Theists - I want to know what you think

[Edwardo Piet]

Naturalism has problems with or explaining free will,

What can be dismissed as incoherent by rationalism is not a problem for naturalism.

consciousness,

Consciousness is the most known thing of all. More so than any scientific fact. Consciousness isn't a problem for materialism, idealism, naturalism or supernaturalism.

fine-tuning,

None required for that one.

biological life,

Nor that one either. God of the Gaps is not the answer, my friend.

even the question that if evolution selects for survival and not for truth, how can we rely on our cognitive faculties to discover truth about the worldview where such faculties are not an expected outcome.

The whole "brain fizz" thing is a really low bar. Are you sure you want to go there?



You are confusing epistemic subjectvity with ontological subjectivity. Just because we have subjectivity/consciousness doesn't mean that we can't use that subjectivity to draw objective conclusions.

I think that a Christian worldview give more warrant to believe our cognitive faculties.

It's all we can rely on to believe anything regardless. No God required.

One of these cognitive conclusions found in most people is a predisposition to believe in the supernatural. 

We can all make cognitive conclusions and we all rely on our own subjectivity for belief... but the question is, is that subjectivity being objective/rational? Again your mistake appears to rely on the equiocation fallacy. Because our subjectivity is ontologically objective you get mixed up and think without God it must also be epistemically subjective. Were that really the case then even God's cognition would be incapable of objective knowledge let alone omnisicent knowledge.

Perhaps arguing by intuition only is insufficient, but that is not what I argued. Believing in a Christian God is almost always the result of a cumulative case consisting of personal experience (yours and others),

The problem here is that the naturalist uses their experience to believe in that which is natural and therefore experiencable. That makes a lot of sense. You use your experience to believe in things that can be experiencable.

The supernaturalist, on the other hand, believes in precisely that which that cannot be experienced. The supernatural being beyond the universe. So it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that personal experience can be any evidence of God. And since all evidence is experience-based it makes no sense to talk of evidence of God unless you admit that God is natural in some way.

You do indeed believe that God is capable of intervening with the natural universe... but it is literally only the natural parts that there is evidence of. There is no evidence of any supernatural part. So once again I think you are confused. Because the only part of God that is deemed Godly is the fact that he is beyond the universe but it is precisely everything beyond the universe that we cannot have any evidence or experience of.

the resonance of the NT message and its relevance to life, reviewing the claims in the NT and finding them compelling, looking at the natural world and seeing that chance is the unlikely cause, etc. etc.  

The most common I think is when you realize that running your own life with your own philosophy has not equipped you when hard times come. This knowledge could come from within (as in you knew what you were doing) or it could come from someone that God put in your life or somehow the message was conveyed at just the right time (radio, article, TV show). I have heard examples of all kinds where God somehow made himself known at exactly the right time. 

You are talking of natural experience I don't see how that can possibily lead you to believe in anything supernatural. Once again I think you are confused. Whatever there is evidence of, it seems to be pointing to something natural not something supernatural. There's a big difference between something natural but out of reach and something beyond nature.

Further to what I just said, the same message, acquaintance, article, chance encounter that resonates with someone at a specific time could very easily be dismissed (or worse) if the person has not yet gotten to that place where their heart is open to certain truths.

What's worse than "dismissed"?

The argument from coincidences/syncronisity is just confirmation bias and very unimpressive and underwhelming. And, laughably, whatever it points to it's not something beyond nature. Again, there is a big difference between something that is natural and out of reach and something beyond nature.

Humility is a HUGE factor. Most people raised in a church (no matter how old they are now), do not pursue doctrine classes nor come to completely understand how it all works together (a good grasp on systematic theology). Such a pursuit is not required to 1) be a Christian or 2) belong to a church and pass on your less-than-precise thoughts about how it all works. But if your church and/or family systematically ignores this component, you end up losing a good portion of each new generation when they find they cannot answer the tough questions and their theology is ridiculously easy to pick apart when they go out in the real world. So, where a certain level of knowledge was sufficient for his/her parents, in this day and age, it is not sufficient.  It's a shame, because like I say all the time, we have had answer to difficult questions for centuries. 

Doesn't theology already assume the existence of God? And isn't that putting the cart before the horse?