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!

[The Nice Centurion]

Here this book is the best I can think of in helping you find what you desire:

Resurrection: Faith or Fact? My Bonus Reply
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON MARCH 27, 20195 COMMENTS
I contributed a chapter to a great new book that was just released, a book I dare say is required reading for anyone who wants to be up-to-date on the “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” debate. It pits atheist professor Carl Stecher against Christian professor Craig Blomberg. And in response are two chapters analyzing who won, one by Christian apologist Peter S. Williams, and one by atheist Richard Carrier. Followed by replies to us by Blomberg and Stecher. Here I’ll add further comments on the result.


I highly recommend getting this book, for anyone interested in the subject, because it represents the latest in methods and arguments from both sides. This is the best they have. As infamous Christian apologist Gary Habermas himself says (and this from the “Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty University”):


https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15182

[historia]

Debate: What new Apologetics have cropped up in the last 5 years?

Consider these recent journal articles:

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 offer a new deductive formulation of the Moral Argument for the existence of God which shows how one might argue for the conclusion that, if one affirms moral realism (traditionally understood as a metaethical view which acknowledges the existence of objective moral truths), one should affirm theism. The new formulation shows that these objective moral truths are either brute facts, or they are metaphysically grounded in an impersonal entity, a non-divine personal entity, or a divine personal entity i.e., God. I illustrate how the alternatives to God can in principle be excluded based on the essential characteristics of those alternative hypotheses and of certain objective moral truths. I demonstrate that my deductive formulation is better than other formulations, and that it is helpful for future work on the Moral Argument.


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

According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention.


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

Recent observations suggest that many fundamental physical constants and conditions in our universe are fine-tuned for life to exist. This provides an important piece of evidence to support the Design Argument and the existence of God in the philosophy of religion. However, the proposal of multiverse provides a naturalistic account of the fine-tuning phenomena which apparently challenges the Design Argument. In general, most of the multiverse models have specific features and they have to satisfy empirical and logical constraints. Therefore, they may be intrinsically dependent on theistic proposal under the probabilistic Bayesian framework. In this article, I present a Bayesian framework to show how multiverse proposal affects the Design Argument. I show that there exist two specific scenarios in which the inclusion of multiverse proposal can indirectly increase the credence of the Design Argument.

The first example is a reformulation of the deductive form of the Moral Argument, so represents new sub-numbers in your outline. The second example is essentially a synthesis of different arguments into a new type of argument for the existence of God, so perhaps a new major number in your outline. The last example is typical of much recent work in the philosophy of religion in that it examines or incorporate new theoretical models and cosmological evidence from physics into teleological and cosmological arguments for God's existence.

Looking at any five year window in any discipline you'll be hard-pressed to find truly novel, ground-breaking new theories. In history, for example, you're more likely to find what we see above, which is scholars rethinking existing theories from slightly different angles, or attempting to bolster or defeat earlier theories with new arguments or evidence.

[boatsnguitars]

I will consider them, obviously, but I have to wonder: why, if these are the new arguments, why would earlier people be convinced? Doesn't that concern you?

[boatsnguitars]

Debate: What new Apologetics have cropped up in the last 5 years?

Consider these recent journal articles:

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 offer a new deductive formulation of the Moral Argument for the existence of God which shows how one might argue for the conclusion that, if one affirms moral realism (traditionally understood as a metaethical view which acknowledges the existence of objective moral truths), one should affirm theism. The new formulation shows that these objective moral truths are either brute facts, or they are metaphysically grounded in an impersonal entity, a non-divine personal entity, or a divine personal entity i.e., God. I illustrate how the alternatives to God can in principle be excluded based on the essential characteristics of those alternative hypotheses and of certain objective moral truths. I demonstrate that my deductive formulation is better than other formulations, and that it is helpful for future work on the Moral Argument.


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

According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention.


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

Recent observations suggest that many fundamental physical constants and conditions in our universe are fine-tuned for life to exist. This provides an important piece of evidence to support the Design Argument and the existence of God in the philosophy of religion. However, the proposal of multiverse provides a naturalistic account of the fine-tuning phenomena which apparently challenges the Design Argument. In general, most of the multiverse models have specific features and they have to satisfy empirical and logical constraints. Therefore, they may be intrinsically dependent on theistic proposal under the probabilistic Bayesian framework. In this article, I present a Bayesian framework to show how multiverse proposal affects the Design Argument. I show that there exist two specific scenarios in which the inclusion of multiverse proposal can indirectly increase the credence of the Design Argument.

