New Apologetics?

[boatsnguitars]

I've grown tired of Apologists. Officially. I know many here have, as well. I know many Apologists here would just say that I'm not "getting it".

I've done this for decades. I've seen the same arguments and counter arguments over and over. There is nothing new under the Sun - not in the world of Apologetics. How could there be? The Bible doesn't change. There is no new discovery that confirms anything in the Bible.

About a decade ago I suggested we numbered the arguments:
1. Ontlogical argument
1.1: Response to the Onto Argument
1.1.1: Rebuttal to the response
1.1.1.1: Rebuttal to the rebuttal

(The actual numbering isn't important)

Then, we could just debate thusly:

3
3.55
3.55.2
3.55.2.1

5!
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.1.4!

Because, as I see it, we are now simply regurgitating. I know there are new people - new young people - learning about this, and it's important we reach the young people the Church is trying to corrupt. But when I see 40, 50, 60 year old people arguing at basic levels, it's frustrating.

Here's a thought: I challenge all Christian Apologists to go to a Muslim Apologist website and spend 10 years arguing against them. Learn all the tricks. Learn all their responses. Then, return to a site like this and try to have a good, rational debate. What I am seeing here is not rational, it's not debate and - frankly - I believe this site deserves better. As much as I disagree with the owner, I think he has done an amazing job of allowing different views. I'm just not seeing the effort from Christians here. I'm not seeing anything other than warmed over WLC, CS Lewis or worse arguments.

Debate: What new Apologetics have cropped up in the last 5 years? It must be in the last 5. Unique, specific, and solid arguments for the legitimacy of some aspect of Christianity. Prove my premise wrong. Prove that we are not simply recycling old arguments over and over - without any reference to new developments in the arguments.

I'm not saying we - non-philosophers - need to invent new angles to view the problem. I'm claiming that even theologians aren't inventing new angles - aren't discovering new angles. Sure, they may find a new analogy of an old problem, but I bet there is nothing new from Apologists that is of any concern. Even WLC - the greatest Christian Apologist ever - hasn't come up with anything.

Prove me wrong. Debate me. Bring it on. You will be allowed to pray to God and use His mighty brain to go up against me! I won't consider it cheating!

edit: I encourage people to vent. To argue! To live the dream of expressing their passion! LIVE!!!!! LIVE!!!!! Live in the moment that you feel fit! Express your beliefs in the most profound and expressive ways you can! MAKE US BELIEVE!!!!! Use the POWER OF CHIRST!!!!! COMPELL US!!!!!!! Pull out all stops!!! DO NOT HOLD BACK!!!!!!! I implore you all!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE!!!! MAKE US BELIEVE!!!!!

Make me believe. Please!

[boatsnguitars]

...
The existence of your God. So you don't look silly believing in something that you can't demonstrate to be true.

If I prove (=demonstrate) something, it is not anymore belief, it is knowing. The reason why I say I believe is, that I can't prove.

I believe it is the year 2023.

Nope, seems your reasoning is wrong. I can say the above statement and still demonstrate to you that it is the year 2023.

Lastly, knowledge is a subset of belief. Knowledge is defined as the small fraction of our beliefs that actually meet the scientific standard of evidence. As such, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are actually True. Therefore knowledge is by definition “True belief(s)”.

So, try again, please.

[Data]

...
The existence of your God. So you don't look silly believing in something that you can't demonstrate to be true.

If I prove (=demonstrate) something, it is not anymore belief, it is knowing. The reason why I say I believe is, that I can't prove.

I believe it is the year 2023.

Nope, seems your reasoning is wrong. I can say the above statement and still demonstrate to you that it is the year 2023.

Lastly, knowledge is a subset of belief. Knowledge is defined as the small fraction of our beliefs that actually meet the scientific standard of evidence. As such, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are actually True. Therefore knowledge is by definition “True belief(s)”.

So, try again, please.

Which calendar? French Revolutionary 230, Persian 1401, Islamic 1444. Hindu 1944, Buddhist 2563, Julian 2776, Chinese 4720, Hebrew 5783 and Assyrian 6771.

[boatsnguitars]

Andrew Ter Ern Loke, "A New Moral Argument for the existence of God," International Journal for Philosophy of Religion vol. 93 iss. 1 (Feb. 2023), pp 25-38.

I didn't pay the $30, so I can't comment on what appears to be The Moral Argument for God. Dress it up all you want, it doesn't seem to be different than WLC's. But, I can't tell.

Tyler Hildebrand and Thomas Metcalf, "The nomological argument for the existence of God," Nous vol. 56 iss. 2 (Jun. 2022), pp 443-472.

This one is pretty bad.
1. It seems to be nothing more than a light hand wave at ID.
2. It defeats itself by not addressing it's own objection:

Another objection might be that we’ve just posited a “God of the gaps” — simply positing God ad hoc when there’s some gap in our knowledge. However, we haven’t argued, “We don’t know why laws of nature exist, and therefore, God did it.” Instead, we’ve argued as follows: We know why God would create regularities, but we don’t know why random chance or some mindless law would. And recall, the version of God we’ve described — simply a person with the power to control whether there are regularities — is relatively modest. Therefore, God provides a pretty good explanation of these regularities.

