What should Christian apologists say?

[Nihilist Virus]

I suppose Matt Slick must have a financial interest in CARM, so he can't afford to debate so honestly that it hurts his livelihood.

I'm impressed that you are able to debate somebody like that on the radio. I could never do that.

Somewhat difficult because as the host he controls the flow of the conversation. Ultimately doesn't do anything for his unsound arguments though.

 

[Sapiens]

Hi,

Yes on Apologists.

I have encountered a cult like response from them in two subjects, that they are wrong on.

I am very surprised that you did not know that Apologists are really like that.

Ask an Apologist in any Religion, and soon you will see what is there.

Are the Muslim, The Jehovah's Witness, The Mormon Apologists infallibly correct?

Is the defense attorney or the offense attorney infallibly correct in a trial?

Yes, when dealing with truth, provable truth in religion also, Apologists and attorneys are similar.

I have dealt with attorneys on both sides, when truth was the issue.

Neither of the ones I normally find, care what that truth is. Winning is what they care about.

Apologists are not objective. They are subjective.

God is Objectively True, not Subjectively true.

LOVE,

To tell you the truth, quite unfortunately I must add, I am not so surprised that you met such people. What I would tend to disagree on with you is that you seem to categorize all apologists as evil. Is it possible that those you met are not representative of all apologists?

"God is Objectively True, not Subjectively true."
Do you mean His existence or His opinion?

It's true in the case of his existence because regardless of people reconizing it; reality doesn't change because if people disagreeing with it.

In the case of His opinion, it is objective because He made the universe and the rules of it so he obviously knows best how it works and that includes us. He's subjective because He's a person able to understand what we experience. In terms of relativity, God's opinion is always right.

As for the people you've described, they're not just subjective, they're wrong in their intentions.

 

[katerinah1947]

To tell you the truth, quite unfortunately I must add, I am not so surprised that you met such people. What I would tend to disagree on with you is that you seem to categorize all apologists as evil. Is it possible that those you met are not representative of all apologists?

"God is Objectively True, not Subjectively true."
Do you mean His existence or His opinion?

It's true in the case of his existence because regardless of people reconizing it; reality doesn't change because if people disagreeing with it.

In the case of His opinion, it is objective because He made the universe and the rules of it so he obviously knows best how it works and that includes us. He's subjective because He's a person able to understand what we experience. In terms of relativity, God's opinion is always right.

As for the people you've described, they're not just subjective, they're wrong in their intentions.

Hi,

As for the people you've described, they're not just subjective, they're wrong in their intentions.

Okay. It hurts. What they do hurts. Most people do not know God. Most Apologists talk like they do.

"God is Objectively True, not Subjectively true."
Do you mean His existence or His opinion?

His Characteristics, and what is true about Him.

I have never heard of the opinion of God.

I suppose Creation, could be called an opinion. I don't know.

Creation can be a goodness. It can be, dating. It can be God's version, of "It is not good for the man to be alone, so He put the man into a sleep, and took a part of him and made a helper"

It can be God, also looking for a mate. Is not Mary the wife of both Joseph and The Holy Spirit?

Is not Mary, taken out of God?

Adam chose Eve. God The Holy Spirit chose Mary. Historically Jesus has chosen more than 70 women.

Why not, is it, that maybe it is not good, for God to be alone either?

Earth, a foretaste of things to come, might be for all of us, to be married to someone or Someone, in the next life.

Why is not, The Wedding Feast, a real one in some capacity, or another, for all, of, us?

As far as for all apologists being evil in that way, but not in all ways, am I am not evil in some ways?

If all of us, humans are evil in some ways, then is it not possible, that apologists share a similar sin?

I do hope as you point out, that is not true, and in fact, I know of one. It is Father Gaitlyn, he wrote consoling the heart of Jesus, apologetically.

He was opposed and lied to. He thought that he committed heresy. Later someone told him he did not. Upon confronting his original accuser, the accuser admitted he lied. His accuser was a teacher of his, in The Seminary.

