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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Adding to the mention of Hindu theology. I can't confirm everything in Hindu Scripture but one big truth that it reveals is the origin and nature of consciousness.

When many Western scientists are discovering the benefits of meditation and how it can shed light on consciousness, then that is science catching up to EASTERN thought.

The only difference between myself and Christian apologist, is that I don't spend too much time arguing for my position. My objective is to get people to experience for themselves. If there's any argument I use against atheist it's the FACT that experience can convert an atheist to theism.

I'm willing to say that most atheists on this site have not experienced and that's the main reason for their disbelief. These "debates" are only a cover up - endless excuses to keep one from accepting the truth.

Hindu is all over the place. Lets just save ourselves the time by acknowledging the fact that Christianity is the one true religion, and keep it moving.

[Difflugia]

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, not only not living up to their billing, BUT not even being written before Jesus.

I'm getting really curious about what you think happened in the few centuries on either side of the time attributed to Christ.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated (most paleographically, some via radiocarbon) to include a range from the fourth century BCE to the second century AD. So, what is it that you mean here? Do you think that Jesus (or at least the Jesus legend, if He was mythical) existed sometime before the 350s or so BCE? Do you think the dating methods are faulty and incorrectly gave results at least 300 years too old? For that matter, what billiing do you think the scrolls didn't live up to?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 148 by For_The_Kingdom]

On macroevolution:

The problem is, these "large scale changes" that you speak of, have NEVER been observed in nature.

“There’s none so blind as those who will not see...�

I’ll see your bolded texts and capital letters, and raise you a simple Google search for ‘example of macroevolution’:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-an-undisp ... oevolution

Glad to see you accept the science of microevolution though.

As far as your casual dismissal of hypotheses goes, I’ll simply note for the general reader that the cry of “It’s only a theory!� gets applied with monotonous regularity to any scientific theory that creationists don’t like.

Re: entropy. I’m not sure what the specific point you’re trying to make is. Whether you’re claiming to know something about the initial conditions of the universe, or something else?

This thread is a debate about whether apologists ever offer strong arguments. When the example claim based on entropy was offered, I made a rebuttal that this was a weak argument (and backed up my point with a link).

Against this, you have simply cried, “nonsense!� and started talking about a pack of cards as an analogy. You will have to make clearer how this analogy applies to the theory of evolution, and explain where my rebuttal employs faulty logic or incorrect facts. When your previous point can be easily disproved by the simplest of internet searches, I have to say I’ll want to see more substance than just a one-word dismissal of physics.

[Bust Nak]

It "being" natural, and it originating naturally; are two different things.

Sure. But it's enough to debunk the claim that supernatural is required.

Show me how a mindless/blind process was able to make inanimate matter "come to life", and begin to talk, think, and have sex.

You do know that is already happening day in day out in your local maternity ward, right? You may well argue that an intelligence is required to kick start the progress, but there is no question that the chemical mechanism is mindless and blind process.

If you didn't place the water into the fridge, would that particular water had begun to freeze? No.

Without you (intelligence), there is no water in the fridge. You can't dodge those implications.

I can grant you both of these and still it wouldn't change the fact that me freezing water in a fridge in no way proves that intelligence is required for ice to form. You have presented a red herring.

Seems like you say it, and say it proud. SMH.

Why shouldn't I be proud of my inquisitive nature?

Because you see, when you have an eternal past....every single event will eventually come to past...if you had a infinite amount of time to complete a task, and you've been attempting to complete the task since past eternity...then how are you just now completing the task??

Because it happens to be one particular instance of this task? Again, how is this a problem?

This is definitely one of those "easier said, than done", kind of things. This is also one of those "nature of the gaps" kind of things.

Good think we have empirical evidence to show this, granted less easily done than saying it.

First off, I challenge the notion that software isn't physical...

So why not challenge the notion that sentience/consciousness isn't physical?

but then again, where did software come from? Man, correct? Soooo, is that not intelligence? You ain't getting the software without intelligence, sir.

False by counter example: Evolutionary algorithms are a thing you know. I point this out every chance I get.

You do understand the concept of hypotheticals, correct?

Sure. Your response here doesn't answer my question.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 151 by Diagoras]

You can have the last word. I made valid points...FACTS; backing up everything that I said. I don't feel as if I got the same thing in return on the flip side.

Therefore..you can have it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Sure. But it's enough to debunk the claim that supernatural is required.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

You do know that is already happening day in day out in your local maternity ward, right? You may well argue that an intelligence is required to kick start the progress, but there is no question that the chemical mechanism is mindless and blind process.

