Help Please?

[A]

Some time ago, I got into a debate with someone about proving the Christian God of the Bible. It went somewhere like this:

Me: Logic is the way everyone should think, because there is no action in this world that does not require logic. The question is, since we all must operate by logic, how do we justify living by the laws of logic? The Christian worldview is the only worldview that can justify the laws of logic, therefore the Christian God of the Bible exists.
Person X: All right, I believe in a God that is omnipotent, that is unchanging, and cannot lie just like yours, therefore the god I believe in is real. That means God lied and Christianity cannot be true.

Also, look at these please:
Person Y: You can disprove Hinduism, Catholicism, Islam, but what about every other worldview? You did not prove that every other worldview is wrong, so you can't convince anyone based on your argument.

Person Z: You say that The Christian presupposition can justify universal laws of logic, because you worship a universal God. The Christian God of the Bible cannot contradict Himself because He cannot lie as shown from these following verses:
God is not a man, that he should lie;(from Numbers 23:19)
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;(from Titus 1:2)

How can you justify the laws of logic using nothing but the unrelated remarks above?

Can anyone help me?

[Jeanne]

Again, Nathaniel, it's not your job to convince anyone of anything. All you need to do is present the truth; if people want to accept it, fine. If they don't, that's not your problem. We are not called to get into debates with people who ask endless questions.

1 Timothy 1:4 neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

The Holy Spirit is the One who will do the convincing if that is to be done at all. You also need to closely examine your motives; are you truly wanting to see these people saved or are you just trying to win an argument?

[creationliberty]

You can try to convince people to come to Christ by their own intellect, or you can convince them to come to Christ in the way the Bible instructs:
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
-Gal 3:24

[A]

So, let's say I tell people about the ten commandments.
Then, if a person acknowledges that he has broken them, I can then say that he has no right to continue living on this Earth, and that anyone can die immediately, so the only options left for such a person are to choose to be saved from hell, or to remain as he is and suffer in Hell eternally.

So, what if the person does not acknowledge God's laws -  if I ask whether it is alright to murder someone or rape someone, the person simply responds by saying I don't know whether it's right or wrong or the person simply says yes to anything wrong(according to God's laws) and mentions that everything is permitted even if you harm others?(remember Crowley?)
Any ideas?(Since attempting to convince someone via the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God is going nowhere, but people still may want to debate it)

[Jeanne]

Why are you continuing to debate with these people in the first place? Jesus told His disciples that if anyone would not hear their message, to shake the dust off their feet and move on.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Mark 6:11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luke 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Don't waste your time with people who don't want to listen!

[creationliberty]

Why are you continuing to debate with these people in the first place? Jesus told His disciples that if anyone would not hear their message, to shake the dust off their feet and move on.

That's not a complete answer.

Rather, it would be better to say:

"If what you are saying is true, and that they say 'I don't know whether it's right or wrong', then you answer them how Jesus answered His opposition:"
And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.
-Mark 11:28-33
"What these men were attempting to do was avoid having to be held accountable for their words and actions, and by their own reason, they knew they were guilty, but because they would not reason with Jesus, Jesus would not reason with them, as it would have been a waste of time. Since atheists do not have an answer, and they do not know what they are talking about, then all that proves is that atheism has no answers and is unreasonable -- wish them a great day and end the discussion."

I would say, if you want to continue to talk with those atheists who will not give an account for their beliefs, then that is YOUR decision; not a Biblical mandate. If you want to continue discussion with unreasonable (i.e. foolish) people, then come up with your own responses and stop pleading with us to help you waste your time with them; we are here to discuss the doctrine and philosophy of Christ, not to give you a response for every sentence spoken by an atheist.

[Jeanne]

If you want to continue discussion with unreasonable (i.e. foolish) people, then come up with your own responses and stop pleading with us to help you waste your time with them; we are here to discuss the doctrine and philosophy of Christ, not to give you a response for every sentence spoken by an atheist.

Thank you, Chris! I thought about telling him pretty much the same thing as I am really getting tired of all these useless questions and I am losing my patience.

[anvilhauler]

The only use in talking to atheists who refuse to think is to use them as practice for talking with others at a later time who might peradventure listen and understand what they are being told.  All of that though is something that one has to do themselves and formulating answers to the nonsense the atheists bring up is something learned over time and through personal understanding. 

At least in a discussion with an atheist everyone else gets to hear the gospel message when they might otherwise not and they get to hear in a very calm and logical manner atheism being stamped in to the ground. 

[A]

Thanks everyone,
To be honest, I gave a presentation about the Transcendental Argument for the existence of the Christian God of the Bible that time, and one of the audience decided to have a debate with me right there and then. I still am not sure how to respond to certain arguments, especially the one where he said "let's say I believe in a god that can account for logic like yours...."(you can see the argument in the first post so I won't waste your time) Well he might still believe that an atheistic worldview can be true and maybe that faith is different from confidence in the element that faith is blind....all of it thanks to a "great education system" called the International Baccalaureate which if i'm not wrong teaches relativism.

Well, so to convert someone to Christ, I first ought to give the person the ten commandments.

So I can ask things like is it wrong to murder that person across the room? If I'm not wrong, most people will say no. Then I can mention, why it is wrong, and say that we all ought to love the Lord God by keeping his commandments and that we ought to treat others as we want to be treated ourselves. But as a matter of fact, all of us have broken it and have forfeited our right to live, therefore we can either go to Hell for all eternity or repent[have Godly sorrow] and be saved.

So about people who say I don't know whether it's right or wrong, I can say "on what basis do you affirm that? Something is either right or wrong to do after all." Am I right?

-> Relativists: "What is true for you is not true for me."" There is no absolute truth."
----> Reply:If you say that it is true only for me that relativism is false, then
1.I am believing something other than relativism; namely, that relativism is false.  If that is true, then how can relativism be true?
2.Am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?
If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism (within me) holds the position that relativism is false.
If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.
If you say it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true since it states that all views are equally valid; and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.

But what about:
Person X: I honestly haven't thought of such an issue before. Please justify God's law for me. Prove to me that the Christian God of the Bible exists.

Then what about those who say "no" to everything I throw at them?
What about this:
Person Y: Everything is permitted, including murder, because it's my choice. It's up to me.

Anyway, if posts like this aren't welcome, it's fine by me, I can stop.

[Jeanne]

It's not that this subject in general is offensive; it's the fact that you keep asking the same questions over and over again. If you're trying to win an argument, then you need to do your own research and come up with your own answers instead of constantly looking to us to answer them for you. We are not here to win your arguments for you.

You keep coming here every time a new question pops up and that needs to stop. We've given you the tools on how to think for yourself; we're not going to do your thinking for you.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

[creationliberty]

Jeanne, that's not correct. That's not the reason there is a problem. What you just did was tell everyone that no one can come here and ask questions because if you apply what you just said philosophically, it destroys the very purpose of this forum. The problem is that, over the years, Nathan has been given many answers to questions he has repeatedly asked. We give him an answer, then he shows back up a few weeks or months later, and asks the same questions again. That's the problem. In short, the Bible's answer to his debates with atheists is NOT sufficient for him, and that's why he keeps coming back; he wants to go down the endless rabbit hole of their circular reasoning with them. If he wants to do that, that's his business, but I'm tired of answering the same questions to the same person over and over and over.

[madonnajean]

AMEN!