Jesus bailed out Father Gaitly, with a personal encounter if I recall properly.

I am involved, with two high level issues. Philosophy, and, Apologetics, are two of the chief opposing forces. There are others.

My items are all in God's hands now, as I have done everthing that I can do.

Yes. God has given me personal encounters, to use and to get me through, the abuse, by some of those mentioned so far.

Apologists, seem to care about winning.

I am very sorry, if you are an Apologist, but, those are what they are like, and you are not like that, I think.

Don't judge everyone, if you are, by your honesty, and just motives.

Not everyone is rightious and just, where those two words mean the same thing.

LOVE,

 

[Sapiens]

The word "lie" in terms of apologists may be strong, based on my encounters anyways, but dishonest isn't. Being intentionally misleading is still being dishonest without telling a "lie".

Whats-his-name, Craig, does this. I'll use him as an example because he is awfully popular, and a lot of apologists model their arguments after his.

The argument of objective morality is set up so that the atheist either has to say God is real, or some terrible thing is okay. But that is like asking someone, "Have you stopped raping women?". Regardless of what people think the conclusion comes to, that is the reasoning behind it. It creates a false dichotomy of morality.

The argument about if something has a beginning, it has a cause, is dishonest because it hides the real argument, that the cause has to be personal, behind what seems like common knowledge.

The Fine Tuning Argument I actually find impressive, except that most apologists add "for life" in it, and that is misleading. They state, "The physics of the universe are fine tuned for life" and then state, well sure all the other stuff wouldn't exist either, but I'm using the word "for" differently than you are assuming.

This arguments are intentionally misleading, and that is a common place that people can find Apologists to be dishonest. Jumping to the word "lying" isn't that far of a stretch when you're talking about dishonest people.

I agree with you that being intentionally misleading is basically being dishonest.

But is it possible that you exaggerate a bit when you say those arguments are misleading though?

The argument from morality. What is interesting is that you don't need to believe in God to have good moral values. However, the existence of good moral values makes little to no sense without God. If God did not exist and if the universe had just been created by accident or chance, and if man had evolved like the theory of ecolution proposes, then how could it be wrong, objectively wrong (not just personally undesirable) to, for example, kill someone when the process which is supposed to have brought us into existence consited mainly of survival of the strongest and elimination of the weakest? If it all that were true, then everyting would just be neutral and normal, natural. Yes, if you were consistent with these beliefs, you should not think anything is really wrong. How could they be? Of course, we know that to be inconsistent with the reality we live in. The existence of evil and our being appalled by it presupposes that things ought to be better. It may confront beliefs you hold but how's it misleading? How would you rather have it? The true question, according to me, is why a person, once they have taken awareness of this, would choose to keep on believing in such a nihilistic view that is based maily upon speculation?

The argument from causality. Is it really hidden that a christian apologist will argue for God creating the universe? I agree it could be said more explicitly and I will try to do that myself in the future. Now I think this argument exposes the plausibility of God "starting" the universe. It makes sense that a supernatural being who transcends the physical laws of this universe existed before it and initiated it. If there were no laws, no physical matter, no energy, no time, no nothing, then, why did they come into existence? How did they appear? How can "nature" begin itslef before existing? In that perspective, the Christian belief of God the creator makes sense.

 

[Moral Orel]

But is it possible that you exaggerate a bit when you say those arguments are misleading though?

Not in my experience with them, no.

then how could it be wrong, objectively wrong (not just personally undesirable) to, for example, kill someone

Not killing people is not an objective moral though, is it? You have to start with a moral that everyone will agree with, including the Bible, and in order to do that you're going to have to start with something much more atrocious, and much more specific. Craig likes to use "torturing little girls for fun" and someone else on these boards used "raping little girls for fun". If I can think of an instance where it is okay to kill someone, and we agree, then it isn't an objective moral to not kill people.

You're also making a completely separate argument about where morals come from, as if it is impossible to form morals without God. I would love to see that argument show up in a thread of it's own here in the apologetics section, but I won't argue that here. This is about how apologetics should approach things, not about the specific arguments themselves.

