...

And if God exists, which God is the true one? the Christian God? the Muslim God? the Mormon God? Who is right and who is wrong?

This opens an a labyrinth of questions with no end.

...

• What prerequisites should we attempt to achieve before entering into discussions with others regarding this topic?
• What approach should we take with regards to answering this age old question?
• What should our attitude be towards others of opposing views?
• What 's the purpose of should our purpose be when entering into these discussions?

...

Thesis

Why is it important to be convinced of the Existence of God?

...

Evidence vs Proof

Before we start learning about Evidence attempt to prove if God exists, we have to define what Evidence and Proof actually mean.

...

First we need to learn a new term: "Burden of Proof"

If  you get in an argument with an atheist, IE someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God, if he is academic, he'll say something like this:

...

Proof is something like video evidence of someone committing the murder. It Or multiple eye witnesses of the murder. This proves the guilt of the suspect beyond the shadow of doubt 

...

If two people argue with each other regarding the right for someone to a seat on the bus, as an example, for from their argument they are both appealing to a moral standard. Each one of them tries to prove how his position is closer to that Moral Standard.

...

And since it's is a "Moral Standard", the entity which established it, must be intelligent and moralwith a moral absolute, which all beings reference. Therefore, God.

Historical Argument

It's covered in part in "Mere Christianity", but is also it is covered more extensively in "The Case for Christ".

...

...

It states that every cause must have an effect. And if you track it backwards the very first event must have a cause, IE the formation of the universe. What is it?

How did the universe come to be? Was it self-create? Eternal? Created?

It can not be self-created, because for something to create itself, it must first exist before it exists, which is a logical falacyfallacy.

Science has proven that the universe is not Eternal. It has a start and an eventual end.

Logically, then it must be created. Therefore God.

...

Preconceived ideas and Conclusions

When we enter any sort of 

Before we embark on examining the answer

I will not be going into a lot of details about the different evidence we have 

Can we prove beyond the shadow of doubt that God exists? Historic evidence (Case for Christ), Moral evidence (Mere Christianity)

Preconceived ideas and conclusions/Bias

Two sides to the argument

Incarnation

Evidence vs Proof

Mlpzaq (Answers, n.d.) states that the difference between evidence and proof is that the former infers and the latter concludes. A fact is observed and how it is inferred determines what it is evidencing. A proof is a “situation that removes all doubt” (Answers, n.d., ¶1). For example, red marking on a white collar is an observable fact. While it might be the residual blood spatter from a shaving mishap, a suspicious spouse might infer it as evidence of infidelity. Proof of the infidelity would require evidence that sexually inks the spouse with a third party, such as video or audio recordings.

Miracles

Dialogue

Listening

Grand Posturing

Respect & Understanding

Virtue signalling

Goal

Realise that arguments do not induce faith

Knowledge puffs up

...

Now that we highlighted some of the main arguments, and please do read the references as this will help you wrap your mind around the arguments.

As I was say, now that we have an idea of the arguments for the existence of God, when we enter any discussion regarding the topic, we have to be aware that people come in with preconceived ideas and conclusions, including us.

We've already concluded that God exists. We're not trying to work through the evidence. We are stating facts. And this is a problem when talking to someone because it gives the notion that you're speaking down at them. "You are unlearned, listen to me so I can impart some wisdom upon you". This is a bad discussion strategy and it stems from our lack of awareness of our Biases.

There is nothing wrong with having a bias. We're all humans, we all have biases. The problem is not being aware of these biases.

Being aware of our biases helps us with the next point.

Listening

How many times do we go into an argument with an already prepared list of responses.

I was watching some parliamentary debates and I was thinking to myself, boy these guys are not even talking to each other. One asks a question, and then the opposing party responds to a completely different point. It's extremely frustrating listening to those people.

In a discussion, we have to emphasise listening and empathy. 

If I'm coming in with a list of my own prepared responses, then I will not even bother listening to the other side. The other side will perceive me as simply wanting to prove I'm right, and will shutoff as well.

This will lead to a fruitless discussion, academic maybe, but lacking in love and empathy.

Dialogue

Dialogue is the action of exchanging ideas and giving them serious thought and consideration, even if I disagree with them.

Dialogue is also important in clarifying one's own thoughts.

For example, lots of time we hear about a concept, but if we don't discuss it out loud and work through the details of this concept, the concept remains vague in our minds.

