDowell
  
• The Son Rises: Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig
  
  Presentations
  
  
• Gary Habermas - "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars"
  
  
• William Lane Craig - "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?"
  
  
• William Lane Craig - "The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection."
  
  
• N.T. Wright - "The Resurrection"
  
  
• N.T. Wright - "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?"
  
  
• Michael Licona - "Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus"
  
  
• Michael Licona - "Evidence for the Resurrection"
  
  
• Doug Powell - "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
  
  Debates
  
  Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, and Michael Licona are the most frequent debaters on the Christian side, and Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier are the most frequent debaters on the non-Christian side. Habermas, Craig, and/or Licona have debated the following (possibly) recognizable names on this issue: Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Antony Flew, John Shelby Spong, Gerd Ludemann, Shabir Ally, Arif Ahmed, John Dominic Crossan, Robert M. Price, and Dan Barker.
  
  YouTube is great for finding those debates. There are also, of course, dialogues in book form.
  
  >if you don't like my tone
  
  I'm actually enjoying your tone, haha

Oh man. Where do I begin?

It started with Edward Feser. Then Aquinas.

I recently compiled my 'short list' of books that were foundational for a Master's:

Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0764807188/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019925995X/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Then go here:

https://www.amazon.com/Story-Christianity-Vol-Church-Reformation/dp/006185588X

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061855898/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T5D86TV1MTCSQAYZ4GHR

G.K. Chesterton is always a good supplement (Heretics and Orthodoxy):

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ALKPW4S/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Bible Study:

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0385247672/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1477868333&sr=1-1&keywords=raymond+brown

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585169420/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0809147807/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

(Jewish perspective on NT): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195297709/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

After you've gotten through these (or maybe interspersed), get into de Chardin -- but be careful, because he toes the line into heresy with the noosphere stuff.

Then, start reading the theoretical physicist priests in our faith, Stanley Jaki, for example.

And this. This.

Finally, try to muddle through Spitzer. These guys have more smarts in their little finger than I will ever have.

Edit: I refreshed the thread and saw that you've already found Feser. Excellent. Are you familiar with John C. Wright as well? Sci-fi-writer-former-atheist-now-traditionalist-Catholic.

I'm interested in any science + metaphysics books you've come across too. . .

God is certainly way more complex than humans make him out to be. But if there is a personal creator which actually wishes to communicate with us can you blame him for putting it in terms we could actually understand? I don't think Paul was dumb by any means but nuclear fusion would be a bit above any 1st century Roman citizen. Besides, the purposes are different.

The purposes of science is to tell us how this natural world ticks.
The purpose of Christian scripture is to tell us about an invisible God and his plan which works through this natural world as well as the intangible elements of our existence.

I would like to share the work of a Christian scientist with you, who, like you sees the beauty in the natural world, with similar awe as yours. "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health.

Francis Collins, the head of the human genome project, is a committed Christian and also believes in evolution. He wrote a book that she may want to check out called The Language of God. I personally don't agree with his belief that DNA is evidence of a creator; but the book is valuable in these cases where someone can be shown that it's possible to be a Christian and accept evolution as well.

If you want to go a little farther, there are a huge number of good resources on Youtube to debunk creationism. I am currently working on a series: Why I am no longer a creationist; and I've also gathered hours of videos into playlists from other Youtube atheists/evolutionists (thunderfoot, aronra, potholer54, bestofscience, etc...) that you could check out as well.

If you're scoring 25's everywhere, you have a lot of content you need to learn.

Most of the 3rd party books are crap. Sorry. They are. I've read almost all of them, and it's filler.

I like Webster's grammar: https://amzn.com/0375719679
+understanding the rhetorical questions by using practice tests and making your own steps
Cheap math book: https://amzn.com/1592441300
Reading: Man, I've covered this on other posts
Science: a basic understanding of scientific concepts + practice

A 7-point increase is not easy on your own, but you can do it if you make a study plan and stick to it. You're going to have to search out why you don't get questions right if you don't understand the explanations. You're going to have to hold yourself accountable to your own knowledge level. Doing something that hard on your own is extremely difficult, but, if you can do it, you will be supremely prepared for college and will be a very successful person.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any way trying to discourage you from doing this on your own. The fact that you're on this subreddit and asking for help already shows that you are a lot more mature than your peers. Make a plan; stick to it; and re-evaluate it periodically.

If you go content-driven (which is the evidence-based way to increase your score the most), you're not going to get linear score increases. You might study for a month and get 1 point. Some weird click moment happens when things get easier and recall of topics starts to happen more. But isn't it like that for almost everything?

You might really enjoy reading the book by Nabeel Quereshi called "Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus" He speaks about why he believed in Islam and the journey he had finding faith in Jesus. Here is a link: https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236

Nabeel recently passed away, but I am sure he is rejoicing in the arms of Jesus now. Fantastic testimony and story though!

