All arguments for God's existence derive from assumptions, and assumptions are shaped by life experience. Ultimately, then, arguments for God's existence are only as reliable as the experiences and the accurate, arbitrary, and false perceptions that inform them. The concept of "proof" is rooted in formal logic, which is based on conclusions that are validly deduced from premises, which are themselves unprovable. So at the outset, we need to drop the word "proof" in favor of the psychological terms like "persuasive.," convincing," and "self-authenticating experiences."
As for me, I would not be a Christian today, if I had to rely just on apologetic arguments for creation, the resurrection, etc. Rather, I am a Christian because of a series of self-authenticating spiritual and paranormal experiences at pivotal moments in my life that seem decisively incompatible with a non-theistic universe. If requested, I can start a new thread sharing all these experiences.
As for me, I would not be a Christian today, if I had to rely just on apologetic arguments for creation, the resurrection, etc. Rather, I am a Christian because of a series of self-authenticating spiritual and paranormal experiences at pivotal moments in my life that seem decisively incompatible with a non-theistic universe. If requested, I can start a new thread sharing all these experiences.
Last edited: