Evidence?

[chatpilot]

In the case of apologetics the worldview comes first, it's not formulated in a gradual manner. What bothers me about it most is that it starts with an absolute based on faith. That in my view is science in reverse. In science we first formulate a theory based on observations and repeatable experimentation. Then we begin to find supporting evidence to the theory but the theory is almost never an absolute and is always subject to change upon the discovery of contradictory evidence and new theories are formed and tested.

Apologetics starts with an "absolute" which cannot be proven absolutely. Then builds upon this non absolute totally relying on extremely exaggerated scriptural analysis and pseudo scientific interpretation. In the end if you are not a believer all of that is just gibberish and leads to as has been demonstrated in many of the forums and threads here to a never ending merry go round. Regarding God being the prime mover and beginning of all things that is far from a logical idea.

First of all his existence, precedes all the so called theorizing on his attributes etc. It's like theorizing on the attributes of Santa or the Easter bunny without first establishing their existence. What is so logical about that? Stating God exists because "I feel his presence, the bible tells me so, it makes sense to me, or he spoke to me in a dream, or I have faith that he exists", are not valid as proofs. The concept of faith itself is not a valid concept at all because faith cannot create what is not there. Nor validate what is not there nor can be proven to be there.