Christians should not try to logically prove God exists

First, I would like to address an attitude I was picking up on in Pro's first post but I didn't comment on for brevity's sake. It seemed like there was this idea that some how the Hebrew view and notion of God was more valid than the Greek one. This is false. It's true that God introduces him self first substantially through the Jewish people by means of the Hebrew language; but that is not necessarily God's preferred method. God intentionally choose to use the Greek language and employ Greek pagan words and metaphors to speak to a much larger audience in the New Testament. One example would be the word Hades. It's used regularly in the Bible. It is the name of a pagan Greek god. He was brother to Zeus and Poseidon. He was god of the underworld or the dead. It was also the name given to his kingdom; the underworld. There were sections of this mythological place one of them was it's worst part called Tartarus. Peter in 2 Peter 2:4 borrows this word. I'm a little uncertain as to the point Pro is trying to make with the extensive quotation of the passage mentioned. The passage still says what it says and it's meaning doesn't change any from looking at the context that I can tell. First I'll provide the Greek meaning of the word defense or reason. It's Apologia. It means: 1) verbal defense, speech in defense 2) a reasoned statement or argument. https://net.bible.org... From research I've learned that it's a Greco-Roman legal term. It basically means to make your case from the defense side of the court room. http://www.etymonline.com... This word has the feel more of building a reasoned case or argument. It then adds "With gentleness and respect." If the passage was merely talking about someone talking about how they came to Christ, I don't see how this would be necessary. I add the commentaries of two well known evangelicals so that the reader doesn't think I'm completely off my nut here. 1 Peter 3:15 John Macarthur What is that? Very simply that's the Christian faith. The hope that is in you is the Christian faith. It's just another way to identify the Christian faith. In other words, you are to be able to give a rational explanation and defense of why you are a Christian. http://www.gty.org... Henry Morris: 3:15 answer. "Answer" is the Greek apologia, from which we get our word "apologetics" meaning the careful, logical defense of the Christian faith against the attacks of its adversaries and showing its validity as the true saving gospel of God, our Creator and Savior. In effect, Peter is admonishing believers to be always prepared to give an apologetic for the faith, especially when confronted by those who deny it and would destroy it if they could. This surely means that there is an effective apologetic that can be given, and it is each Christian"s responsibility to study (II Timothy 2:15) and be ready to give it when needed. In contrast, the unbeliever is "without excuse" (Romans 1:20), "without an apologetic." His faith is strictly based on credulity and wishful thinking, not historical and scientific evidence like that for the Christian faith. On the "defense" (same word) of the gospel, see on Philippians 1:7,17. http://www.icr.org... Pro takes issue with my use of Romans 1 saying that the passage is speaking of idolaters and not Atheists. But there is no difference in God's eyes. The idolater worships stone and wood and the atheist worships himself. All three will fail him. And Pro's criticism doesn't seem to make any difference to my point. The original passage: 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." The point in the passage remains the same. People couldn't get off the hook just because they didn't have a copy of the OT or weren't living in Israel. The basics about God can be understood by observation and reason. This is the essence of things like the Kalam cosmological argument. Finally the Qur'an claims that Allah IS the god of the Bible. Buddha isn't called god and isn't thought of as god. He didn't call himself god. Hindus don't believe in a god like we do, they are pantheists. They believe everything is a manifestation of god. The God of the Kalam is a transcendent creator over a temporal universe. The universe of the Hindu is a creation of Brahma and is eternally being reborn as is Brahma http://hinduism.about.com.... (word of warning, they use the word "Trinity" to refer to Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva and it is inappropriate to do so) The Genesis account is unique to the ancient near east. (So, Genesis 1 and "Enuma elish," which was composed primarily to exalt Marduk in the pantheon of Babylon,11 have no direct relation to each other. Not only is the creation by divine fiat in Genesis unique in the ancient Near East, the creation of light as the first creating act appears only in Genesis (Lambert 1980: 71; 1965). Thus the creation in the Genesis story is quite different from the idea of "order out of chaos," though the latter is also often called "creation" (McCarthy 1967).) http://www.biblearchaeology.org...