Also, Rifqa Bary wrote a great book too called "Hiding in the Light." https://www.amazon.com/Hiding-Light-Risked-Everything-Follow/dp/1601426984

But many false religions seem to focus on undermining Christ's diety. Perhaps in doing so this undermines the power of acknowledging that Christ is God come to earth to understand us, love us, die for us and rise for us? By saying that Jesus is just a prophet, then what power is there in the blood atonement? It really is a problem. One way to differentiate a false religion and the truth is in this point, as there are many that seem to want to say that Jesus is not God (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, etc. . . )

There's lots, on all different levels. So it depends what you're looking for and what questions are important to you. You might consider:

• Reason for God by Timothy Keller - from Amazon.
  
  If you want to understand the philosophical arguments for God you could try:
  
  
• Reasonable faith or the book with the same name, which sets out some pretty standard arguments.
  
  
• Stand to Reason
  
  
• Unbelievable is a podcast where it's pretty evenly debated.
  
  Specifically on Jesus, you might try,
  
  
• The case for the resurrection of Jesus
  
  
• The resurrection of the Son of God
  
  And one last one which I haven't read, but I hear is good
  
  
• Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
  
  But honestly, simply reading the Bible, praying and earnestly seeking is the best start.

I would also recommend starting with Mark, I definitely found it the easiest to read when I was younger.

In terms of philosophy and theology, it really depends on how well read OP is and how long they've been interested in both subjects. I found McGrath's Christian Theology: An Introduction (there are cheaper editions) and Guthrie's Christian Doctrine to be good high school level theology intros.

For intermediate, maybe William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith?

If OP has a longstanding interest in and has studied philosophy—note "theology lately, and philosophy"—there's no reason not to start with advanced stuff like The City of God or parts of the Summa.

For me it comes down to the cumulative case for Christianity. I can imagine you must feel very hapy, joyful and open-minded. I would recommend a couple books to you:

1. http://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886
   
   2)http://www.amazon.com/Mere-Christianity-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652926/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803860&sr=1-1&keywords=mere+christianity
   
   
2. http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381803878&sr=1-1&keywords=evidence+that+demands+a+verdict
   
   I think when you are done, that you will see that even with all of the legitimate questions and curiosities that Christianity has, it still is the most logical worldview out there. Also, I would encourage you to find churches outside of the Catholic church as the Catholic church keeps people in bondage. Try and find a solid baptist church. There is no perfect church, but we can find the perfection of love and holiness in Christ.
   
   Also, check out: http://answersforatheists.com/. This addresses many of the common questions and objections to Christianity from a very logical point of view.

By far, the only book I've ever read that makes a good case for theism without doing any of the stupid things evangelicals do (references to evolution, the Bible, etc) is The Last Superstition. It serves as an introduction to the thought of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and really shows how badly Dawkins' screwed up the arguments for the existence of God. From very reasonable starting principles, it argues up to God and immortal human soul with absolutely no reference to divine revelation, any specific religion (except two short pages where he explains how the resurrection could be defended). While it didn't turn me into a theist, it did give me some good food for thought and, quite frankly, I can no longer call theism irrational.

After that, try out Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig; it's considerably weaker than Feser's book, but I appreciate that Craig steers clear of any form of ID (in fact, his fine tuning argument may directly contradict it), and all five of his arguments for the existence of God are logically valid, which leaves you free to ponder over whether the premises are true or not.

Secondly, I would recommend checking out some of the individual arguments for theism, apart from any specific book. CS Lewis is weak IMO as an apologist for theism, but his argument from reason is interesting and worth thinking about. It is expanded in book form here by Vic Reppert. I also made a quickie infographic on it. I also recommend checking out the First Way of Aquinas (see my infographic), partially because it is a lot stronger than atheists seem to think, but MOSTLY to compare to Dawkins' treatment of it in The God Delusion, where you can hopefully clearly see that he hasn't bothered to actually look into it and his confirmation bias is now crystal clear to me.

Personally, I think there's a lot of garbage, namby-pamby advice in this thread.

As Venerable Fulton Sheen said, "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing."

If you believe the Catholic Faith is true, then presumably your end goal is their conversion. If it's not, it should be.

Perhaps the initial explanation won't go well. That's fine. Whatever happens, don't burn any bridges. Unfortunately, since it's today there's not much more prep you can do.

The best advice I can give is to come armed with what they think they know. Beyond the initial, emotional reaction, they will have arguments. Maybe not today, but they'll come. They already know what they're going to say. They already have their "Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon Talking Points" on a 3x5 index card (even if it's just a mental index card.) So what do you do? Surprise them. Steal their lines. Ask questions that they aren't expecting. Since you already know all of the anti-Catholic talking points, you are (hopefully) well prepared to counter them with clarity and charity, using Holy Scripture as your guide.

