The pre-failure of apologetic arguments

[DeistPaladin]

Interesting video. However, I'm not sure that the analogy holds between his "spam" argument and Craig's Kalām argument...

Welcome to the forum.

Whether or not Tf00t's analogy applies, I think his main point was that what seems logical to us is not necessarily how the universe works. Our understanding of subatomic particles, light speed travel, the relationship between space, time and gravity are all examples of how "common sense" fails to predict what empirical tests prove. The universe is under no obligation to conform to our ideas of what would make sense to us and sometimes it can surprise us.

Thus, when speculating about unknowns like "what caused the Big Bang" or "how did the earliest forms of life come to be", pure conjecture is not "proof". At best, it is an untested hypothesis. It may be too charitable to even go this far, since many of the assertions are currently not falsifiable.

Christians (and Muslims) have no store of magical artifacts, no sightings of angels recorded on verified video footage, no miracles that faith is supposed to be able to generate (Mark 16:17-18). They have nothing of substance to back up any of their extraordinary claims. The best they can offer are these mental constructs.

I take his argument one step further and invoke ECREE (Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence). The nature of the claims of Christianity demand extraordinary evidence. Even if the arguments like the Moral Argument, TAG, Ontological Argument, etc were logically sound (and I would argue they are not), they fall short of the standard set by their own claims.

This is what I mean by "pre-fail".