I wasn't just thinking of presuppositional apologetics, btw. All of apologetics is bad philosophy in some way or other. Christian apologetics is based on trying to defend what is already believed on faith.
All the famous arguments that I know of are fallacious in some way:
Ontological Argument: Non-sequitur
Teleological Argument: Bare assertion
Moral Argument: Appeal to consequences, bare assertion
Trilemma: Strawman, oversimplification, bare assertion, non sequitur
The Bible says so: circular reasoning
Would they die for a lie: Using folklore to prove mythology
etc.
It's all junk "philosophy" the same way Creationism is junk "science".
All the famous arguments that I know of are fallacious in some way:
Ontological Argument: Non-sequitur
Teleological Argument: Bare assertion
Moral Argument: Appeal to consequences, bare assertion
Trilemma: Strawman, oversimplification, bare assertion, non sequitur
The Bible says so: circular reasoning
Would they die for a lie: Using folklore to prove mythology
etc.
It's all junk "philosophy" the same way Creationism is junk "science".
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
