How to argue with a philosopher

I have been usually unable to convince the confirmed skeptic (like professor Muhrer at Penn Valley and his Eupraxophy Center in KC, or the atheist author Gordon Stein whom I debated at KU). There is a simple reason for that: I can't help someone be more skeptical. I mean, as a believer, the whole goal of God using my life is to create faith in others. That means he is not very interested in me "seeing it their way." But one thing I can do is click my purple pen and get the skeptic to think.

First, do they really want to argue about the Christian God, the God of the Bible? Okay then, but "ye know not what ye ask." Because your first objection is going to be "why did God . . ." or, "why didn't he . . ." or, "how come it's not okay for . . .".

Wait, hold it. You said you wanted to talk about the God of the Bible, the Christian God (not "America's Idol"). And the God of the Bible is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and unchanging. Let me break it down for you. God is good . . . all the time; all the time . . . God is good.

See, the God of the Bible, because he is all-knowing and all-seeing, and so infinite that he is personal, is never unloving or unkind. How’d you miss that, all these years? Because that means he has never done anything that is. That means nothing that has ever happened to you was (which is called providence—sort of like divine serendipity).

Don't run away just because you don't know really what serendipity is. The bottom line is that if you want to talk about the biblical God (the one real Christianity proclaims), then you are talking about a God that knows some things you don't. So when you ask, "Why did he kill the whole population of this planet (minus eight persons) with a flood?" you don't recognize he did that because it was the most merciful thing that could have been done. You missed that so let me repeat it. If God had not done that very thing at that precise time with those particular people, you and I would not be here today having this conversation (Ps 14:2-4). Oh, and by the way, don't criticize the God of the Bible if you don't want to accept his explanations for what he does (Gen 6:5). Either it was as bad as all that (Ps 53:2-4), or else you don't know how bad it was and have to guess that it wasn't. As for God's part, he does not rely on second-hand evidence, but examines the situation personally before he acts (Gen 18:20-21; 11:5). (P.S. That's the good thing about immutability: you can count on God's consistency.)

"Antedeluvia" was God being totally hands-off with the human race. You cannot say they were ignorant of what he wanted (after all, they had a "Billy Graham," 2 Pet 2:5). Neither can you say that God did not place a witness among them all the way up to (and including) Methuselah (consistent with his actions later, Isa 66:4; Jer 4:14). Sending the flood was a merciful act of God to preserve his creation so that he could start all over with a more "hands-on" approach that begins with Noah, isolates Abraham, and eventuates in Jesus. And of course, you know what the Bible says HE did.

But, if your goal is to stay confirmed in your skepticism, I can't help you with that. No good at it. Instead, I would recommend an antidote for your hopeless despair. (Ouch! Sorry, but sometimes you have to give people the answer. Kind of like asking, "How's that working for you?")

In the book How Do You Know You're Not Wrong? Paul Copan (Ph.D. Marquette and a Chair of Philosophy and Ethics in FL) takes all the typical slogans of skeptics (most things that stump Christians are really just slogans), and shines his spotlight on them to make you think. The book was published a couple of years ago by Baker (ISBN: 0801064996). Complaints about Christianity can be answered by simple appeals to truth. Some of the difficulties he handles with discretion are:

"Naturalism is a simpler explanation than theism." Yeah, right!
"You can't prove that scientifically." Let's try.
"Animals have rights just like you do." Well, okay, allow him at least one throwaway chapter.
"How could God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?" Good question. Do you know?
"Why is the Old Testament so harsh and oppressive?" Better get the book. I don't want to give away the storyline.
"It's unfair that humans are punished for Adam's sin." Really? I thought we were just suffering the consequence of his choice as our representative head. Besides, I'm not sure you're punished for anybody's sin but your own. But if you do want to look at it that way, maybe you should consider that the sin God sends you to hell for is really just your rejection of the remedy he provides. If you die because you will not swallow the medicine the pharmacist dispenses, do you blame the doctor? I trow not. But then, maybe some of us are not so much different than the gents in Gen 6 after all.

His other book, That's Just Your Interpretation is also food for thought. Don’t read it unless you want to be (de)convinced.