Also, remember you're not alone in this. LOTS of fantastic people have made this conversion. Here are a few book recs that are relevant.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism

Rome Sweet Home

Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic

Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church

I haven't read this one yet, but it also looks awesome. Dr. Brant Pitre also writes on this topic:

The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross

Sure. If you want scholarly resources on the resurrection, then I would suggest The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach by Licona. You can get it on Amazon for about $35 and it's a long read at 700+ pages.

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-New-Historiographical-Approach/dp/0830827196/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UCOAX5QZYQUY&keywords=the+resurrection+of+jesus+mike+licona&qid=1570211397&sprefix=the+resurrection+of+Jesus%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1

Another good scholarly resource is The Case For the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona. You can get it for about $13 dollars on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Resurrection-Jesus-Gary-Habermas/dp/0825427886/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0825427886&pd_rd_r=decfba9d-109a-4324-99c9-ba4523d42796&pd_rd_w=TIA6v&pd_rd_wg=EeKYx&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P&psc=1&refRID=WW1HBRRY8K7JV6EPDW3P

I would also suggest getting a general overview of the New Testament. Bart Ehrman is probably the world's leading skeptical scholar of the New Testament. His book on the New Testament, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament Writings, is a great resource and can be bought on Amazon for around $6.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0195126394/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=introduction+to+new+testament+ehrman&qid=1570211027&sr=8-6

Other books that I would strongly recommend would be:

Early Christian Writings. A short read at 200 pages. A catalog of some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. You can get it for $3 on Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Christian-Writings-Apostolic-Fathers/dp/0140444750/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=early+christian+writings&qid=1570212985&s=books&sr=1-1

The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content Bruce Metzger was one of the leading New Testament scholars of the 20th century. You can get it for $20.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7

The Fate of the Apostles, by McDowell. An in-depth study of how reliable the martyrdom accounts of the apostles are. A little bit pricey at $35-40.

https://www.amazon.com/Fate-Apostles-Sean-McDowell/dp/1138549134/ref=sr_1_1?crid=JBDB9MJMOVL8&keywords=the+fate+of+the+apostles&qid=1570212064&s=books&sprefix=the+fate+of+the+ap%2Cstripbooks%2C167&sr=1-1

Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, a 3rd century historian. Eusebius documents the history of Christianity from Jesus to about the 3rd century. You can get it for $10.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Background-Growth-Content/dp/1426772491/ref=pd_sbs_14_5/140-8576167-7556334?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1426772491&pd_rd_r=d83ca7e7-e9be-4da7-b3e8-3e5b6e143a27&pd_rd_w=AUNpT&pd_rd_wg=VLsLw&pf_rd_p=d66372fe-68a6-48a3-90ec-41d7f64212be&pf_rd_r=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7&psc=1&refRID=RESQKSAY5XYMKZ939JS7

I was raised Evangelical... converted to Catholic in adulthood. There are a number of books that I could recommend. Here are some of my favorites - in order of importance/preference.

Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (only the NT though, they are currently working on OT)

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Catholicism and Fundamentalism (written in the 80's, but still very relevant and the best Catholic apologetics book to defend the faith that I've ever read)

Works of G.K. Chesterton Vol 3 (This volume explains why he converted from Anglican to Catholic)

Rome Sweet Home

The Fathers Know Best

Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic

Surprised By Truth

I've always believed science proves God. People talk about nature like it's so chaotic and all by chance, when really it's too magnificent to have been an accident. The patterns in nature, the way everything has a purpose to keep the world turning, each animal and insect has its own place in the ecosystem. Circle of Life sort of thing, if that makes sense. Check out "The Language of God" by Francis Collins http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348164791&sr=1-1&keywords=the+language+of+god that pretty much shows what I mean. I've heard some people say "well why doesn't the Bible explain science then?" (I've heard this from both people who believe in science and not God and vice versa) And the answer is: try explaining Quantum Physics to early people. Damn near impossible. Anyways, someone else has recommended this book I just linked you as well, so you know it's a good one if multiple people suggest you read it. :)

Here are a few of the resources that have helped me:

https://biologos.org/
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Evolution-Do-Have-Choose/dp/0857215787
https://www.amazon.com/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348576&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=gunning+for+god&qid=1555348605&s=books&sr=1-2
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621
Also, I've visited a lot of different churches and have plenty of friends that are Christians. Seeing that Christians are so very different from JW's- many are well educated, intelligent, thinking people- with a faith that is extremely different from the JW belief system. They have this passion, sincerity and relationship with God that is the opposite of the legalistic JW cult.

I went through a similar phase in my life, and while I was worried about the fact that there wasn't enough scientific evidence for Christianity, I realized that I also didn't really have scientific evidence for most of anything I believed about morality or free will. And I didn't have a particularly good explanation for why the evidence points towards the universe having a moment of creation and why the universe appears to operate by a reliable set of rules. I realized that most of my life is not lived based on the confidence intervals required for scientific experiments, and I found I could very comfortably justify my faith based on my own life experiences, the testimony of others, and the historical evidence that does exist.

One book that helped me was [The Language of God] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744/ref=cm_lmf_tit_18) by Francis Collins (leader of the Human Genome Project and current director of the National Institutes of Health who became a Christian as an adult). Even if it doesn't convince you to become a Christian, it may help you better understand your girlfriend's faith and how it is compatible with science.

I too have been asking these questions. You will find most if not all of them answered at Catholic Answers. For example, here is one of the answers regarding infant baptism. There is also an article regarding infant baptism in the early church.

Here is an article on why Catholics ask for intercession from the Saints.

They also have a great You Tube channel that will answer just about any question you have.

You may be interested in the Ignatius Study Bible New Testament. It contains an Index of Doctrines in the appendix. For any given doctrine, they provide Biblical references and commentary regarding that doctrine. That alone should make this a must read for Protestants. It uses the Revised Standard Version.

There are many great resources that can answer your questions. I started with a video series called What Catholics Really Believe. There's an unrelated book by the same name as well.

Any book by Scott Hahn may be of interest. He was an ordained Presbyterian minister before he became Catholic.

Send me a message if you want any more info.

Another good book is Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic. It explains Catholic theology from the perspective of a fundamentalist Protestant convert.

Any book by Peter Kreeft would be good, but you may especially like his Handbook of Catholic Apologetics since it specifically answers the questions you are asking. Kreeft is a Catholic convert from Calvinism.

Bp. Barron provides a load of resources on his site Word on Fire. He has a You Tube channel as well.

There are many, many more resources, but this should get you started. I have been a Protestant all my life, but I've been studying Catholicism heavily for a few years. So far, all of my questions have been answered from resources available online.

Theistic evolution.

Frances Collins who headed the Human Genome Project, described his beliefs this way in an interview when asked the question "In your book, you say religion and science can coexist in one person's mind. This has been a struggle for some people, especially in terms of evolution. How do you reconcile evolution and the Bible?" Note: he wrote The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

>As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.
>
>It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.
>
>I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
>
>But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.
>
>
I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

Reference: 'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'

Aye. There are a lot of Reformed who see it the same way, actually. At least in my church back home, a larger PCA church, many of the older generations were pretty entrenched in a view of the Catholic church that was implied completely unity in doctrine across the board so as to say that every Catholic was not a Christian for various reasons.

Have you ever heard of the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic? You might recommend it to some friends. It describes the journey of someone who grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical tradition and through an honest exploration of the Catholic church and his own beliefs becomes Catholic. He wasn't Reformed, so in reading it there were many parts where he and I parted ways in our understanding of basics of the faith, however he comes from the generic non-Reformed evangelical tradition which is certainly larger than the Reformed tradition.

Jason Lisle - The Ultimate Proof For Creation - a great starter book on the subject and easier to read.

Then you have anything by Greg Bahnsen (Read/Listen to "The Great Debate" with Gordon Stein) or Cornelius Van Til (father of presup.).

5 Views of Apologetics is good as well - http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0310224764

I read your edit about becoming an evolutionary creationist. Welcome to the club! You should check out BioLogos, a friendly website for exploring the harmony of modern science and Christianity. I also recommend reading The Lost World of Genesis One, by John Walton, and The Language of God, by Francis Collins. They were super helpful for me when I started down the path you're on.

1. A large majority of books (whether Christian, atheist or some other belief) contain discussions of evidence, but the actual evidence is not contained in the book. You have to look outside of a book to confirm most evidence of any viewpoint. That being said, here's one book: http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631 Feel free to rip it to shreds and tell me why you think it's bunk, then demand another. We could play that game all day, but I don't have the time or the desire.
   
   
2. Of course opinion is not evidence. Nice story. ;)
   
   
3. I strongly suspect that you're guilty of having a viewpoint, then looking for supporting "evidence" as well. That's just typical human behavior. It may not be "a credible way to understand something", but it certainly has it's evolutionary advantages, doesn't it? ;)
   
   > you must consider it without bias
   
   If that is the requirement for having a valid viewpoint, you've just invalidated every living human being's viewpoint, including your own. No one is completely unbiased.

There are already tons of good responses, but "Letters to a Skeptic" is great

It's the published letters between Gregory Boyd (Yale educated theologian) and his father (an atheist). The beginning of the book starts with Boyd trying to coax his father into a religious discussion, to which his father responds with uncomfortableness and even a bit of mockery.