That's what we are talking about; starters. What kicked things off, even in your own admission? Intelligence? Welp, my case is proven.

What about yours?

I can grant you both of these and still it wouldn't change the fact that me freezing water in a fridge in no way proves that intelligence is required for ice to form. You have presented a red herring.

You do understand the distinction between primary causes, and secondary causes, correct?

Seems like you say it, and say it proud. SMH.

Why shouldn't I be proud of my inquisitive nature?

Oh, wrong answers are encouraged now?

Because it happens to be one particular instance of this task? Again, how is this a problem?

From an infinite amount of prior instances, each instant being traversed, one by one...if you don't see the absurdity there, I can't help you.

Good think we have empirical evidence to show this, granted less easily done than saying it.

Empirical evidence? Was there some new development in science that happened over the course of 24 hours since I was last here?

What did I miss?

So why not challenge the notion that sentience/consciousness isn't physical?

Because of the evidence that I have, that it ISN'T.

False by counter example: Evolutionary algorithms are a thing you know. I point this out every chance I get.

Yeah, I remember something like that...still don't get it.

Sure. Your response here doesn't answer my question.

It should. After all, it was a hypothethical. Hypotheticals are "what ifs", and you took a "what if", and changed the concept to an "actual factual".

That is a no-no.

It is a really a shame, Bust Nak. You would make an asset to Team Christ' "Apologetic Department".

Instead, you choose to waste your brain cells on a self-defeating, irrational worldview; naturalism..instead of joining the winning team, and bringing people to Christ.

Foolishness, Bust Nak, Foolishness.

[Bust Nak]

That's what we are talking about; starters.

In which case you should put more care into your posts in specifying what you mean. You asked me to show you how a mindless/blind process was able to make inanimate matter come to life, and I delivered.

What kicked things off, even in your own admission? Intelligence?

No, just mindless nature.

You do understand the distinction between primary causes, and secondary causes, correct?

Yes. Do you understand how scientific experiment does not prove intelligence is required?

Oh, wrong answers are encouraged now?

No, verifiable answers are encouraged.

From an infinite amount of prior instances, each instant being traversed, one by one...if you don't see the absurdity there, I can't help you.

No problems, I wasn't expecting any help. On the other hand, my offer to help you understand infinity, is still open from our last conversation.

Empirical evidence? Was there some new development in science that happened over the course of 24 hours since I was last here?

Not that I am aware of.

What did I miss?

Just the same old 150 years worth of empirical evidence as before.

Because of the evidence that I have, that it ISN'T.

Oh? Are we talking about empirical evidence here?

Yeah, I remember something like that...still don't get it.

It's quite simple really, not all software require someone to write them.

It should. After all, it was a hypothethical. Hypotheticals are "what ifs", and you took a "what if", and changed the concept to an "actual factual".

I asked you why you are treating an "actual factual" as "hypothetical" and you tell me it is "hypothetical." That doesn't answer why.

Instead, you choose to waste your brain cells on a self-defeating, irrational worldview; naturalism..instead of joining the winning team, and bringing people to Christ.

Foolishness, Bust Nak, Foolishness.

Thanks but no thanks. I am too rational for that.

[bluegreenearth]

That's what we are talking about; starters.

In which case you should put more care into your posts in specifying what you mean. You asked me to show you how a mindless/blind process was able to make inanimate matter come to life, and I delivered.

What kicked things off, even in your own admission? Intelligence?

No, just mindless nature.

Just a quick recommendation here: Usually, when asked "What kicked things off," I respond with "I don't know. Do you have a falsifiable hypothesis we can validate or invalidate with future testable predictions?" In this way, we are helping Christians understand how science is supposed to operate as well as demonstrating what an intellectually honest response looks like.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 156 by bluegreenearth]

Science operate under the assumption of naturalism. The full answer is "I don't know but it is naturalistic."

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 156 by bluegreenearth]

Science operate under the assumption of naturalism. The full answer is "I don't know but it is naturalistic."

I think I understand. From within the boundaries of science, the assumption is that life began through natural processes. My point was responding from a broader scope. I agree that every bit of scientific evidence supports the claim that some yet unverified natural process was most likely responsible for the development of the first living thing. However, in the unlikely event that an intelligent designer was responsible, I'm unaware of an experiment we could design that would disprove that hypothesis if it is false since that is the only responsible and verifiable way to acquire knowledge.