So, first of all, how is there a God if there isn't some random process that could manifest a God? It already assumes something about the nature of reality can create regularities - namely a god.
Second, they don't address the problem: "We don't know why God would create regularities" Therefore, they say, "we assume God did it in the gap of our knowledge."
Third, this doesn't seem to be a new argument, either. It is the Teleological Argument or ID warmed over.

Man Ho Chan, "How Does Multiverse Proposal Affect the Design Argument?" Religions vol. 13 iss. 10, 948 (Oct. 2022).

Again, the Teleological Argument or ID Argument. The only difference is that the Theist has found a new gap to fill: the Multiverse.
We don't even know if a multiverse exists, but this paper is ready to claim it for Jesus!


A note on all the arguments. None of them claim to be strong. They all immediately retreat and only suggest that one could have some reason to continue to believe in God.

Worse, you will note that each of the authors are Christians from Christian Universities. Even their reviewers were Christians.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/10/948/review_report

[POI]

2) Further, skeptics/atheists/doubters cannot prove a negative. The ultimate claim from the Bible is that "Jesus is risen". How could a skeptic prove this claim did not happen?

If it can't be proven wrong, why do you even try? You could just simply say, "I don't believe" and then let it be.

There are many claims in Christianity which are falsifiable. And when they are falsified, you ignore them. Cough cough, "the Exodus". But yea, the grand-daddy ultimate claim(s), in both Christianity and Islam, are not falsifiable. But many arguments can raise logical doubt.

[TRANSPONDER]

Old or new these apologetics for Religion gods or the Bible are terrible poor. Data pulling pettifogging tricks with calendars that nobody uses in talking dates in the west on an English - language forum, to the miserable whining of 'why can't you just not believe and leave people alone?' because the religious cannot leave people alone, that's why. Short post but friends, I'd better leave it right there

[1213]

There are many claims in Christianity which are falsifiable. And when they are falsified,...

Sorry, you have failed in that.

[1213]

Nope, seems your reasoning is wrong. I can say the above statement and still demonstrate to you that it is the year 2023.

Not for a person who is not willing to believe you.

[1213]

Because the logic (and evidence) indicates that not believing is logically and evidentially correct, and those who believe in spite of that are logically wrong. That is why Theist Faith is irrational

Exactly. That is the point. Theism treats faith (in one particular faithclaim and ignore the others) as a virtue for Believing something in spite of evidence and logic. It isn't. But because Christians (and to an extent other theists) operate on a priori Godfaith, they cannot see that Faith is a fallacy and not a virtue. They are trapped in that mindset and cannot get out of it, it seems.

to me faith is not the same as believe. And I think also in the Bible, belief is not the same as faith. Faith means faithfulness, which is same as loyalty.

[TRANSPONDER]

There are many claims in Christianity which are falsifiable. And when they are falsified,...

Sorry, you have failed in that.

I think not. What has happened in the believers deny everything and think they win that way.

Nope, seems your reasoning is wrong. I can say the above statement and still demonstrate to you that it is the year 2023.

Not for a person who is not willing to believe you.

No. What you believe or deny is not what it's about; it is actually the best case. Believers constantly think all they have to do is deny everything and they win. But thanks at least for making it perfectly clear that is what Bible apologetics eventually comes down to - Faithbased denial.

Because the logic (and evidence) indicates that not believing is logically and evidentially correct, and those who believe in spite of that are logically wrong. That is why Theist Faith is irrational

Exactly. That is the point. Theism treats faith (in one particular faithclaim and ignore the others) as a virtue for Believing something in spite of evidence and logic. It isn't. But because Christians (and to an extent other theists) operate on a priori Godfaith, they cannot see that Faith is a fallacy and not a virtue. They are trapped in that mindset and cannot get out of it, it seems.

to me faith is not the same as believe. And I think also in the Bible, belief is not the same as faith. Faith means faithfulness, which is same as loyalty.

As I think boats' argued above, that is the difference. To avoid semantic confusion 'Belief' is best used for a validated belief, by decent evidence and (best of all) scientifically validated evidence. Faith (especially capital F) is conveniently used to denote beliefs without valid evidence and even in despit of the evidence. In fact as has been noted Believers who claim to beleive the Bible actually have Faiths in their own Beliefs, even in the Bible actually says something else. We saw this with prayer (even if it worked) is NOT answered as guaranteed in the Bible, Genesis 'light' is daylight and night, morning and evening and not some permanent cosmic light, OT slavery is chattel slavery and not a welfate scheme and Luke does contradict Matthew over the women running into Jesus or not. Just a few examples of how the religious Faithful deny everything - even what they Bible actually says - in favour of Faith in their own rightness.

I swear I would rather be decapitated by an Islamic executioner than be a Theistthinker and deluded as much as that.

[POI]

There are many claims in Christianity which are falsifiable. And when they are falsified,...

Sorry, you have failed in that.

Again, because you ignore them. Cough cough, "the Exodus".