New Video on Apologetics

[Esquilax]

The original claim was "victory" before he had been presented evidence, a presuppositional fallacy, PERIOD.
That's the MO though isn't it? Make up your minds beforehand and never be open for change, untill of course, 100 people tell you how wrong you were...
.

Which is why I was trying to elucidate Cinjin's claim, not the original one. Of course the original one is a tad fallacious, but I think that's more in reaction to the same, tired old arguments that get trotted out as apologetics over and over again. It's not a logically consistent position to take, but then again the people we're using it on aren't logical people. Here comes Ken Ham, telling me the reason I don't believe in god is because I'm not looking at the world through "biblical glasses." Here's William Lane Craig, saying we can just presuppose god, just 'cause. And I'm not even mentioning Ray Comfort.

Of course we're open to evidence, just not the kind that apologists will want to use. Like I said earlier, if the kind of evidence that would satisfy our stringent criteria had been found, the first we would be hearing about it would not be in a debate with an apologist. At the very least, that's the evidence they would come out of the gate with, the showstopper. And indeed, the show would be stopped. We'd have no need to continue the argument. There wouldn't be an argument, nor a need for the mental gymnastics apologists would like us to be using.

None of us, I doubt even the OP, would espouse his video's claim in every case. But these are apologists. We know what they got already. It's just predictive reasoning.