Dialogue plays an important role in our mental development.

It also plays an important role in understanding where the opposing point of view is coming from. What their mental state is, etc.

For example, lots of people might have a problem with God because of some hard time they went through or because of some injustice they witnessed. If there is a God, then why do all these bad things happen. Bad things happen, therefore, there is no God.

Addressing God's existence from this angle is drastically different from addressing it from a historic angle.

But you wouldn't know that without real dialogue.

Unfortunately, we live in an environment where name calling and labelling is much easier than honest to God Dialogue. If someone doesn't agree with us, it's so much easier to call him some name to completely dismiss their point of view. We see that around quiet a bit nowadays. How people are called homophobes when they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, or they are called anti-vaxx when they have legitimate questions about the efficacy of the vaccines, or called terrorists, when they protest against the vaccine mandates etc.

And we fall into that same trap in our church. It so much easier to call someone a heretic when he espouses a different point of view. This allows us to dismiss his argument and lump him in this category we call heresy, which we don't even have to listen to nor entertain.

Unfortunately, this attitude drives away many from the church.

It is, therefore, important to ensure we have honest and thoughtful dialogue, where we listen, empathise and understand the other point of view even if we disagree with it.

Respect & Understanding

This follows from the point above. Without listening we can not have dialogue. Without Dialogue we can not truly respect and understand.

I'll tell you an example, when they decided to check vaccine passports in the church I was and still am strongly against it. I think it creates segregation in the church which is anti-thesis to what the church stands for. God calls us to unity, not to keep a group out because of personal health choices.

I was expressing my opinion to someone and their response was, "I respect your opinion. I know lots of people are affected by the media". I'm like, dude, I didn't form my opinion because I was affected by the media. I actually gave this some serious thought.

This example highlights the lack of respect and understanding to the opposing point of view, which is a natural evolution of lack of dialogue. You don't have to agree with me, but at the same time do not belittle someone's argument even if you disagree with it.

Avoid Grand Posturing & Virtue Signalling

We all fall into this to some extent. We all love to be right. We all love to feel other's respect. But this is problematic, because if you always want to be right in a discussion, what you end up doing is trying to put down the other person's point of view. In effect making him feel dumb.

And the harder we go after the "always right" syndrome, the more we start using strawman arguments to make ourselves look better, "grand posturing", and show how good we are and how much we understand and how virtuous we are, "Virtue Signalling".

This spirit goes completely against the thesis I stated above. If our goal in discussing the Existence of God with others is to bring them to God, then we are definitely not achieving our goal.

Knowledge Puffs Up

Grand Posturing and Virtue signalling is tied at the hip to the concept of "Knowledge Puffs Up".

St. Paul emphasises this thought well.

We can be very highly educated and well read about the Existence of God, but knowledge by itself puffs up. The idea is not to show off how much we know, it is to care about the other person's spirituality and well being. This can include just smiling and saying, "I agree to disagree. But we can still stay friends".

Bringing it Together

Now we come full circle. We started off by saying that learning the evidence of God's Existence is important for two reasons:

1. To be convinced and secure in God's love
   1. Although arriving to the conclusion of God's existence alone is not enough to satisfy the point above. We have to go further and to truly know him and have a relationship with him. 

   2. 
      

      Tip
      icon false title James 2:19
      You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [h]dead?

      
      

2. To share the good news with others

To think through these two points, we started off by understanding Evidence vs Proof. This helps in creating guidelines for what form the discussion will take.

However, in discussions people are not easily convinced because everyone comes with their own preconceived ideas and conclusions, so do we .

To counter act these perceived ideas we need to listen and understand the other side's point of view. Listen to Understand not Listen to Respond.

This will aid us with engaging in true Dialogue, and not simply just talk over each other.

True Dialogue leads to the formation of respectful and understanding relationship. This relationship helps us be at ease with each other and increases the chances of us really considering the other person's point of view, which in turn leads to increased chances of being convinced.

However, this relationship is easily ruined by always wanting to be right, which leads us to make the other side feel dumb and insignificant.

By avoiding grand posturing and virtue signalling we can focus on the real goal which is loving the other person and wanting the best for them. As St. Paul said, "Knowledge puffs up but love edifies". Our goal is to seek the edification of ourselves and others. We should always seek to grow in Truth (IE Jesus) and to share this Truth (IE Jesus) with others in humility and meekness.