The Purpose of Man (Pieces to a Puzzle)

The Purpose of Man (Pieces to a Puzzle)

     Man was made to have a relationship with God. That is why Christ died in order to reconcile man and God's relationship as He ushered in His Kingdom. That is why our Messiah said that the greatest command is to love the Lord with our whole selves (Mark 12:29-30). We are, essentially, an avenue for God's attributes to be greatened. Through His relationship with man, God's love, mercy, justice, power, and glory are magnified. This is the purpose of man. 

     I've written previously on how our innate desire is to become our own god. So many religions and even naturalism aspire to this standing for man. That was Satan's fall, wanting to be like the Most High (Isaiah 14:13-14). That was man's fall, desiring to be like God (Genesis 3:5). We aspire for our own greatness and our own downfall is all that ensues. So, when I first started to understand my purpose I felt trapped. I felt like I was forced to submit to an authority when I desired to be the authority. However, setting aside my pride and my ego I was able to see how beautifully I was created and the fulfillment I found in submitting to God. Two images came to my mind in this moment. The first is of a light bulb. The lightbulb's purpose is to illuminate, however in and of itself the lightbulb cannot do so. It must first be plugged in to a current. I imagine ourselves to be like the lightbulb and God to be the battery with His love being the wires. God loves us, and we in turn love Him back. We love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). The second illustration is that of a puzzle piece. The puzzle piece as it stands alone is incomplete and incapable of being of any real significance. However, a part of the puzzle it plays a vital role in the completing of the puzzle. I akin man to the puzzle piece and the puzzle as God's plan. See, both the lightbulb and the puzzle piece are worthless on their own and cannot stand, however by being a part of the system they were designed for, that is where they find purpose. That is where they find fulfillment. Just like man. What a beautiful thing. What a beautiful plan to be apart of. Thank God that He chose us to play a role in His grand masterpiece. 

Are They the Same God?

Are They the Same God?

I had an interesting discussion with a group of Muslims and Christians. They claimed the Christian and Muslim gods are the same. Their rationale was that "Allah" is the Arabic word for "God." While this is true, that doesn't equate the Muslim god to the Christian god. Just like the Deist god, the Jewish god, and the Christian god are not the same though they all claim the name "God." This is where I'm sure I've lost your support by now, so allow for me to explain. In this discussion, I claimed that the Christian and Muslim gods cannot be the same for they have separate characteristics (all loving, not all loving, triune, single-personed, etc.). Similarly, the Jewish god and the Deist god are single-personed, making them fundamentally different than the Christian god, philosophically speaking. Allow me to draw an illustration. Let's say that I am talking of my friend Stephen and I say Stephen is 6'2" tall, while you maintain that he is in fact 5'10" tall. I say that I know for a fact that Stephen is so tall while you say that you know for a fact that he is so tall. Philosophically speaking, we are talking about 2 separate Stephens; for a single Stephen cannot possess the characteristics of being both 5'10" and 6'2", this is simply incoherent. However, it is quite plausible that one (or both) of us has (have) a misrepresentation of the true Stephen. Similarly, the gods of the monotheistic faiths (Deism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) from a philosophical standpoint cannot be the same entity; however, it is entirely possible that 3 (or 4) of the views of God are misrepresentations of the one true God. This is the position that I hold. So I'll leave you by asking, are they the same God?

Quick Response to "Quick Response to 10 Common Theist Arguments"

Quick Response to "Quick Response to 10 Common Theist Arguments"

I recently read an atheist article that gives 10 popular arguments for theism and then refutes them. I want to briefly address them here but will not go into much detail as these are clearly straw men and I can't think of any theist that would argue such claims.  

"Science can't explain the complexity and order of life; God must have designed it to be this way." - This is the God of the gaps idea where anytime something is unexplainable the theist would point to God and say "we don't know why, so therefore God." This is a caricature  of theism and almost no theist would make such a claim. However this "argument" seems to touch upon the teleological, or fine tuning argument, which says that the fine tuning of this universe for life is due to either chance, necessity, or design. The theist would then argue why it is not due to chance or necessity, therefore proving it must be design. The complexity of life is one argument that could be used to refute mere chance. 