Is it really hidden that a christian apologist will argue for God creating the universe?

No, but the argument that causation had to be personal is hidden behind the argument that there had to be causation. I haven't seen the formal argument for causation being personal, if it exists. The Apologist simply concludes, after "proving" that the universe was caused by something, "and see, so God exists because that cause had to be personal". Make it it's own argument instead of hiding it behind something that feels like common knowledge.

As a side note, I would love to see these traditional arguments show up as threads in their own right. I've seen them pop up in the philosophy section and get shut down because they led to apologetics. It wouldn't be right for me to start one though as the argument would be tainted from the beginning, being posted by someone who doesn't agree with them. I could address more of what you've said in threads dedicated to the topic, but I feel that is far outside the bounds of the OPs questions.

 

[Sapiens]

Not in my experience with them, no.


Not killing people is not an objective moral though, is it? You have to start with a moral that everyone will agree with, including the Bible, and in order to do that you're going to have to start with something much more atrocious, and much more specific. Craig likes to use "torturing little girls for fun" and someone else on these boards used "raping little girls for fun". If I can think of an instance where it is okay to kill someone, and we agree, then it isn't an objective moral to not kill people.

You're also making a completely separate argument about where morals come from, as if it is impossible to form morals without God. I would love to see that argument show up in a thread of it's own here in the apologetics section, but I won't argue that here. This is about how apologetics should approach things, not about the specific arguments themselves.


No, but the argument that causation had to be personal is hidden behind the argument that there had to be causation. I haven't seen the formal argument for causation being personal, if it exists. The Apologist simply concludes, after "proving" that the universe was caused by something, "and see, so God exists because that cause had to be personal". Make it it's own argument instead of hiding it behind something that feels like common knowledge.

As a side note, I would love to see these traditional arguments show up as threads in their own right. I've seen them pop up in the philosophy section and get shut down because they led to apologetics. It wouldn't be right for me to start one though as the argument would be tainted from the beginning, being posted by someone who doesn't agree with them. I could address more of what you've said in threads dedicated to the topic, but I feel that is far outside the bounds of the OPs questions.

Thanks for the advice about my choice of example for a moral wrong, one that can be more universally agreed on, I didn't think about it. I do however believe it is impossible for morals to exist without God.

Following your side note, I have created the thread as it has been a while that I too wanted to discuss it more seriously. It should be fair to create one for the cosmological argument later on as well.

Fair enough, theoretically, it could be something else than God which began the universe. I would then ask "what else could have it been?" but we'll keep that to a future discussion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive?

Well... here's the thing......

I couldn't be convinced of something if the only thing one can offer me is "apologetics". The very fact that they actually require "apologetics", tells me that they don't have any real arguments.

We don't need "apologetics", for example, to convince somebody that the moon exists.

Being required to turn to such argumentation, to me, is a clear tell that there's nothing there (or nothing demonstrable at least).

 

[AV1611VET]

Being required to turn to such argumentation, to me, is a clear tell that there's nothing there (or nothing demonstrable at least).

And yet the same "apologetics" you use to demonstrate gravity, we use to demonstrate Christianity: their effects.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And yet the same "apologetics" you use to demonstrate gravity, we use to demonstrate Christianity: their effects.

There are no apologetics involved in demonstrating the existance of natural forces.

What you call "effects" are, in reality (not in that bubble you find yourself in):
- for gravity: the actual objectively measurable manifestation thereof
- for christianity: claims / hearsay / anecdotes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Assuming Christianity was actually true, what kind of apologetics arguments would you find persuasive?

Assuming christianity were true?

I suppose I'd want to hear fact-based arguments. If it were true, I don't think that would be a difficult approach.

 

[katerinah1947]

Hi,

If I said, "the way you approach this kind of problem, is to hold all things constant, then look at how one thing changes, just like is done with Partials, then you will have your answer.",

Does that make any sense?

