I think most "succesful" apologetics relies on using words with such ill-defined meanings that under certain definitions of the words the sentences are true. They are then applied completely outside the scope of these definitions.
When you try and define "everything" as "all the things I want it to include, and none of those I don't" then it starts to get farcical.
This thread in the other forum is still going, albeit I am now being accused of being a baby killer in an unexpected 90degree turn. I don't think they liked it when I pointed out to the guy whose proof of God is that God healed his dodgy ankle, that God obviously found this far more important than helping millions of dying children.
It's fascinating, and more than a little entertaining, how these people keep defending such stupidity.
When you try and define "everything" as "all the things I want it to include, and none of those I don't" then it starts to get farcical.
This thread in the other forum is still going, albeit I am now being accused of being a baby killer in an unexpected 90degree turn. I don't think they liked it when I pointed out to the guy whose proof of God is that God healed his dodgy ankle, that God obviously found this far more important than helping millions of dying children.
It's fascinating, and more than a little entertaining, how these people keep defending such stupidity.