Since the ending is obvious, it doesn't seem like it would be balanced, but Boyd's father does an amazing job of asking direct questions and calling out his son when the answers are incomplete or dancing around the topic. To his credit, Boyd also manages to satisfy most questions without many cop-outs.

It's a silky-smooth read and not too long, so it's definitely on the list in my opinion. Not as dense as a lot if those you'll see in this thread.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1434799808

I'm a scientist, and I'm also religious, and there's a lot of interesting work on how religion and science are not mutually exclusive, and how scientific data can support the story of creation.

I believe that religion has no place in science, but for people who are scientists, who also happen to be religious, these ideas can be really helpful in balancing two worlds that on the surface may appear incompatible.

I recommend this book for anyone who is interested.

And I just want to clarify: These ideas are really just for people who might be interested in religion as well as science and don't want to dismiss either one. If that's not you, that's fine.

You mentioned in this thread that you were interested in WLC. There are several works that might be helpful to you:

Reasonable Faith

and if you have a lot of time

Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Craig and Moreland, but includes a large collection of topics from many modern philosophers)

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Craig and Moreland)

Again, these last two are rather extensive, but you may find them to be useful if you're interested in the philosophical/scientific aspects of Christianity. Hope this helps!

I highly recommend Peter Kreeft's Handbook of Catholic Apologetics for doubts about God's existence and such (or even the truth of Christianity). Another great book to meet atheist arguments is in William Lane Craig's book, Reasonable Faith. Craig isn't Catholic, but he does a great job tackling complex arguments. (Also, he does say some nonsense against the doctrine of Divine Simplicity and there may be other problems, but having read the work its largely free from errors of the faith.)

For tackling Protestant questions, I highly recommend Catholic Answers', The Essential Catholic Survival Guide, which defends major doctrines and provides Scripture and Tradition all over its pages. I also recommend my website for these sorts of questions as well. Cough cough.

1. Your point about God creating a young earth that looks old is theological. Sure, it's possible, but it's not a scientific position (and it's theologically dubious as well, because God isn't a liar or a deceiver)
   
2. My point was that young earth creationism is actually a falsifiable scientific theory. Unlike evolutionary theory.
   
3. You didn't address my point about the basis for finding that "it just makes sense" that this data points to common descent. This is not a scientific question at all, it is purely philosophical.
   
4. I think most of the examples you gave of ways to falsify evolutionary theory have actually been found. Epigenetics addresses point 1. Irreducible complexity addresses point 3 (small changes are advantageous at the margins, but changes to systems are extremely problematic).http://www.lehigh.edu/bio/pdf/Behe/QRB_paper.pdf. Point 5 is just axiomatic, and it would defy logic to refute it. The fossil record addresses point 6, since it shows that small changes over time have not actually resulted in large-scale evolution.
   
5. Punctuated equilibrium has the serious problems that the earlier saltationist theories had: it defies what we know about genetics. Dawkins in particular is very critical of their theory, and thinks the gaps are just gradual changes that didn't get picked up in the fossils.
   
6. Behe has several peer-reviewed articles. I cited the one above, and here is another one showing the problems of evolution producing large-scale change by iterations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/.
   
7. I think I would be close to Hugh Ross' theory of old earth progressive creation. This seems to bets fit the evidence available from all disciplines. It acknowledges what we know from the social sciences and philosophy, that humans are of a different order of intelligence from animals, and therefore must have been specially created or purposely evolved with a created soul and spirit. It also acknowledges what we see in the fossils, which would contradict a reading of Genesis as referring to literal 24-hour days, or day-ages, and instead advocates the days as orders of creation (again fitting what we see in the social sciences and philosophy). It acknowledges what we observe in biology, namely natural selection on the body of genetic information present at creation, with possible minor modifications based on mutations (i.e. sickle-cell trait).http://www.amazon.com/More-Than-Theory-Revealing-Testable/dp/0801014425

Your library might have this book. It looks legit. A workbook like this might be a good idea, too.

Also, for geometry: https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/khan_academy.pdf

Good luck! You're awesome in my eyes for teaching math when it isn't your strong suit.

I love Ravi Zacharias and Timothy Keller.

I've read this book that gives five different views on appologetics:

http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Apologetics-Steven-Cowan/dp/0310224764

Here are the 5 apologists from the book:

William Lane Craig (PhD, University of Birmingham, England) is research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University and lives in Marietta, GA.

Gary Habermas (PhD, Michigan State University) is distinguished professor and chair of the department of philosophy and director of the MA program in apologetics at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Paul D. Feinberg, (ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary) was professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Dr. John Frame serves as J.D. Trimble Chair of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, Florida.

Kelly James Clark (PhD, Notre Dame) is associate professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Richard Dawkins is actually a very good writer and very challenging, but from a scientific point of view.

