Are Apologetic arguments weak?

[Zzyzx]

.
Are Apologetic arguments weak?

In a current thread someone said:

Well, I am used to being told by unbelievers that the arguments for theism are weak.

Happens all the time.

Based on a decade debating there I agree that arguments for theism are weak.

They ALL seem to resolve to:

1. Take my word for it, or his, or this book (none of which have been verified)
2. Attacking science (particularly evolution) while using what science provides (medicine, transportation, communication, food supply).
3. Playing word games / translation games in attempts to make ancient mythology sound palatable.
4. Personal testimonials and emotional appeals
5. Argumentum ad populum – Many believe(d) so it must be true
6. Threats, promises, and prophesies that cannot be / have not been shown to be valid.
7. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (is true because it has not yet been proven false)


Is there any Apologetic argument that does not fall into one of the above?

Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

[bjs]

.
Are Apologetic arguments weak?

In a current thread someone said:

Well, I am used to being told by unbelievers that the arguments for theism are weak.

Happens all the time.

Based on a decade debating there I agree that arguments for theism are weak.

They ALL seem to resolve to:

1. Take my word for it, or his, or this book (none of which have been verified)
2. Attacking science (particularly evolution) while using what science provides (medicine, transportation, communication, food supply).
3. Playing word games / translation games in attempts to make ancient mythology sound palatable.
4. Personal testimonials and emotional appeals
5. Argumentum ad populum – Many believe(d) so it must be true
6. Threats, promises, and prophesies that cannot be / have not been shown to be valid.
7. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (is true because it has not yet been proven false)


Is there any Apologetic argument that does not fall into one of the above?

Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

The teleological argument, moral argument, fine tuning argument, argument from consciousness, and several forms of the ontological argument all seem to avoid all of those categories.

[Divine Insight]

The teleological argument, moral argument, fine tuning argument, argument from consciousness, and several forms of the ontological argument all seem to avoid all of those categories.

None of those arguments would support Hebrew theology anyway. Especially not the moral argument.

The arguments you've listed are arguments that Christian theists fall back on after having realized that they can't defend the actual doctrine that underpins their specific theology.

Besides where is there any argument form morality? No one can point to any absolute morality. Even theists passionately disagree with each other on ideals of morality. So there is no valid moral argument. Moral ideals are basically nothing more than human subjective opinions.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

The teleological argument, moral argument, fine tuning argument, argument from consciousness, and several forms of the ontological argument all seem to avoid all of those categories.

Are you presenting those as strong arguments? Or are they weak for reasons not stated?

[bjs]

.

Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

The teleological argument, moral argument, fine tuning argument, argument from consciousness, and several forms of the ontological argument all seem to avoid all of those categories.

Are you presenting those as strong arguments? Or are they weak for reasons not stated?

While I do think that these are strong arguments, your claim in this thread was “ALL� Christian apologetic arguments seem to resolve to one of seven listed categories.

I listed five common Christian apologetic arguments which do not fall into any of those seven categories.

I believe that I have provided objective evidence that your opening claim is false. Do you agree?

[Divine Insight]

I listed five common Christian apologetic arguments which do not fall into any of those seven categories.

I believe that I have provided objective evidence that your opening claim is false. Do you agree?

I disagree that any of the arguments you've listed represent "Christian apologetics". It is also highly questionable that any of them are "strong" argument for the existence of any Gods.

1. teleological argument (argument that the universe appears to have been designed therefore there must be a designer God).

There is no evidence that the universe was "designed". Moreover a universe that contains animals that naturally eat each, other as well as terrible diseases that maim and kill living creatures including humans, was definitely not well-designed.

Also what kind of a designer would have included in the design countless species that have become extinct?

So the teleological argument isn't a strong argument for any God. It could also fit into category #7. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (is true because it has not yet been proven false) from the OP.

There is no evidence that the universe was purposefully designed.

Finally, even if such evidence existed it wouldn't qualify as "Christian Apologetics" as it could be used to support any one of the myriad of existing religions.

In fact, appealing to arguments like this is nothing short of avoidance of having to deal with Christian Apologetics directly.

2. moral argument.

Again, there is no valid argument for the existence of any absolute morality. Even theists can't agree on moral values.

And again, even if such an argument could be made Christian theology would be at the very bottom of the list of religions that such an argument might support.

So this argument also does not qualify as "Christian Apologetics".

3.fine tuning argument.

This is basically just another stab at your proposal for argument #1. There is no credible evidence that any intelligent creature fine tuned the universe.

And again, even if such an argument could be made this would support all world religions leaving Christian theology at the bottom of the list once again.

So it's hardly an argument for "Christian Apologetics".

4. argument from consciousness.

We don't even know what consciousness is yet. For all we know there could be a perfectly secular explanation for it. So it's hardly support for any theology.

And yet again, even if such an argument could be made all other world religions would be able to lay claim for support from it. So it's hardly "Christian Apologetics"

And because we don't yet know how consciousness works number 7. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (is true because it has not yet been proven false) applies once again.

5. and several forms of the ontological argument all seem to avoid all of those categories.

