(September 2, 2013 at 8:12 pm)apophenia Wrote: 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).
Well, the mean-spirited part of me thinks that apologists are just desperately trying to legitimize a belief that has no legitimacy with their arguments, but in truth it's probably more to do with all this personal experience stuff that every theist backpedals to when they've got no more arguments to give; they've witnessed the holy spirit and so they know that god is real, but being that they're currently unable to demonstrate this knowledge, here's a bunch of apologetic arguments that should tide you over until you have your own personal experience that justifies this belief that you should have now, because of these apologetics.
It's just a consequence of the weakness of the position that all of those arguments fall away under critical analysis.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