"God's existence is proven by scripture." - Come on, do you think any theist would argue God's existence to an atheist based on "The Bible says so"?...

"Some unexplained events are miraculous, and these miracles prove the existence of God." - In the refutation, the writer makes two claims. One is that miracles can't occur which begs the question for atheism, the second is that something might seem miraculous but that's just because science hasn't yet been able to explain it. This seems like the very "God of the gaps" idea it mocks above, only this time it is "science of the gaps". Claiming "we don't know how something happened, but science will prove it." 

"Morality stems from God, and without God, we could not be good people." - Here the difference must be made between where morals come from and how we come to know morals (moral ontology and epistemology). It is true that objective morality can only come from a god, but that doesn't mean you must believe in Him to have such morals. Scripture even says that He has written His law on their hearts (Romans 2:15). Without God though it is true that we could not be good people, for there would not be good or bad! Only different. 

"Belief in God would not be so widespread if God didn’t exist." - Anyone can look at any widespread belief and say such a thing, no one would honestly argue this as a case for theism. 

"God answers prayers; therefore, he must be real." - This one's interesting, as well as the next one. This is how we might KNOW God exists, however this isn't how we can SHOW God exists. Answers to prayer in my own life help solidify my faith but it can never be used as an evangelistic tool. Also the fact that not all prayers are answered doesn't undercut God. For if one prayer is truly answered (and not something that would have naturally occurred anyways) then that is enough evidence for God. However this can never be proved or disproved seeing how we could never control such an experiment. 

"I feel a personal relationship to God, so I know that he is real." - Again, this is how we know God exists, but this is not how we can show God exists. For that, there are many Apologetical arguments and evidences I can direct you towards (oddly enough, none of which are addressed by this article...)

"It's safer to believe in God than be wrong and go to Hell." - A perversion of Pascal's Wager. Pascal said that if all evidence is equal, go with the God hypothesis because there is greater potential reward. He never claimed despite any and all evidence (as this article paints it as, though I would claim the evidence leans towards theism).

"I have faith; I don't need facts. I just want to believe." - I've never heard any theist say "I don't need facts." In fact, Christ claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). He also says that the truth will set us free (John 8:32). Similarly, St. Augustine famously said that all truth is God's truth. These would all be in direct contradiction to "I don't need facts". Also, the facts seem to point towards theism.

"There's no evidence that God doesn't exist." - They want to claim here that the burden of proof lies on the theist and not the atheist. That's simply not true. Atheism says "There is no God" while theism says "There is a God." Both make equal truth claims and therefore must equally shoulder the burden of proof. 