It seems like the major thinking process of all deep thinkers, meaning they are working on complex subjects with proofs, is that they use a thinking technique, EVENTUALLY OR ALWAYS, that in mathematics is called Partial Differential Equations, but they do that naturally.

It is possible, that all normally deep people, meaning those with the real answers, use Partial Differential Equations, normally, but unknowingly.

Math now, in this discussion, is not a theory, rather it is as C C Yang says, a 9/16ths inch wrench. It is also as A Flatt says, amazingly useful after you have worked a lot of problems.

Combined, math is only a tool, that requires skill from practice, like dance, riding a bike, flying an airplane, etc.

LOVE,

There are no apologetics involved in demonstrating the existance of natural forces.

What you call "effects" are, in reality (not in that bubble you find yourself in):
- for gravity: the actual objectively measurable manifestation thereof
- for christianity: claims / hearsay / anecdotes.

Assuming christianity were true?

I suppose I'd want to hear fact-based arguments. If it were true, I don't think that would be a difficult approach.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are no apologetics involved in demonstrating the existance of natural forces.

Wrong.

Apologetics: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

 

[cloudyday2]

Wrong.

Apologetics: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

That is how I see it too. People make an artificial distinction between religious knowledge and other types of knowledge. The scientific method seems to be only a formalization of how humans have always gained knowledge. But I admit that I haven't studied philosophy, epistemology, etc. Maybe how I see it is wrong.

 

[katerinah1947]

That is how I see it too. People make an artificial distinction between religious knowledge and other types of knowledge. The scientific method seems to be only a formalization of how humans have always gained knowledge. But I admit that I haven't studied philosophy, epistemology, etc. Maybe how I see it is wrong.

Hi,

On one issue in my field of science, the religious apologists, have always taken the position, that a particular scientist was wrong.

They took the position, that because the scientist was a scientist and not a theologian he was wrong then and he is wrong today, by that standard of measure.

Simply put, because he is not us, the us group then and now, say that he was always at fault.

The us group therefore does not give that scientist, his proper place in Christianity as a Doctor of The Church.

LOVE,

 

[Chris B]

Wrong.

Apologetics: reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

Yes. Because an apology did not use to mean admitting a wrong and saying "sorry",
but rather making a clear defence as to why what one had done or said was *right*
"Apology" has drifted in meaning more that its cousin "apologetics".

 

[AV1611VET]

They took the position, that because the scientist was a scientist and not a theologian he was wrong then and he is wrong today, by that standard of measure.

What's wrong with that?

 

[katerinah1947]

What's wrong with that?

Hi,

The scientist was not wrong.

He was not wrong scientifically.

He was not wrong in approach.

He was not wrong in presentation.

He was not wrong then.

He is not wrong now.

LOVE,

 

[cloudyday2]

Hi,

The scientist was not wrong.

He was not wrong scientifically.

He was not wrong in approach.

He was not wrong in presentation.

He was not wrong then.

He is not wrong now.

LOVE,

So who is the scientist?

 

[katerinah1947]

So who is the scientist?

Hi,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

Galileo.

LOVE,

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi,

If I said, "the way you approach this kind of problem, is to hold all things constant, then look at how one thing changes, just like is done with Partials, then you will have your answer.",

Does that make any sense?

It seems like the major thinking process of all deep thinkers, meaning they are working on complex subjects with proofs, is that they use a thinking technique, EVENTUALLY OR ALWAYS, that in mathematics is called Partial Differential Equations, but they do that naturally.

It is possible, that all normally deep people, meaning those with the real answers, use Partial Differential Equations, normally, but unknowingly.

Math now, in this discussion, is not a theory, rather it is as C C Yang says, a 9/16ths inch wrench. It is also as A Flatt says, amazingly useful after you have worked a lot of problems.

Combined, math is only a tool, that requires skill from practice, like dance, riding a bike, flying an airplane, etc.

LOVE,

Hey kat...once again, I'm not sure what the point that you're making is. This is becoming a bit of a pattern for your replies to me lol. Fortunately, I'm always willing to at least consider the problem is on my end....

Were you trying to say you can use math to provide evidence of god?