Crushing existential dread

As someone who became a theist because of philosophical arguments for God I've come to get the sense that the jump to Christianity is supposed to be made because you feel this gaping christ shaped hole in your heart, an emotional need and desire for Christianity to be true
The only argument that would make me adopt Christianity is one which shows that the Hebrew Bible is accurate and true and that the New Testament is accurate and true

>>25186963
I probably shouldn’t tell you this but for some reason when I pray more and think more about God good things happen to me. Of course there were a lot of Christians who had terrible fates and all that, but who knows maybe God does make life easier for his weaker soldiers, I don’t know. It’s probably not right to look at it at this kind of transactional “you make my life easier and I’ll have faith in you” way, but I am only one small human. I hope in the future my faith and love for God will be pure and steadfast. That a creator exists, is obvious. How I should build a relationship with God, I’m confused about this.

>>25187010
I prayed to God and I got an interview and then before the interview I prayed to God to help me and I got the job which saved me after a period of 5 years as a NEET

>>25187005
>The only argument that would make me adopt Christianity is one which shows that the Hebrew Bible is accurate and true and that the New Testament is accurate and true
You've just described Islam. The Koran was written to keep the message of the Bibles without any of the irrational parts.

>>25187020
God is very merciful anon. But sometimes so much terrible stuff happen to other people so much better than me that I kind of shy away from trusting God sometimes.

>>25187026
Muslims when the opportunity to lie arises
>>25187005
Dr. William Lane Craig was the Christian vanguard during the New Atheist era and his arguments for Christianity were always (and still are)
1. Prove theism philosophically with scientific backup
2. Use the historical Jesus of Nazareth and His divine revelation as best explanation for theism
He doesn't require hard-line Christian tenants (eg Biblical inerrancy), but treats the Gospels as historical documents that have a common core for knowing historical events. Secular scholarly consensus is that Jesus existed as a Jewish preacher that had a sizeable following and was both baptized and crucified (Muslims deny the crucifixion btw).
The crux of the argument is the resurrection because Christians believe that is the one event that proved the divinity of Christ and Him being the messiah. His arguments then go through all the explanations for events like the women finding the empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, the disciples' willingness to die for faith, and the conversion of Saul of Tarsus.
You should look into his works. He's been active for decades at this point.
This video is step 2 of his method and he quotes from the NT constantly so consider reading Mark's Gospel and Paul's 1 Corinthians 15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8lkuuhVkOI

>>25187103
>the disciples' willingness to die for faith
I remember clutching at this a lot when trying to hold onto my Christian faith. Unfortunately the attestation for these is less strong than I would have liked. A bunch of the apostles have several completely contradicting stories about how they were martyred (or if they were even martyred at all).

>>25187108
There being legends surrounding the apostles' and other disciples' martyrdom does not preclude their willingness to do so or mean it didn't happen.
Take Peter, legend has it that he was crucified upside down and is often depicted that way in Catholic art
This could very well be an accretion, but that provides no evidence against the existence of early Christian men like the historical Peter that continued to preach an illicit Gospel that just condemned their leader to execution for blasphemy. It is important to remember that they preached that Gospel in the very same city the crucifixion took place in. Not only that, but those early Christians spread to other cities and set up churches very quickly.
All of these events are recorded in Acts and proof of the churches' existence is found in Paul writing to them in his epistles.

>>25186963
Weigh the historical evidence. It's difficult to judge most of the OT because so much of it happens in an poorly-attested mythical age that might have happened at basically any point before 500BC, but the NT can be weighed historically.
There's no serious historian who doubts that there was at least a historical Jesus, and thanks to Tacitus we have a non-Christian source verifying that within a hundred years of Jesus' life there was a Christian cult that regarded itself as distinct from Judaism and believed pretty much what's written in the Gospels we have today, and we know that this cult's members took their own teachings seriously enough to spread them in the face of serious social opposition. We know that the claim was that he fulfilled certain prophecies, and we know that those prophecies were written before his birth. We also have records of various miracles attributed to him over the course of the past 2000 years, with some of them being recent enough to be subjected to modern scientific analysis.
Basically, just weigh verifiable historical points like these. If you're philosophically convinced of the First Mover already, and you figure it's reasonable that the First Mover would reveal some information about himself, you can compare the claims and results of the various First Mover religions to determine which one seems the most credible.

>>25187327
Second this
>>25187026
>irrational parts
As if the islamic scholars didn’t give up on rationalism after the golden age because they realized their theology doesn’t allow for it.
Scholasticism:
>Physical phenomena happens because God created the laws governing it, and created the universe to be intelligible
Islam:
>Physical phenomena happens because God wills it thus all the time e.g. the water on the stove boils not because enough energy was put into it, but because God willed it to at this moment.

>>25186963
You don't. First Mover is already hot garbage, but the secondary argument from FM to Christian God is a rotting dumpster fire.

I just don't see why the Aristotelian First Mover is in any way necessarily personal or why they would give any particular consideration to man. The only difference between atheism and deism is whether you choose to give the FIrst Mover the name of "God". There's no reason to adopt a religion other than pure deism. If you were to adopt a religion, I don't see how you choose between Christianity, Islam, Noahidism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Neoplatonism, etc. They seek to be equally lacking in empirical evidence.

>>25187010
Have you tried praying to anything else? It's an entirely worthless anecdote if you haven't.