Why is Tyre Still Here When God Said it Would Sink Under the Waves?

[Angrboda]

It's a sad comment on apologetics that it is no longer at all concerned with showing themselves correct. It's all about finding new and better ways of avoiding having to admit that you are wrong. And the latest move on that front is to redefine the meaning of words, logic, and language to artificially make it so that, for any question, you simply can't get there from here; and if you can, they'll simply hurriedly erect a new wall of ad hoc definitions and conventions to eliminate that route. This is the tactic of presupppositionalism and semantic bullshit like GC's argument here. The modern Christian apologist has holed up here and contends fiercely to prevent himself from being moved from this ground. Meanwhile, the rest of the world Blitzkriegs past this Christian Maginot line and rolls into Paris unopposed.

(For the logicians here, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You can't change one meaning without effecting all of the meanings surrounding, and more critically, the inferences and implications dependent upon those meanings. It's a form of borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, logically. While he's saving his bacon on one front, he's undermining it on another. The end result is he feels that he has gotten something for nothing -- which he often has, as many don't recognize the secondary consequences of such maneuvers in order to effectively rebut them [or are someone who recognizes in such behaviors the signature of a dishonest and unethical twat who isn't worth their time and attention and just ignores that person's bullshit]. However, once you've committed yourself to such a move, itself a form of equivocation, you've committed yourself to the unpleasant ramifications of having adopted such an asinine position if someone should challenge you on the matter.)

(ETA: It brings to mind a second pathetic side of modern apologetics. It's no longer about 'defending the faith' or even engaging the enemy at all. The apologetics of a Craig, for example, are not about convincing anyone of anything, and is solely aimed at stoking the fires of the faithful, encouraging them to more bellicose and obnoxious expressions of faith. It has become essentially, 'preaching to the choir', itself a tacit admission that Christian reasons are sterile and impotent, and completely powerless to move someone who doesn't already believe. It is an implicit act of 'giving up', because at some level, they've realized they cannot win on the basis of the arguments and evidence they have. It is a form of cultural sour grapes; turning away from reason and logic and persuasion because their cult cannot hope to appeal on that basis.)