Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Mister Agenda]

It's not logically possible to split the moon.. 

It is logically possible to split the moon, but it's physically impossible to split the moon without leaving evidence and it's socially impossible to split the moon without anyone but Muslims thinking of noting it. If the moon had actually been split during human history, every culture where the event was visible would have recorded it or at least have stories about it. And putting the moon back together without leaving a trace...it's almost like if someone did that they wanted no one to really be able to know it for sure.

Not to mention the effect splitting the moon would have on the earth gravitationally and that no one can split an apple and restore it to the way it was before.

[The Grand Nudger]

Its not logically possible to have done that which was not done. Identity. The moon cant be split and not split simultaneously just like a man can't have married and not have married simultaneously. That a man could marry or a moon could be cracked is irrelevant to either example.

There's no point in handling nuts fantasies with kid gloves, and logical possibility is unimportant to nuts, anyway. It's just a thing they learn to say when they wish to rationalize their fantasies pell mell. Lets test it.

Kloro..summon all your strength, and imagine a world where you didn't disagree on this issue and it was logically impossible not just to have split some moon, but to split one full stop. Would that mean the story was bullshit, that your god was a fantasy - or would it then be...a miracle?

[JP Bradt]

As I go through the process of continually reexamining by beliefs (largely now former beliefs), I remain committed to being open minded and considering all sides of any issue.  Honestly, that what has led to my deconversion - considering sources and facts which were hidden/forbidden/shouted down in my world for decades.  To that end, I find a lot on the atheist/agnostic/none position which I find very intellectually satisfying and honest.  Everyone has their bias, so no one is truly down the middle, but in particular I enjoy reading Shermer, Ehrman, Harris, etc - all the ones you might expect.

So my question is - does anyone have suggetions on where to look on the theist side for something honest?  I say that because the sources I am pointed toward by theists tend to feel like sales jobs treading over well-worn arguments (Kalaam, Pascal, gaps, etc) rather than true explorations.  I'm getting suggested folks like WL Craig, Habermas, Strobel, Licona - and I just feel like they are all starting with their desired answer and backfilling.  Are there others that might provide any satisfying thoughts?

Hey, this is an excellent question! I have not read through the thread, but I will be doing so in order to consider books I might read. Thanks for this, boss!

[JP Bradt]

So my question is - does anyone have suggetions on where to look on the theist side for something honest? 

Honest? It's like asking is there some honest ufologist who has some honest books about aliens and flying saucers.

Perhaps both ufologists and theologians feel like they are being honest but when you look in their books you see that it is very dishonest because they are delusional.

I respect that you have a right to express in your own way.

Having said that, I do not go as far as to call religious belief 'delusional', not just because it comes across a little bit demeaning, but because it is not commonly agreed. I agree with the common view that beliefs in gods, for example, are not delusions.
I'll move on with that; there are other things to do. I wish you the best.
JP

[Fake Messiah]

I agree with the common view that beliefs in gods, for example, are not delusions.

If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic.

[Jehanne]

I agree with the common view that beliefs in gods, for example, are not delusions.

If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a Catholic.

Most Catholics don't believe in it:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20...catholics/

It's mostly just an Easter & Christmas thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Most catholics are only nominally catholic, according to their witchdoctors.

[R00tKiT]

It is logically possible to split the moon, but it's physically impossible to split the moon without leaving evidence and it's socially impossible to split the moon without anyone but Muslims thinking of noting it.

The splitting event purportedly only took a very short amount of time, it was only meant to show to a handful of Meccan pagans that the prophet's message is divine. Imagine that you look at the sky one day and notice, for a few seconds, that the moon is split in two. However, right after blinking your eyes while trying to comprehend what's going on, the moon appears intact. Clearly you won't tell anybody that you saw that the moon was split in half because no one will believe you, and rightly so. So anyone who could've witnessed this event probably thought he was mistaken, hence the absence of reports. 

If, however, you tell someone that the moon will split in half in a minute,  and then the two of you really witness it, even if only for a few seconds, then this is clearly a miracle for both of you.

P.S. : I can refer to various sources found in muslim apologetics websites that the event really was documented by people from other civilizations, but it's unnecessary here.

[arewethereyet]

Are a lot of people out during the day watching for the moon to split in half?

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn’t even realize that the problem isn’t that no one saw it, and would be satisfied if it was a miracle…just for two people. The continued spectacle of apologists shitting on their own beliefs.