OK, so getting back to the future video, the application of this apologetic is the following strategy (famous example being the painful-to-watch video between Thunderfoot and Eric Hovind):
1. Get your opponent to admit they don't know everything.
2. Follow with but-I-can-say-God(verb)It.
3. Therefore Jesus.
The first part is easily accomplished. Nearly everyone will admit they don't know everything. Part of the scientific method is admitting what we don't know. The beginning of all wisdom is to admit what we don't know. "Empty your cup" and all. But this apologetic makes this strength into a supposed weakness. For example, in the video I linked to, Eric Hovind claimed the straw man that his opponent "had given up knowledge" based on the quote "I could be wrong about everything". It does not follow admitting ignorance is "giving up on knowledge"; in fact that's the first step. The attack is a straw man.
The second step is in anticipation of "well, you don't know everything either". We've seen how Elunico and Statler will then turn to GodVerbIt. This can be GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc. It's the perfect filler yet doesn't help elucidate our understanding of anything.
The last part is the non sequitur conclusion.
Unraveling all the fallacies to follow...
1. Get your opponent to admit they don't know everything.
2. Follow with but-I-can-say-God(verb)It.
3. Therefore Jesus.
The first part is easily accomplished. Nearly everyone will admit they don't know everything. Part of the scientific method is admitting what we don't know. The beginning of all wisdom is to admit what we don't know. "Empty your cup" and all. But this apologetic makes this strength into a supposed weakness. For example, in the video I linked to, Eric Hovind claimed the straw man that his opponent "had given up knowledge" based on the quote "I could be wrong about everything". It does not follow admitting ignorance is "giving up on knowledge"; in fact that's the first step. The attack is a straw man.
The second step is in anticipation of "well, you don't know everything either". We've seen how Elunico and Statler will then turn to GodVerbIt. This can be GodDidIt, GodWillsIt, GodDoesIt, GodIsIt, etc. It's the perfect filler yet doesn't help elucidate our understanding of anything.
The last part is the non sequitur conclusion.
Unraveling all the fallacies to follow...
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