Euthyphro Dilemma Paper

The intent of this paper is to argue how Christianity must be the one true religion by presupposing monotheism, specifically by looking at the monotheistic view that God is the greatest conceivable being and how ethics must then be rooted in His nature. Note, in this paper I do not wish to argue for monotheism as that is the main purpose of most apologetical material but rather wish to expound further on the presupposition of such material in order to get to Christianity. Specifically I will be arguing from what the three great monotheistic faiths (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe as a polemic tool of sorts against non-Christian views while also arguing from a basic, or stripped, monotheistic claim in an apologetical sense for Christianity. In doing so, I will use scriptures from these religions’ holy books but not as the basis of my claims but rather as confirmation. All of monotheism agrees upon the central tenet that God is the greatest conceivable being. This notion will be the focal point of the argument. The idea of the greatest conceivable being was posited by St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109). Anselm is quoted as saying that God is “that than which nothing greater can be thought” (Williams). In essence, this argument claims that if you could think of something that is greater than our notion of God then that would actually be God because by this definition nothing could possibly be greater than God. The greatest conceivable being then is made up of great making properties, or properties that in lieu of having them would contribute to making one great. For example, a great making property would be goodness. Surely we would say it is greater to be good than evil. So the greatest conceivable being must be all good, or the essence of goodness, as He must have the greatest amount of a great making property. All goodness must then come from the greatest conceivable being. "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow" (James 1:17 NASB). Another example of a great making property would be power. Intuitively we understand power is greater than weakness. He must be all powerful, or the essence of power. All power must come from Him. "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1 NASB) Another example would be wisdom, for it is better to be wise than foolish. He must be all wise, or the essence of wisdom. All wisdom must come from Him. "For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6 NASB). Another translation reads, "All wisdom comes from the Lord, and so do common sense and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6 CEV). Notice again how I am not making these claims based on scripture, but rather I am using these scriptures to affirm how Christianity falls in line with this view of the greatest conceivable being. Now that we have established the monotheistic tenet that God is the greatest conceivable being, allow us to tackled then the Euthyphro Dilemma. The Euthyphro Dilemma comes from Plato's dialogue "Euthyphro" where Socrates poses the question "is the pious loved by the gods because it's pious, or it is pious because it is loved?" (Plato 8) Today's translation would read somewhere along the lines of "is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because something is good?" Both of these answers have devastating consequences to theism. For if something is good because God wills it then goodness is merely arbitrary. God could have willed rape, murder, and torture to be good and then we would be morally obligated to commit such acts. Goodness is completely subjective upon God's whims in such a scenario, which undermines the greatest conceivable being notion as it is seemingly irrelevant on such a view that God is all good. Similarly, if God wills something because it is good then goodness is found outside of God and He would then not be the creator of goodness, this cuts into God’s aseity and He therefore would not truly be the greatest conceivable being on this view either. However it might seem through the way the dilemma is worded, these are not the only two options. In fact, most theists would answer this dilemma by saying that God wills something because He is good. Goodness is then found in God's nature and therefore not arbitrary while also being dependent upon God. So what God commands is ultimately rooted in His nature. Now I suppose that the next step of this paper would naturally be to go into what God has willed and how we come to know this, but given how this argument presupposes monotheism I don’t find this necessary since the monotheistic faiths agree on what God has willed almost entirely. Instead, I wish to simply look at love, specifically in the three main monotheistic faiths. Below are the commandments each of the three main monotheistic faiths have given regarding love. Judaism: “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:18 NASB) “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6:5 NASB) Christianity: Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:29-31 NASB) Islam: “Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah, as equal (with Allah): They love them as they should love Allah but those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see, behold, they would see the Penalty: that to Allah belongs all power, and Allah will strongly enforce the Penalty.” (Quran 2:165) “And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your [hearts]: Verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.” (Quran 30:21) Through these passages we see that God (in every monotheistic view of God) has commanded us to love one another and love Him. If what is good and what God wills comes from His nature, then we see that love is a part of God's nature. Now herein lies the differences in these faiths: Christians and Jews argue that God is all loving. Muslims argue that He is not. "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (1 John 4:8 NASB). This scripture is opposed "Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merci... But if they turn away, lo! Allah loveth not the disbelievers" (Quran 3:31-32). Therefore, it goes to show that the Judeo-Christian God and the Islamic God are not one and the same. If the two are made up of different characteristics then they themselves must be different. God's love is unconditional, independent from the circumstances. Allah's love is conditional, contingent upon the circumstances. So, which one of these two is the greatest conceivable being? God must be either all loving or completely absent of love due to the Greatest Conceivable Being Theory. A point of argument to this claim could be to bring up Aristotelian ethics. Aristotle has a doctrine of virtue as a mean where he claims that excellence is found between excess and deficiency (Aristotle 18). The issue here is that both "excess" and "deficiency" would imply an error. So, a potential argument that would be presented by Aristotelian ethics against God being all loving would be that an excess of love would ignore justice because God would overlook the sin of those whom He loves. However, that is certainly not the case. God holds all accountable to their sins and yet loves all; there is no contradiction here (as we will further explore towards the end of this paper). Similarly, through the lens of the Greatest Conceivable Being Theory, we would say that being all powerful is certainly a great making attribute. Having a balance between strength and weakness would not be great. Having a balance between knowledge and ignorance would not be great. So why then would having a balance of love and indifference be considered great? The Greatest Conceivable Being must have the greatest