Apologetics and Evidence

It is fairly common for a religion of the world to give itself a sort of test for truth, since this is one question that is asked of any religion: “Why should I believe what you are telling me is true?” After all, the answer to such a question will ultimately result in followers of specific beliefs and doctrines, let alone religions, or will result in a lack of followers.  If a religion can answer this question posed by seekers and thinkers, and therefore train its adherents to be able to answer why a religion is true, this will inevitably help people believe in such, even if the claims are false. If there is no answer, this is where a religion will perhaps find more trouble for itself.  Many religions make an appeal to a higher authority, namely,  God , for the veracity of their existence and as a result, no one can question the truth from such an authority. This is correct in a sense, that  if in fact God is making such a claim, then what is said or stated is true ...

You may have heard of the phrase,   Classical Apologetics , from studying under people such as, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Norman Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, B.B. Warfield, R. C. Sproul, and others, and perhaps you wondered what it means.   Classical Apologetics is one method of doing apologetics… I personally like to think that it is classical for a reason. Some other methods of doing apologetics are first,  Presuppositionalism , which is that a person presupposes that God exists, and that the reason that a person does not believe in God is because he does not believe the Bible is the word of God. The issue is that from an unbeliever’s perspective, this is circular reasoning. It emphasizes revelation as opposed to reason.  Another method of apologetics is  Evidentialism , which is essentially to follow the evidence where it leads and using this evidence to support Christian claims. Sometimes people refer to it as being a subtype as Classical Apolo...