Why must Christian apologists tell lies?

[CliveStaples]

Good point. Fictional characters possess imaginary attributes, which is generally not a problem. Characters that are supposed to be real with assigned attributes observable enough to rule them out if they can't be seen to exist or contradict each other are a problem for proponents of them being real.

For instance, if the Loch Ness monster had been given the property of shining brighter than the sun at night; or of also being Santa Clause; it's existence would have been ruled out long ago.

What is an "imaginary attribute"? Is it an attribute that can only exist in the imagination? Is it an attribute that only happens to exist in the imagination (e.g., the attribute "being a Republican and having won the 2008 U.S. presidential election), but could have existed in the actual world?

I don't see what the difference is between a fictional entity possessing an attribute and a fictional entity possessing an imaginary attribute.

---

I believe you meant, "Apologetics means never having to say you're wrong."

Being right means never having to say you're wrong. Shouldn't the people who think religion is foolish be interested in good apologetics--good defenses of religious belief?

Maybe such a thing isn't even possible (I'd like to see that proof). But it seems like an interesting pursuit, in the sense that if a good argument exists that religious belief is justified, then there's at least a possible way to justify religious belief.