Nonexistent Neutrality

As I am attempting to educate myself with defensible reasons for the truthfulness of the Christian faith, I find myself wanting. Yet not, as it would seem, wanting of better facts. It is a desire for a neutral base of knowledge by which I can measure the validity of each side's arguments. This I do not have and therefore can never have. Neutrality no more exists in reality than does hate exist in true love.

Maybe I am wrong on that point. Yes, speaking abstractly, neutrality may exist - it is just that we can never obtain such neutrality for ourselves. Assimilated knowledge is perpetually influenced by previous knowledge which is in turn influenced by the new knowledge that is assimilated. I am therefore inclined not to believe that my reasoning faculty is in any sense neutral. At this point, my reason points me to the existence of God because of my previous knowledge and experience, just as the atheists reason points him towards the non-existence of God due to his own previous knowledge and experience. The complexities that are found herein are lengthy, because many will posit the atheist who grew up in a Christian home learning Christian things all of his life, or the Christian who grew up in a Muslim culture learning the Islamic worldview. Maybe the events by which we are influenced are so vastly dynamic and relative to inherent personality that the atheist who grew up in a Christian home really only experienced and learned an atheistic worldview. Though the intention of her parents was to raise her up to trust in Christ as her Savior, the multitude of events that she experienced along with her inherent personality caused her to develop such a worldview that, when her well meaning parents taught her about Christ, they effected the opposite of what they wished for. Unknowingly, they fed her the exact truth which she was most inclined to disbelieve.

Of course, this is only hypothetical conjecture. I have no real evidence for this that I am capable of producing, and even if I presently do, I sincerely doubt it would be compelling. However, you may be able to assign this to your collection of evidence and find that it matches up well. You might also find that it is entirely inconsistent with your evidence, but hopefully not both at once.

While an abstract neutrality may exist, the moment it is perceived it loses its position of disengagement. Maybe what I am wanting is a neutral source. But even that falls apart, because when that source relays information to me, the information is subjected to all of my previous bias. I am not an objective person. What, then, can I appeal to in the defense of the Christian faith that will hold true across the spectrum of humanity? Is it Calvin's sensus divinitatis, an a priori apologia made for God's existence which turns to an ostensible universal sense of divinity?

I'm left with a choice. I fear that choice because I fear my own subjectivity which inevitably influences my decision. I've been dealt a hand, and the time has come to place my bets. Yet I now realize that this game began a long time ago. It must have, because I have already placed bets and then been dealt new hands which providentially expound upon the hand I had previously. "Ante's in, time to place your bet." Once again, I am forced to choose rather than forced to go all in or fold. It's the difference between persuasion and coercion that seems to me the most compelling.