amount of great making attributes, so great making attributes must fall on one of the two ends, not in the middle. So again, God must be either all loving or completely absent of love due to the Greatest Conceivable Being Theory. Here it is shown that Allah, with his contingent love, must not be the greatest conceivable being. Now that we have established that the greatest conceivable being must be either all loving or completely absent of love, we must then see which of these two are great making properties. I would argue that since we know what God has willed, as we saw through moral epistemology, and how what He has willed must be rooted in His nature, as we saw through moral ontology, and we know that what He has willed is love, that therefore God must be love. The biggest objection to love as being a great making attribute though is that it cuts into God's power. The issue then is to compare love versus apathy and see if they cut into God's power and other great making attributes in order to determine which is truly greater. Which requires more power? I would say love requires more power, for it is easier to be indifferent or even have hatred than it is to love especially for those who do not love us. "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also... You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven... For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:38-48 NASB). It requires discipline and willpower to love in such a manner. Restraint requires greater strength. Unconditional love overcomes passions while hatred and indifference are both subjected to them. I would argue as well that God must also be personal (in the sense of relatable, or the ability for one person to relate to another person) for it requires greater strength to reveal one's self than to remain hidden. Revealing one's self requires an action, while remaining hidden requires nothing more than for one to remain dormant. Furthermore, revealing one's self requires the ability to express one's self to another, which involves power. Through being personal His attributes are greater shown and magnified, thus making a personal God conceivably greater than an impersonal God. From our rebuttal of Aristotelian ethics we deduce that great making properties fall on the ends and not the middle. So if being personal is a great making attribute, what could be more personal than love? Ergo by being loving, God is more personal, making His attributes greater revealed and magnified. Therefore, unconditional love magnifies power rather than inhibits it. Furthermore, righteousness and mercy are also magnified through unconditional love, ultimately magnifying God's glory. Logically, I can only see how love magnifies power while hatred diminishes it. Seeing how love is a great making attribute, I wish to then observe self-sacrifice and whether or not it is a good thing. Intuition immediately hints towards yes, it is a good thing. In fact, a strong objection to Utilitarianism is how the utilitarian would claim that a viable, young woman saving her grandmother at the cost of her own life is a morally reprehensible act; this claim seems blatantly false. Furthermore, sacrificing one’s self for another is driven itself by love. Christianity affirms this claim when Jesus says “greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13 NASB). So we can confidently claim that self-sacrifice is intuitively good and the greatest example of love, and we can also say with confidence (given monotheism) that God has willed love and what God wills is a part of His nature; it therefore concludes that self-sacrifice is inherently a part of God’s nature. Christianity is the only monotheistic religion in which God exemplifies such a love as self-sacrifice, particularly through Jesus’ death on the cross. In fact, God’s great making attributes, specifically His love, mercy, justice, power, and glory are most greatly revealed at the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let us then briefly examine each of these attributes and how they can be tied to the sacrificial death of Christ. Love: "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13 NASB). There is no greater love than giving up one's life for another. Love cannot be expressed any greater than in such a sacrifice. Through dying on the cross, God ultimately reveals His love. Mercy: According to Merriam-Webster, mercy is "compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power" (Merriam-Webster). We are subjected to God's punishment and power (He is the essence of power, all power comes from Him) for acting in defiance against His laws. Mercy cannot be expressed any greater than fully removing the penalty that we justly deserve. Through His sacrificial death on the cross, God ultimately reveals His mercy. Justice: There is no punishment suitable for us. By sinning against the Good there came a chasm which none but the essence of goodness could bridge. Only a perfect being (God) could properly pay for the crimes which we have committed against Him. For if God is the essence of Good, then even the slightest imperfection removes us completely from Him. As imperfect beings, we could not reconcile ourselves with perfection; it is on part of perfection to do so. In order to be in right-standing once more would require the assistance of one who is already in right-standing for there is no other way for us to relate. Justice cannot be expressed any greater than God satisfying His wrath on Himself. Through His death on the cross, God ultimately reveals His justice. Power: "Who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:4 NASB). The Christian view of God is the only one in which God personally overcame death. There is no greater power exemplified than overcoming death. Power cannot be expressed any greater than personally destroying death itself. Through His resurrection, God ultimately reveals His power. Glory: "Praise, honor, or distinction extended by common consent" (Merriam-Webster). No greater praise, honor, or distinction can there be than personally saving mankind by sacrificing one's self while perfectly exemplifying love, mercy, and justice; and also personally overcoming death while perfectly exemplifying power. Glory cannot be expressed any greater than this. Through His death and resurrection, God ultimately reveals His glory. Christ’s death (an act of perfect love) is the only possible way to reconcile perfect justice with perfect mercy and in so doing He furthers His perfect power and glory. Christianity is the only religion that shows God having absolute justice and mercy. If God were to brush aside our sins, then they have not been paid for and thus God inhibits His justice. On the other hand, absolute justice would require that none are saved; similarly, we can never pay for our crimes against God, this would inhibit both His justice and mercy. The only way for God to have both absolute justice and absolute mercy would be for Him to pay the punishment Himself. That is exactly what Christianity claims. Furthermore, God coming down as man and taking our punishment in our stead shows the greatest amount of love. No other view of God shows such love. Furthermore, by personally overcoming death God reveals the most power. No other view of God shows such power; because of this, God's glory is revealed to the greatest extent. Through the aforementioned, we can see how God personally revealing Himself through Jesus Christ is the greatest expression of His great making attributes. Because this view of God is conceivably greater than any other view of God, the Christian Godhead is the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, it concludes that Christianity must be the true religion.