Christopher Hitchens is also very good, a very entertaining writer and speaker. He comes from a philosophical, historical and theological point of view.

But...

Who you SHOULD be reading to counter their view is Hitchen's cancer doctor, Francis Collins. He wrote the book I'm reading on now, "The Language of God."

READ THIS BOOK!
http://www.amazon.com/The-Language-God-Scientist-Presents/dp/1416542744

He's heard every scientific and philosophical argument against God, and writes about them here.

Collins is highly respected by the "New Atheists," and writes a really good book!

As a Catholic, I agree that we should read what the other side has to say. My concern with Richard Dawkins is that he's a great scientist but a notoriously bad philosopher. Even a lot of atheist philosophers skewer him.

If science is your jam, I encourage you too look into the work of Fr. Robert Spitzer, a Catholic priest who has deeply studied astrophysics. You can find a lot of his talks on YouTube. He also has a book attempting to prove the existence of God based on recent developments in astrophysics: https://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833

I also encourage you the read Fides et ratio by Pope John Paul II which is a letter to the Church outlining the relationship between faith and reason (especially in response to some of the new scientific developments occurring during his pontificate): http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

I'm sort of trying to get a homework assignment done so I can't really give a detailed answer. But really, some of your questions are better answered by books as opposed to reddit answers. I'll recommend a few that argue for the Catholic or conservative perspective. I'm not name dropping these books so you can read all of them, but if you want in depth answers to your questions this is what you should read.

Gay marriage: https://www.amazon.com/What-Marriage-Man-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313854&sr=1-3&keywords=what+is+marriage

Abortion: https://www.amazon.com/Persuasive-Pro-Life-Cultures-Toughest/dp/1941663044/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313881&sr=1-1&keywords=Persuasive+pro+life

General Theism: https://www.amazon.com/Answering-Atheism-Make-Logic-Charity/dp/1938983432/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313922&sr=1-6&keywords=Trent+horn

There's also Edward Feser's 5 proof for the existence of God which I haven't read but I'm sure is good. Feser's a former atheist and currently a philosophy professor so he's pretty solid.

General History of Catholicism (and arguably, deals with faith vs science issues): https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549313995&sr=1-1&keywords=How+the+Catholic+Church+built+western+civilization

A book you would really get a kick out of as a biochemistry student: https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549314047&sr=1-1&keywords=the+language+of+God

Francis Collins is the former head of the NIH and is the scientist who lead the project to decode the human genome. He's also a convert to Christianity from atheism.

Personally, I really like the book Reasonable Faith which discusses this topic and others, but for more information specifically about the Euthyphro dilemma, see the author's discussion here.

Edit: Craig's book God Over All deals specifically in great depth with divine aseity and basis for the grounding of objective moral values and duties in God, rather than platonic abstracts.

Check out Dr. Brant Pitre's [The Case for Jesus] (https://www.amazon.com/Case-Jesus-Biblical-Historical-Evidence/dp/0770435483) and Nabeel Qureshi's books [Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus] (https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236) and [No God but One: Allah or Jesus?] (https://www.amazon.com/God-but-One-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310522552/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=RQKED6JFR7154CQFB370)

As for Bible difficulties, Trent Horn's [Hard Sayings] (https://www.amazon.com/Hard-Sayings-Catholic-Answering-Difficulties/dp/1941663745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492022538&sr=8-1&keywords=hard+sayings).

Also give [this] (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-great-and-enduring-heresy-of-mohammed) and [this] (https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/asking-the-right-question-about-islams-god). You can also browse that site, as it will help.


Christianity rises or falls on the resurrection. Start [here] (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm) and [here] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErnJF_nwBk&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B) for some info on it; NT Wright has a book on it that is supposed to be good but I haven't read it.

I understand that there might not be many Christians in your area, but you might want to find a local parish priest and talk to him. He can give you a lot of advice. Also, feel free to PM me as I am also a convert (not from Islam, however).

Not so much. I have read the King James and Gideon Bibles. Been to 6 or 7 different churches over the years. Read several other books on where the bible came from and what it's about and this just recently. That is an educated opinion of mine. Just taking something on faith is like a blind from birth person telling you how beautiful the blue sky is. I entered the searching faise of my life threw the need of an answer. And after looking at what the bible is, the directional base of the Christian faith. I found it be undeniably fiction. Look for yourself. I challenge you.

For the record. My SO that I plan to marry is a practicing Christian. I don't hate or dislike any groups of people as a whole. Just am weary of the fact that people of faith do not think for themselves as a whole.

Long life to you and yours!

Unclean by Richard Beck

The Language of God by Dr. Francis Collins

The Lost World of Genesis One by John H. Walton

Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making by Paul D. Simmons

The Authenticity of Faith by Richard Beck

Beyond The Firmament by Gordon J. Glover

All of these were required reads for me as I pursued a biology degree at a Christian university. I hope these help, and I wish you the best! If you have any questions about any of the books, please feel free to ask!!