Yet another attempt to avoid Christian Apologetics at all cost.

Once again, any argument of this sort could apply to, and support, any world religion so it's hardly "Christian Apologetics".

Also, this argument once again qualifies for number 7. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (is true because it has not yet been proven false).

There is no evidence than any form of the ontological arguments holds any water. In fact, why do you think they have several forms of the argument? They recognize that none of them are compelling so they keep trying to tweak it hoping to make it convincing.

So all you've done is totally avoid addressing Christian Apologetics entirely.

That speaks volumes in and of itself.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 5 by bjs]

DI beat me to it (Thanks DI) – adding and emphasizing:

Teleological argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that complexity requires design

Moral argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that morals derive from ‘God’ and/or cannot exist without ‘God’

Fine tuning argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that life (not just life as we know it) would have been impossible under different universe conditions

Ontological argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that ‘god’ is the greatest that can be conceived.


Such philosophical musings may seem like strong arguments when preaching to the choir, but are weak or of no value when others do not accept the premises / assumptions.

As pointed out, even if those were strong arguments, they do not point a finger toward the Bible God; so another assumption must be made in order to claim them as Christian Apologetics.


Again, the OP question: Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

[bjs]

Teleological argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that complexity requires design

You can investigate if complexity requires design. You do not need to assume it or take anyone’s word for it.

Moral argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that morals derive from ‘God’ and/or cannot exist without ‘God’

You can use your own reason to determine if objective morality can derive from a source other than God. You don’t need to take anyone’s word for it.

Fine tuning argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that life (not just life as we know it) would have been impossible under different universe conditions

You can investigate the science that demonstrates that life would be impossible under different universal constants. You don’t need to assume anything or take anyone’s word for it.

Ontological argument assumes (or takes someone’s word) that ‘god’ is the greatest that can be conceived.

You can use your own reason to determine if there can be a greater good than “God.� You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

Such philosophical musings may seem like strong arguments when preaching to the choir, but are weak or of no value when others do not accept the premises / assumptions.

The “choir� in this case are those who value logic and evidence.

As pointed out, even if those were strong arguments, they do not point a finger toward the Bible God; so another assumption must be made in order to claim them as Christian Apologetics.

No one has claimed these arguments are lead directly to the Christian God. There are other arguments for that. These are still argument Christian apologists regularly employ.

Again, the OP question: Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

You have been given five.

[Divine Insight]

You have been given five.

I've already demonstrated that none of those 5 qualify as "Christian Apologetics".

All they amount to are abstract arguments for an imagined "designer" that could be used as support for any religion including the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So that's hardly "Christian Apologetics".

The fact that Christians need to appeal to abstract arguments that are far removed from their dogma only shows that even they are fully aware that there are no valid arguments to support their dogma.

Even they know that Christian Apologetics is empty and devoid of anything meaningful.

All this amounts to is 5 distractions in a desperate attempt to distract away from the fact that Christian Apologetics is dead.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Are Apologetic arguments weak?

Well, let's look at some facts. There are official debates between Atheists, and apologists and arenas are filled with folks who attend in order to listen to these debates. There are times when the Christians apologists wins the debate, and there are Atheists who admit as much.

This is not to say, the apologists always wins the debate, however the fact of the matter is, if there were no good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, then there would be no way in which a Christian could win the debate, and have Atheists admit as much, if there were not good reasons.

In fact, there is one Christian apologist who some Atheists believe has almost never lost a debate against an Atheist, and there is one Atheist who was refusing to debate him. Here is a quote from an article on the "Common Sense Atheism" site,

I’m not the only one who thinks Craig has won nearly all his debates. For some atheists, it is rather maddening.

Here is a link to this article, I hope. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

So again the point is, if there were no good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, there would be no way in which a Christian could ever win the debate, and have Atheists admit as much.

Based on a decade debating there I agree that arguments for theism are weak.

My friend, this is no argument at all, because I can assure you that my years on this site has done nothing but reinforce what I believe. Now, does my saying such a thing convince you? Or, does it demonstrate anything at all? This sort of statement would not even demonstrate that either of us is being truthful. So then, why would anyone attempt to make such a point?

The question would seem to be, if it is all so simple as you, and many others make it out to be, then why is it that such a simple thing in your mind, seems to be consuming your life?

As an example, I am perfectly satisfied with the fact the earth is not flat, and I consider those with a different idea to be, just plain silly. With this being the case, I will not be spending a minute of my time attempting to debate a subject which I deem to be so silly, because I do not deem such a thing to be worth my time.

My point is, the enormous of time many unbelievers spend here on this site debating the subject, sort of demonstrates they understand there are indeed reasons to believe the claims, because I highly doubt there would be those who would dedicate such enormous amounts of time debating a subject, that would have no facts, and evidence in support, and would be deemed to be absolutely silly to believe. In other words, most folks would not dedicate such time to a subject, they believe to simply be, silly.

Can anyone cite ONE strong Apologetic argument?

The fact of the matter is, there are facts, and evidence to support the claims of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I would suggest this would be a "strong Apologetic argument" for the case of Christianity.