I'm sure most people here are familiar with Thunderf00t and his videos. Recently, he posted one on the subject of the apologist's use (or perhaps misapplication) of philosophical arguments crafted to reach a desired conclusion. He points out that one of the main problems with this line of "proof" is that the universe is not under any obligation to conform to our concepts of what makes sense and all the conjecture about the unknown can't substitute for empirical testing and research.
I've posted before that abstract philosophy, theoretical constructs and pure conjecture, even if they all seem sound, can't substitute for hard evidence and certainly don't rise to meet the massive burden of proof called for by the extraordinary claims of Christianity. The fact that apologists can only offer philosophical arguments to make their case means that they fail before their arguments can even be examined.
I've posted before that abstract philosophy, theoretical constructs and pure conjecture, even if they all seem sound, can't substitute for hard evidence and certainly don't rise to meet the massive burden of proof called for by the extraordinary claims of Christianity. The fact that apologists can only offer philosophical arguments to make their case means that they fail before their arguments can even be examined.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