Works Cited
Aristotle, and Anthony Kenny. Eudemian Ethics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.
 CEV Bible. Swindon, Wiltshire: Bible Society, 1997. Print.
 Ganeri, Anita. The Quran. London: Evans, 2002. Print.
 Plato. Euthyphro. Trans. Woods & Pack. San Francisco: Cathal Woods, 2011. Print.
 The Holy Bible: New American Standard Bible: Updated NASB. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print. 
The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1989. Print.
 Williams, Thomas. "Saint Anselm." Stanford University. Stanford University, 18 May 2000. Web.

Social Darkness

Social Darkness

Growing up, I was interested in art and poetry. But I suppressed it because it wasn't cool. I buried it in the recesses of my mind hoping that by never allowing it to see the light of day and by playing the part of what is considered cool I could eventually suffocate that part of me until it dies. I thought that you just had to fake it until you make it. I was trying to kill my individuality in order to be accepted by the popular mass. I was trying to kill my identity. Luckily this was a stage that I grew out of in high school, but I still lost a part of me in the process. The sad part of it is though that many haven't grown out of it. We all have our own ambitions, passions, desires, and aspirations that make us us. But these don't always fit the mold of whatever lifestyle we wish to emulate. Anything that isn't apart of that lifestyle isn't cool and if people knew that other part of you they would look down upon you for it. So you try to kill your uniqueness and interests. A suicide of passion and individuality. We are losing so much of ourselves to this pandemic, and for what? A false sense of acceptance? Knowing that the person they are accepting really isn't even you and the person accepting your persona is just another persona in and of themselves; they themselves aren't really accepting you. But we continue to play the part thinking that we are alone in this world. Thinking that no one goes through what we go through, do the things we do, think the things we think. Especially when our thoughts are so dark and haunting. Surely no one else thinks such horrible things as I. When the truth of the matter is that everyone has some truly messed up and disturbing thoughts. But we will never show that because we always have to present this perfect image of us to others when in reality we are far less than that. You ever check social media alone at night seeing everyone else out having a blast and you feel like you're missing something that everyone else has? I guarantee you that you have caused the same thought in other people. We want to show the best of ourselves and expect everyone else to forget that we have our imperfections. None of us really do though. But there's some unwritten social contract that we will ignore them and pretend like they actually don't exist. And it's gotten to the point where we are actually starting to trick ourselves into believing it as well. You think the serial killer, child pornographer, lying cheat, wrathful abuser, and greedy cynic aren't alive in everyone else? You're a fool. You think they're not alive in you? You're a fool in denial. I used to be in denial too. Even when I was truly a horrible person I considered myself good. In terms of story arcs, I considered myself the hero on a quest for redemption. That's not true though. I'm certainly no hero. No, I'm what happens when the villain goes on his own journey for redemption; and now I'm simply trying to live a life worthy of the redemption that I've been given. All the while hoping that my own story can progress another's in the right direction. So here's my story. The rest is up to you. 

