(April 17, 2014 at 6:06 am)Cato Wrote: MFM,
Brian's reasoning for rejecting apologetics is sound and you are coming across as someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing. My explanation might be too simple for you to understand.
I disagree. His argument came down to "they're not science books" and "they're false", the former of which is trivially true and the latter of which is just an assertion. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing.
Quote:Apologetics ostensibly are making the case or rely on the proposition that God exists; a claim made without evidence in support. It makes no difference what the argument is, without evidence the idea of God can be dismissed as a serious existential claim.
Are you kidding me? The whole point of apologetics is to provide evidence for God. Further, arguments ARE evidence, which apologists DO provide in addition to argumentation. An obvious example is cosmic fine-tuning, which when put in a probabilistic argument for theism is a fairly strong argument. It clearly moves from empirical evidence (which you seem to think is the only kind of evidence) to the conclusion that the best explanation of that evidence is that of design.
Quote:You also seem to suggest that it is my responsibility to unveil/unravel every apologetic before I can claim it's bullshit (your intellectual high ground comment makes little sense otherwise). If anybody were to present bonafide evidence for the existence of God it would be front page news everywhere, with heretofore unscientific Christians screaming the loudest in support. Your intellectual high ground barb dissolves into you having to support the idea that Brian, myself, and others like us must individually pour through every apologetic because there's a chance that one exists, as elusive as the God it claims, that hasn't been properly vetted.
Unlike Brian, my belief isn't that apologetics books are wrong before I've read them, nor do I claim that apologists already know God doesn't exist. That's a claim with a high burden to meet.
And of course apologists present evidence for God's existence. However, most theists don't really care much about apologetics because they already believe in God and don't tend to put themselves in places where they have to give a rational defense of their beliefs, so they feel they have no need for apologetics.
Now, the reason I don't need to go to his position is because I do in fact read apologetics books and have good reasons for doubting the arguments therein. An uncritical rejection of apologetics books by claims of them "not presenting evidence for God" is straightforwardly false.
Quote:I also don't have to entertain and dismiss every account of close encounters to make the reasonable assertion that extra terrestrial visitation of the Earth is bullshit.
Which happens to be because ypu have other good reasons for doubting their claims. If you didn't have those reasons and simply rejected them as wrong from the outset, your own rejection of their claims would be no more rational than their acceptance of those claims.