Here's a good start: [I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist](
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615).

I too was raised Lutheran, and I too am a man of science, logic, fact. I've been convinced by the evidence and do not struggle with trust in God.

There is hard evidence out there, ie: Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"

And in the philosophic and scientific origins cases in the first book I linked. What also compels me is the case against biogenesis. I have never been able to accept the agnostic argument for how life arises from non-life. Most accept it on the basis of materialism, but materialism is an unproved assertion. And knowing something about chemistry and the function of even the simplest cells, there's no way life can come from the primordial soup they want to imagine it came from.

I also recommend Classic Christianity to escape many of the doctrinal errors you, like me, were likely raised in via Lutheranism (ie: in and out of fellowship via sin, etc.).

Anyway, good luck with your quest for truth. You'll find answers.

Thanks for the advice. I understand what you are saying, but we are both coming from a position where we have a need for mutual understanding. It is her desire to better understand what I think and vice versa.

She actually opened the topic by suggesting I read

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

she also said she would be willing to read anything I suggest.

EDIT: I think I am Dyslexic I always put the "(" on the text and the "[" on the link!

May I recommend a book you might find interesting? It's called The Language of God by Francis S. Collins. He is a prominent scientist and was head of the Human Genome Project. You can pick it up used with free shipping for $5 on Amazon.

Mathew 24:24-25
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

As for texts, I recommend starting here, I loved it.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236

Once you finish, feel free to message me / comment here on any questions on any of the stuff read in it or elsewhere in your journey.

You didn't write very much, so this is a shot in the dark. Please disregard if this isn't true. You seem to want to be convinced. Frankly, I don't think its anyones job to convert or convince you. This should be your decision, based on your decisions and research. Your post comes across as intellectually lazy. You also seem to want this to be a religious experience ("want to be Atheist") with some sort of conversion. I don't think thats the way to go, making a decision based on some feeling.

Now that I got that out of the way, here is a brief overview of my story. I am a new unbeliever. What started me down this path was realizing that god is never there. He calls himself a father, husband, and brother, but he is never there. I was going through a hard time and I would ask for him to show himself to me like he did to Moses or Elijah or Paul or Ezekiel or Joshua or Gideon or Stephen. I didn't want the hard times to end, I just wanted to have a conversation with him. I wanted to see him and talk to him. I wanted a father. Can you honestly imagine a human father treating their kids like god has treated humanity? CPS would show up and put him in prison for extreme neglect. I started seriously doubting gods existence.

I thought that emotions are not always a great indicator, so I looked into the historical evidence for the resurrection. Go for the heart of the matter. I watched several debates and the Christian arguments didn't come close to standing up under the scrutiny. Here is a list of the debates I watched:

• Licona vs Carrier
  
• Licona vs Ehrman
  
• Craig vs Ehrman (transcript here)
  
• Craig vs Parsons
  
  I should say that I watched these videos after I had read Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Habermas and Licona, so I was familiar with the theistic side of the debate. I was actually mostly convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, but to be intellectually fair I wanted to hear what the other side said. The other side convinced me.
  
  

If you, like me, come from the American Evangelical or Fundamentalist tradition, I recommend the book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie. He is very fair in his descriptions of Evangelical and Catholic teaching and is a great description of his journey which you may find yours mirroring.

If you're interested, I would recommend reading The Language of God by Francis Collins.

Dr. Collins is the current director of the National Institutes of Health; his instrumental work on the Human Genome Project was arguably one of the most important biomedical advances in the last few decades. He is also a devout Catholic, and his book helped me realize that what we know about God and what we know about science are perfectly compatible with each other.

There is an extremely good book by Simmons. It's very well-written, short, and has Simmons special touch to it:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1592441300/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_XPG9AbMK7R8KC

Simmons is an extremely good writer. I'd also recommend to check Lang's Basic Mathematics.

Hey, no need to promise beforehand to be convinced by them. :) Of course, if you read either of those books and are still interested, Pascal's writings themselves are obviously a good next step. Pensees.

I can recommend some very good books that show scientific proof and some with historical proof.

The Language of God is written by Dr Francis Collins. Dr Collins is the head of the human genome project aka the project that mapped the whole human genome. His book reconciles faith and science and shows why the do not have to be exclusive. He is a world renowned and recognized scientist. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

The Case for Christ is written by Lee Strobel. Strobel is an award winning journalist. He was an atheist and set out to prove that Christ was not the son of God nor did he really exist. The book shows all the historic evidence that he found. https://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

If you are searching for proof than I recommend reading both of these books.

I also challenge you to critically read the Bible and think of what it is saying and meaning. When the gospel was being spread and Christianity was taking root many people were still alive who witnessed the things recorded.l, but seriously don't take my word for it investigate it yourself.

