Theistic Argument Against Apologetics

[MindForgedManacle]

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

Yeah, those two YT users do some great work. Heck, the maker of the 2nd video (KnownNoMore) is crazy in-depth (yet accessible): he has a growing series of a dozen-plus videos on every way that Presuppositional Apologetics is complete crap, a comprehensive video cutting through theistic morality, etc. He's really quite polished and I love his Dutch accent. /slight fanboy

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).

Good work. It really does give voice to the absurdity of apologetics.

The apologist William Craig, for example, has stated that his own conversion was a result of the testimony of a girl in his high school, and that should all the evidence turn against Christianity, he can dismiss that as "historically contigent" because that does not "controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit, in my heart".

/headache