Some members here have been questioning my recent conversion to Christianity from atheism, and since I realize that my answer to that question is based in apologetics, I think it is appropriate that I conjoin the two matters.
I've been watching Christian apologists debate atheists on YouTube for years, and generally I have concluded that those debates are either draws or the atheist(s) have won them. I've also read books written by apologists and books written by atheists, and I have almost always agreed with the atheists' conclusions and have disagreed with the apologists' conclusions. It appeared to me at least that Christian truth claims are very questionable, and the truth claims of atheists are at least unrefuted, so the logical thing to do was to remain an atheist.
I will respectfully suggest that is solely a matter of confirmation bias. A more accurate and objective appraisal would be that theists and atheists look at exactly the same evidence and draw different conclusions. I will also recommend you learn presuppositional apologetics because underlying the atheist apologetic is a belief science can or does disprove the existence of God but since science - by definition - is limited solely to that which is observable in the natural world it is always and everywhere insufficient for the task of proving or disproving any claim of an externally-existing Creator God.
Honest atheists acknowledge that fact.
Everything that ensues after that acknowledgment is Kabuki Theater. Sadly, the problem then becomes one of Christians collaborating with a presuppositional error (either knowingly or in ignorance) and thereby misleading everyone else. The debates are good for weighing the veracity of various evidence and various points of view but the NEVER have much to do with proving the existence of God.
That situation changed about a year ago when I decided to debate some atheists playing "God's advocate." I hoped that doing so would help me to overcome my bias, and did it ever! I discovered that if I make a good-faith effort to defend Christianity against the criticisms of atheists using sound reasoning, then the fallacies and/or factual errors in many of the popular arguments against Christianity are exposed. For example, one atheist said he doubted the truth of Christianity because there are other religions in the world. I easily refuted that argument by pointing out that different competing religions can easily result from some people getting their theology wrong!
Now, refuting objections to Christianity does not really establish its truth, and I realized that I needed at least one good reason to conclude the truth of Christianity or its utility. The Christian God can act as a basis for why anything exists and as a "template" of the good people we should be. I realized those reasons were good enough for me, and here I am on "the other side."
Questions and comments are welcome.
Hmmmmm...... Logic can get us a long, long, long way to disproving the existence of some religions' gods, BUT no logic, no science can address the experiential substance of Christianity other than to treat it as subjective and therefore meaningless relevant to the "debate."
In the first point, we necessarily understand any and all gods existing solely within the limits of time and space is not - by definition - an omni-attributed God. That being, whatever else s/he/it may or may not be it is not and cannot possibly be omni-potent, omniscient, nor omni-present because that god is limited - limited by the limits of time and space (or singularity. A god that exists solely within the singularity it supposedly created is a contradiction in terms. That god can be unilaterally discarded out of hand. We humans, whether theist or non-theist, can do that with most religions. It is incorrect to think all religions are logically equal or veracious regarding their own self-made claims.
As to the second point, If God actually rent the fabric of time and space to make Himself known to you, Unknown Soldier, then you know something not a single atheist knows, something not a single atheist can argue for or against, and something that does not need an apologetic. You
know.
If you haven't done so already then let me recommend you read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy. It's a good introduction to the presuppositional approach to apologetics and the history of how we humans got away from the Judeo-Christian worldview and into the post-postmodern way of thinking. If you'll promise to read it and you live in the continental US, then I will pay for the book and have Amazon ship it general delivery to a post-office in your locale. Seriously. Once you've read Schaeffer, if you found the presuppositional approach worth better understanding then I recommend the theologians Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark.
Lastly,
the best apologetics is a life well lived. If Jesus has not made a difference....... If the claims aren't livable...... If the differences are not observable..... Against these things there is no debate. The problem is all of us Christians are working out these challenges imperfectly.
If God has seen fit to rend the fabric of time and space to make Himself known to you then
be the apologetic.