A Beautiful Reminder

A Beautiful Reminder

Tonight, I was reminded of what it felt like to be caught up in God's presence. Tonight, I was reminded of what it felt like to not be burdened with depression. Tonight, I was given a glimpse of Heaven. But that can wait. Because for now there is still a fight to uphold. For now, there is still darkness that needs the light. For now, there are still lost that need to be found. For now, there are still broken that need to be fixed. I was granted the highest honor of having the ministry of reconciliation. I was entrusted with the knowledge of the special revelation of God through Christ and His atoning death for our salvation with the sole purpose of going and making disciples. So that is what I'll do. That is the mission which I have been given. And as long as I continue to breathe, that mission still continues. And with it, the depression which God has used through me to reach out to others who share such a burden. The constant reminder of me to focus on things above because of the realization of the true state of things below and the urgency which goes along with it. I am forever grateful for this mission and this tool of depression in God's arsenal that manifests itself through me for combating the evils of this world in order to bridge the gap between Him and His lost children. It is a precious gift which has been bestowed unto me and I will ensure that it is put to its proper use. 

The Three Stages

The Three Stages

This idea came to me a couple weeks ago now and I wanted to sit on it and ponder it in order to make sure that it was sound. Since then I've used it in conversation a dozen times or so and some friends who I have shared it with have also used it in dialogue, so I firmly believe this idea to be accurate and useful. Now what is the idea? It's that everyone is at one of three stages in life. Now before I begin to layout these three stages, I find it important to say that I am using this topic mainly from a Christian perspective but it can be taken from any (a)religious background. Again though, I will use this topic to argue from a Christian perspective.

So the three stages of life are:
1. Accepting what you've been told.
2. Questioning what you've been told.
3. Looking for the answers to those questions.

And sadly enough, I find it that very few people are willing to enter into that third stage. This week I was having a discussion with a friend when she said that she really wants me to talk with her knowledgable atheist friend. She then added "aren't you worried at all that he might prove you wrong?" To which I simply stated "no." You see, almost every "knowledgable atheist" is considered knowledgable because they have these questions or defeaters of God, but very few have ever actually sought answers and solutions to them. I do not wish to convey an arrogant tone by saying I am not worried or troubled, I simply realize that there are good, logical answers in support of theism to anything this young man might throw my way; and even if I don't know the answer off the top of my head, I can search for the answer (to which I am sure there is one) and get back to him. Not only that, but out of all the objections against theism or against Christianity that I hear, 90% of the time it is the same 10-15 questions that keep popping up. Even still, if I must concede an argument in his favor, there are still many other arguments that go in the other direction, so through it all it is still more plausible and logical that God exists. In short, I am not worried because I am at the third stage where as he is still at the second. A lot of people are driven from the faith by the knowledge and intellect of atheists, but that is simply because they were on the first stage: simply accepting what they've been told. So of course someone on the second stage can "show them up" so to speak. But it goes full circle. Those on the third stage can easily "show up" those on the second as well. It's just not publicized as much which again, I believe is due to the fewer number of people willing to enter into the third stage as opposed to the second.

Regardless, whatever life stage you are in I urge you to try to move on to the next in the hopes of eventually finding the answers in the third. I remember when I was an atheist looking at different religions someone said "search for the truth; and if you do, you will always end up at Jesus." Sure enough, that's what happened with me as I am sure that's what will happen with you. You just have to be willing.