Theistic Argument Against Apologetics

[Angrboda]

I don't remember the specifics of the videos, but I found both good, one more so than the other.

It parallels an argument that I've made previously. Apologists usually advance arguments for belief that bear no relation to the reasons why they first came to believe. If the reasons they first came to believe were sound and compelling, why don't they use those reasons instead? If the arguments they are advancing weren't responsible for persuading them, then why do they conclude that they should be persuasive? If they came to believe for reasons that aren't compelling, why should we come to believe for those reason? Either way you look at it, the apologist is tacitly admitting that his original reasons for belief are insufficient, because if they were sufficient, he would be using them as an argument instead (as they are proven to persuade, at least in the apologist's case).