Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Jehanne]

For theistic apologists, it's all fides quaerens intellectum. Why even bother talking to them, unless they first talk to Us??

[The Grand Nudger]

Don’t put that curse on us…..

[Ranjr]

"I understand your skepticism toward my claims.  My evidence is weak and anecdotal.  I wouldn't believe it either had I not chosen to because it brings me comfort.  I apologize."

[The Grand Nudger]

Honest and credible, right there. We all choose to believe things for comfort over accuracy. My wife will always be satisfied and my children are all going to be successful.

[Simon Moon]

I have a shelf full of various a books on apologetics, including several that include Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

None of them offer any credible arguments for the existence of a god (Cosmological (Kalam), Teleological, presuppositional, Ontological arguments all contain at least one invalid or unsound premise), nor do they offer any credible (demonstrable, unfalsifiable) evidence, either.

As far as being honest, I truly accept that many apologists are being honest, in that they believe what they say, they are just mistaking as to the validity and/or soundness of what they are saying.

[Fake Messiah]

But then again, how honest is a Christian apologist if what he is saying can be easily researched and be seen as nonsense?
 
For instance, this is an excerpt from an article about Noah's flood by a Christian theologian and a philosopher, Norman L Geisler, from his book "Big Book of Christian Apologetics"

The Ark Was Large Enough. But assuming the flood was universal, the question remains as to how Noah could get all those animals in the ark. Engineers, computer programmers, and wildlife experts have all taken a look at the problem, and their consensus is that the ark was sufficient to the task. The ark was actually a huge structure—the size of a modern ocean liner, with three levels of deck (Gen. 6:13), which tripled its space to over 1.5 million cubic feet. This equals 569 railroad box cars. Second, the modern concept of “species” is not the same as a “kind” in the Bible. But even if it were, there are probably only some 72,000 different kinds of land animals that the ark would have needed to contain. Since the average size of land animals is smaller than a cat, less than half of the ark would be needed to store 150,000 animals—more than there probably were. Insects take only a very small space. The sea animals stayed in the sea, and many species could have survived in egg form. There would have been plenty of room left over for eight people and food storage.

As you can see, this is not just complete nonsense but he is making shit up.

You could ask "Couldn't he research what he is claiming? He certainly should have done it and yet he didn't - so how honest is that?"

[The Grand Nudger]

One of the reasons that people have posited an endless procession of gods is to assert items and articles that could, for the most part, be established some other way. A wider view of god beliefs (and apologetics related to god beliefs) might lead a person to wonder whether the gods themselves are detrimental to whatever truth they're used as a narrative vehicle to express. When these gods die, and they all do, those things are very often lost with them.

[h311inac311]

I'm currently reading Frank Turek's infamous, "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" where he posits the simple idea that yes Christianity does require some faith, but according to his balance the committed atheist requires more.

He also claims "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." for Christ's resurrection.

So far I find it worth my time to read.

[Fake Messiah]

I'm currently reading Frank Turek's infamous, "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" where he posits the simple idea that yes Christianity does require some faith, but according to his balance the committed atheist requires more.

Not enough faith to be an Atheist - seems like a self-own for a Christian apologist because he is saying that having too much faith is a bad thing.

[TheJefe817]

I'm currently reading Frank Turek's infamous, "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" where he posits the simple idea that yes Christianity does require some faith, but according to his balance the committed atheist requires more.

He also claims "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." for Christ's resurrection.

So far I find it worth my time to read.

I've not read it, but I am very aware of Frank from various YouTube videos of him and his critics responding to him.  I'm always willing to read for myself and evaluate, but I have to say this one is low on my list, as I've never been impressed at anything I've seen from him - he seems consistently determined to intentionally either straw-man or just plain misunderstand his opponent's arguments, which is at best flippant or at worst dishonest.  What I have heard from him with reference to this particular item starts out with a pretty flimsy premise and a vast misunderstanding of atheism, or at least in terms of how I define it for myself.  I've also heard his arguments about the beyond a reasonable doubt, but from what I recall it presupposes belief in other underlying things (ie: scripture in particular) without any particular proof.  If you accept those as true, sure, easy enough for him.

Of course, if he did have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that would eliminate the need for faith, and as Douglas Adams said, would cause god to disappear in a puff of logic.