cart b4 horse

Christian apologetics have developed narratives on the Kingdom ever since the crucifixion. "Does God exist?" is likely the most often debated topic with atheists. The minds of Christians and non Christians have sharpened with great precision across the years. Oh, who has won?
Doesn't seem like either since there are many on both sides still sharpening their apologetic weapons.

Anyone think there's an issue with this? I am sure I am not the only one that has stepped back and asked what's wrong with this picture?

When I began looking at this from a different angle, the first thought occurred to me that maybe it's the wrong question. After all, that's what a good mathematician should do. Once I asked this, it came to me that each side of the argument does not understand "to know something exist" in the same way. Looking at this purely objectively, they are not in the same debate. It seems to me that both have put the cart b4 the horse. Maybe there should be an equally energetic debate on what does "know" and "exist" mean?

This is the mission of b4Worldview. Christians cannot debate non Christians on worldviews if they start with the same core assumptions. Christians can easily be confused when their theology seems contradictory to deeply held presuppositions they may not even know they have.

b4 we humans can adequately agree on a view of God, we should agree on God's view of us humans.

But since non Christians do not believe there is a God and therefore there is no view, the only assumptions that define the debate stage are "worthless and elementary principles of this world."

We must have a way to debate core assumptions without having to start with agreement on God. If we can't, we will always debate important ideas by putting the cart b4 the horse. Oh wait, that's why we all need a b4Worldview course. Or at least that's my assumption ....