Yeah, I'll second that book too. As you said, very short and very dense. He has a whole rap about how he's been teaching trig for decades and he can't figure out why they insist on making it an entire-semester course when he can teach it in an hour. Pretty cool book, but, man, do you ever have to sit down and crunch out the material on your own. Kudos to you!

By the way here's the Amazon link.

Perhaps this book will help? Nabeel Qureshi is a former Muslim and a very intellectually honest person as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Seeking-Allah-Finding-Jesus-Christianity/dp/0310527236

I had a nice book called Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell but it is not geared to starting from scratch. It's a good book if you remember some of your algebra, geometry, and trigonometry.

I've known some people who had good experiences with Practical Algebra

I have been atheist my whole life and am currently waist deep in reading Christian apologetics.

Lee Strobel has some fantastic books (Case for Faith is great, haven't read Case for Christ yet) and I'm currently reading Evidence for Christianity. He has two actual books on the topic and they're merged into this giant creature that reads more like lecture notes, but I like it so far. I'm very early on though.

Here's hoping rms becomes the patron saint of eating toe gunk.

Feser sounds like a good choice. If he's all about "le science" the book "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" looks good, although I've only read a very small part of it and got distracted and moved on with life.

Privileged planet

https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-John-Rhys-Davies/dp/B0002E34C0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1485725348&sr=8-2&keywords=privileged

Signature in the cell

https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Controversy-Responses-Critics-Cell/dp/0979014182/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1485725571&sr=8-3&keywords=signature+in+the+cell

Gunning for God

https://www.amazon.ca/Gunning-God-Atheists-Missing-Target/dp/0745953220

God's Undertaker

https://www.amazon.ca/Gods-Undertaker-Has-Science-Buried/dp/0745953719

https://www.amazon.com/Wonder-World-Journey-Modern-Science/dp/0972347313/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

The Wonder of the world- one of the books that changed Antony Flew from an outspoken Atheist to a diest.

I recommend these to start, if you are genuinely interested that is.

I'm gonna put in a shameless self-promotion for Catholic Word of the Day to get you up-to-speed on some of our vocabulary (along with some trivia).

But also check out Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers for some basic stuff. Bishop Robert Barron also produces good content, as does Fr. Roderick Vonhogen.

Also, check out Rome Sweet Home by Dr. Hahn and Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David Currie.

But also, ask us around here your specific questions! We love answering questions from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

I'm both a Christian and a PhD-carrying scientist. There are answers to the supposed discrepancies between the Bible and science with each individual "discrepancy" requiring its own response (i.e. there's not a blanket answer (such as "it's all figurative") for all them them). Reasonably good answers to many of the more common "the Bible and science are at odds" types of questions can be found here. This website doesn't have definitive answers by any means, but it is a nice place to start.

Also, if you're looking for a more "qualified" source than some internet website, the book The Language of God by Francis Collins (current director of the NIH - National Institute of Health) is a nice perspective from a top-level scientist who is also a Christian.

You should definitely check out The Language of God by Francis Collins. The guy was the director of the human genome project and is a believer in both evolution and God. Basically, science cannot prove nor disprove God OR atheism, because the mode of science is the natural laws (time, gravity, etc), and if God is supernatural then he exists outside of such laws. We cannot "test" for a creator.

The point is that Stephen Meyer is not an expert in any field of biology. Francis Collins is a Christian scientist who was heavily involved with the Human Genome Project when they were working on sequencing the entire human genome for the first time and is a reputable scholar among the scientific community as well as the current director of the National Institutes of Health. He published a book called The Language of God in 2007 which presents the case for evolution and its implications from a Christian perspective, in case you'd be interested in reading why the heck any scientist would accept as fact that you can trace your lineage back to a common ancestor with a strawberry. Evolution is not an intuitive concept without a decent understanding of the biological evidences that support it.

BioLogos - emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and life

Check out the BioLogos Foundation's website, which has many great works by world renowned scientists. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and current director of the NIH, founded it following the publication of his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

I love what everyone is saying here.

Science and faith are entirely compatible. Science is studying how the world works. If you believe in a deity, then science is studying what that deity created.

For a Christian perspective on this, I recommend Francis Collin’s book The Language of God. Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health in the US and was (one of) the leading scientists on the human genome project.

This book seems to have pretty good reviews

and this may also prove useful as well.

1. Go on Amazon, get a previous edition pre-calculus book, and work through the problems.
   
   https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/0495392766/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&condition=all
   
   
2. Also on Amazon 'Pre-calculus in a Nutshell'
   
   https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1592441300/
   
   
3. Khan Academy
   
   https://www.khanacademy.org/math/precalculus
   
   But, I assure you, you'll almost certainly have better luck in a structured class.