RE: Respectable books on apologetics?
April 16, 2014 at 6:22 pm
(This post was last modified: April 16, 2014 at 6:27 pm by Brian37.)
(April 16, 2014 at 9:23 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote:(April 15, 2014 at 3:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You think "solving" regress by saying "it just proves God because God" is critical thinking?
No, and neither does Plantinga so far as I know.
Quote:You do know Plantinga thinks the KCA is a solid argument, despite all historical objections, right?
Okay let's say he thinks it's a solid argument: so what? "Solid argument" does not equal "irrefutable argument". Plantinga also thinks his modal version of the Ontological Argument is solid, but he clearly states the argument does not and cannot prove God's existence.
(April 15, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: The problem is he's doing it within the framework of epistemology, which is supposed to be a field dealing with what constitutes knowledge. "I dunno: therefore God" is not only an non-academic way of approaching the problem, it's intellectually dishonest.
I've yet to see Plantinga try anything as stupid as your straw man of him.
Quote:He's presupposing unsupported knowledge on which to base knowledge. He knows this, and yet continues to do it.
You'll have to elaborate here.
(April 15, 2014 at 9:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I reject the books of apologists because they are not arguments for universal science. They are nothing more than arguments for personal comic book super heros they know do not exist.
Wait, so you're criticising apologetics books because they're not science books? Non sequitur much?
Well if you value things that can be proven, why don't you go ahead and prove that all apologetics books are "arguments for personal comic book heroes they [apologists] know do not exist". Claiming apologisrs KNOW God doesn't exist is an extremely stupid thing for you to say. You might as well be a Presuppositionalist claiming atheists just pretend not to know God exists...
I can find nice motifs in Harry Potter without believing little boys fly around on brooms. Tell me, if you have read any of that series does it do any credible job explaining scientific air flight by way of broom? Do you waste your time writing entire books claiming Harry Potter was real?
As soon as a writer of any book says "In this following book I will prove the existence of Allah/Yahweh/Jesus/Vishnu/Ra, they are not making arguments for a provable reality, they are making arguments for their pet fictional deity.
It is extremely stupid of you to expect me to buy a comic book because someone else wrote a book defending that comic book.
The first few pages of that comic book tells me all I need to know. Creates the earth in 6 days. BULLSHIT. Pops men out of dirt. BULLSHIT. Pops a woman out of a man's rib. BULLSHIT. Treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light. ALSO BULLSHIT. That is my very short list, but the entire book is full of crap like this.
The fact that someone else writes elaborate crap to defend it, does not and will never make those fantastic claims true.