The first example is a reformulation of the deductive form of the Moral Argument, so represents new sub-numbers in your outline. The second example is essentially a synthesis of different arguments into a new type of argument for the existence of God, so perhaps a new major number in your outline. The last example is typical of much recent work in the philosophy of religion in that it examines or incorporate new theoretical models and cosmological evidence from physics into teleological and cosmological arguments for God's existence.

Looking at any five year window in any discipline you'll be hard-pressed to find truly novel, ground-breaking new theories. In history, for example, you're more likely to find what we see above, which is scholars rethinking existing theories from slightly different angles, or attempting to bolster or defeat earlier theories with new arguments or evidence.

I appreciate the effort that Tyler Hildebrand and Thomas Metcalf have put into formulating the Moral Argument for the existence of God. However, I remain skeptical of the need for a divine entity to ground objective moral truths. The argument appears to make several assumptions that might not be universally accepted:

Existence of Objective Moral Truths: The argument assumes the existence of objective moral truths, which is a contentious point. Many atheists, agnostics, and moral anti-realists argue that morality can be explained without the need for objective moral truths.

Exclusivity of God as a Grounding Entity: The argument seems to assert that God is the only plausible entity capable of grounding these moral truths. From an atheistic perspective, this assertion is not convincing, as alternative naturalistic explanations for morality exist, such as evolutionary biology, social contract theory, and moral philosophy.

Metaphysical Assumptions: The argument relies on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality and the characteristics of the entities that could ground moral truths. Atheists reject these metaphysical assumptions in favor of more naturalistic and empirically based explanations.

Regarding the Nomological Argument and the Design Argument, these also present interesting philosophical perspectives. As an atheist, I might view them with skepticism. The Nomological Argument assumes that regularities in nature necessitate a supernatural being, which I would find unconvincing without empirical evidence. Similarly, the Design Argument, while appealing to the fine-tuning of the universe, can be challenged by the multiverse hypothesis as a naturalistic explanation.

So, as an atheist, I would remain open to philosophical arguments but would require robust empirical evidence and a sound logical foundation to be convinced of the existence of God or the necessity of a divine entity in explaining various aspects of the natural world or morality. These arguments, while thought-provoking, do not provide sufficient reason to change one's atheistic stance without addressing fundamental questions and objections raised by atheists and secular thinkers.

And, I have to wonder why they would satisfy Theists. who are - allegedly - looking for answers. Perhaps you can explain why these answers satisfy your curiosity?

[historia]

Perhaps you can explain why these answers satisfy your curiosity?

Whether the arguments presented in the journal articles above satisfy my curiosity or not, or whether you find them convincing or not, is beside the point.

The challenge you put to us was:

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 claiming that even theologians aren't inventing new angles - aren't discovering new angles.

It seems to me the journal articles above do provide new developments and new angles in considering the question of God's existence, and so prove you wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

There may be new angles or variants of the old apologetics. Kalam is just a frizz-up on 'who made everything, then?' and the rather recent 'Mary Magdalene split up from the others' just a familiar old making stuff up response to the old 'resurrection isn't believable' argument.

Just the new moral argument looks just like the old one, dressed up and face - painted to look differently. Much can be done by dressing up apologetics in a lot of verbiage and long words.

So there are always new apologetics being produced, though they are new growths out of the old apologetics, such as when DNA was discovered, 'code = software' was just a new form of the old watchmaker argument.

So there is nothing new under the sun, but it might be packaged differently.

[boatsnguitars]

Perhaps you can explain why these answers satisfy your curiosity?

Whether the arguments presented in the journal articles above satisfy my curiosity or not, or whether you find them convincing or not, is beside the point.

The challenge you put to us was:

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 claiming that even theologians aren't inventing new angles - aren't discovering new angles.

It seems to me the journal articles above do provide new developments and new angles in considering the question of God's existence, and so prove you wrong.

So, what is the new Moral Argument? I see the claim - and I understand Christians accept claims in books as fact - but I'd like actual evidence that it is new.

As for the others, I am not seeing anything necessarily new, other than a repackaging. Repackaging doesn't make it new - only makes it sell better.

Before I accept that you have risen to the challenge, I'd like to see what these - alleged - new arguments look like, not how they are described on the box.

[1213]

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.

In my experience these debates are mostly atheists, or anti Christians trying to prove Bible wrong and then Christians showing why the arguments against Bible are wrong. If we don't have much new things here, it then must mean atheists have done their best and failed to prove Bible wrong and are without new ideas.

Make me believe. Please!

What and why?

[boatsnguitars]

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.

In my experience these debates are mostly atheists, or anti Christians trying to prove Bible wrong and then Christians showing why the arguments against Bible are wrong. If we don't have much new things here, it then must mean atheists have done their best and failed to prove Bible wrong and are without new ideas.

Make me believe. Please!

What and why?

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