Christians should not try to logically prove God exists

Pro states that the Hebrew's had a different concept of knowing than we do. According to Pro's own sources this just isn't the case. Let's examine it. In the opening sentence of his source it says: The Hebrew word "know" (yada'), which is a common root in the Semitic languages, has a wide range of meanings depending upon the context in which the word is found. Like our word "know" in English, the Hebrew word can indicate mental knowledge, that is, that a person "understands" or "has knowledge" of something, as when we say "I know that 2 + 2 is 4"." http://torahresource.com... And we also have a relational use of the word "Know" as well. "Hey Sal you "Know" this guy? Yeah that's my buddy Jim!" Hebrew and English are both contextual languages. Interpretation of a word depends on context. Pro's quote from William Barett is simply inadmissible. First off, he's not an expert in this field and so has nothing to say about it. Secondly Mr. Barett contradicts himself in his own statement. Our would be expert starts out saying ""The distinction"arises from the difference between doing and knowing. The Hebrew is concerned with practice, the Greek with knowledge." and then says " Duty and strictness of conscience are the paramount things in life for the Hebrew" but what is Duty and strictness of conscience but thoughts and attitudes. And again "The Hebrew thus extols the moral virtues as the substance and meaning of life" What are virtues but thoughts and heartfelt beliefs?. Barett has failed to understand and capture the Hebrew soul as has my counterpart. The Hebrew people do not distinguish between thinking and doing. To believe and to act are one in the Jewish mind. This is why James says "I will show you my faith by my works." Right belief is most certainly important to the Hebrew mind. If you believe it it will result in right action. The reason we should argue using all the means at our disposal for the existence of God. Is because it's necessary. We deal with people who think that He doesn't exist. Still others doubt His existence because of arguments made by others. The Hebrew's may not have dedicated allot of time to the subject but then again their entire culture simply assumed the existence of God. It was unnecessary to have lengthy discourses on the existence of God in culture that took the existence of God as a given. The Bible it self instructs us to make arguments in favor of what we believe. It also points out that what we see when we rationally observe the Universe and nature are evidence of God's existence. Logical arguments for God's existence are nothing more stating these observations in words. 1 Peter 3:15 New American Standard Bible (NASB) "15 but [a]sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a [b]defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and [c]reverence;" This is the instruction we as Christians are given by God. We are called to be able to explain why we believe in God. The Scriptures teach that the evidence of His existence in reality is the basis of judgement against unbelief. Romans 1:20 New American Standard Bible "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." It is not even within the sweep of this debate to deal with arguments for or against the existence of God. This debate is about whether a Christian should attempt such a thing not whether it can be done or not. I will deal with one of Pro's criticisms though. Pro misstates the Kalam argument. The argument is not that everything has to have an origin. It is this. Everything that Has a beginning, has an antecedent cause. The Universe has a beginning therefore it had an antecedent cause. Pros argument that we cannot be certain about the cause therefore we cannot use this argument is fallacious reasoning. We seek truth not certainty. I can't be certain the earth will not implode tomorrow but I won't let it disturb my plans I can assure you. We can understand with great assurance who the first cause is. The Universe is time,space, and material existence. Outside that would be eternal, unlimited by space, and the source of all material existence which would entail all power and all knowledge. That sounds allot like the God of the Bible to me. I won't attempt to defend the Moral argument or Ontological argument. For those who are interested William Lane Craig Is big on the argument from Morality and Alvin Platinga is a fan of the Ontological argument.