I had a conversation this weekend with a number of friends this weekend who do not yet believe in Christ. They do not necessarily deny him, they simply do not embrace him. I tried a different tack and two new arguments, neither of which are probably new, but both of which were new to me.
1. An argument from antiquity. I argued that if there were a God, and he had revealed himself to mankind, he would probably do so from an early time on. This got no objections. So I argued that if one were to look for God, one would look for him in the oldest religions. Again, no objections. I then said that a religion that contained the truth would likely survive from ancient times to this day, for an all-powerful God could certainly nurture his religion. Skepticism, but no real objections. I then said that to me, the choice would be either Buddhism or Judaism (I did not consider Hinduism, because I believe pantheistic religions to be inherently incoherent). About the nature of the universe, I said that Buddhism and Judaism believe essentially contradictory positions. Buddhism believes there is no God, that the universe essentially revolves around primordial nothingess, to which it is seeking to return. Judaism believes there is a loving God at the heart of it all. So I said that this seemed to me in accord with the universe, because my experience of the universe has been that it is benign. So then I said the central proposition of whether one believes in Judaism per se or the religion that grew out of it, Christianity, is the question of whether God has sent a Messiah. I said that I read the Old Testament, particularly the book of Isaiah, and I see a messiah in it, who is personified by the new testament accounts of Christ. In Christianity, I hold to the oldest path, so among Christian religions, I am a Catholic.
2. The argument from free will. I said to my friends that there is a problem with God making himself too manifest in the world (in response to a point I often face, which is that God, if he exists, ought to make himself more manifest). I said that if there was a place you could go and see God face to face (say, a building or church), what would happen? They said there would be a line out the door of people waiting to see Him. I agreed. I said that also, so many people would walk away utterly convinced of God's existence that such a thing would destroy free will. Instead, I suggested, God places enough evidence in the world of His existence that he forces us to make a choice. There will never be and can never be a scientific proof for God, because such a proof would destroy our right to choose Him freely or not. Faith, then, for me, always begin with a choice. One examines such evidence as there is, and decides. I have looked at the claims of Christianity and am impressed with it. I believe that in the heart of the Catholic sacraments is God himself, hidden under a veil, but present enough to be seen if one chooses to see Him.
Good arguments? Bad arguments? Let me know what you think.