Talk:Apologetics

Bronze Class

Somehow, I just know this article can become bronze-class. The question is how? I suggest adding a section with Christian Apologists, and then perhaps a section that shows how it conflicts with rationalism.Several ingredients (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisit when this new drafted gets fleshed out. 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What's this?

Some forum says we're wrong on the internet! 86.143.241.102 (talk) (Sophie on Chrome) 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be great if, when you spotted an error on a website, there was some button you could click to change it, perhaps put above the page, or near the appropriate section, and labelled with "edit" or something like that... ^{d hominem} 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If only we had that, if only. Тy^{Bother me} 16:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Argument for Christianity (moved from Talk:Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ )

There is no doubt that the number of different religions in the world makes it a challenge to know which one is correct. First, let’s consider some thoughts on the overall subject and then look at how one might approach the topic in a manner that can actually get to a right conclusion about God. The challenge of different answers to a particular issue is not unique to the topic of religion. For example, you can sit 100 math students down, give them a complex problem to solve, and it is likely that many will get the answer wrong. But does this mean that a correct answer does not exist? Not at all. Those who get the answer wrong simply need to be shown their error and know the techniques necessary to arrive at the correct answer.

How do we arrive at the truth about God? We use a systematic methodology that is designed to separate truth from error by using various tests for truth, with the end result being a set of right conclusions. Can you imagine the end results a scientist would arrive at if he went into the lab and just started mixing things together with no rhyme or reason? Or if a physician just started treating a patient with random medicines in the hope of making him well? Neither the scientist nor the physician takes this approach; instead, they use systematic methods that are methodical, logical, evidential, and proven to yield the right end result.

This being the case, why should theology—the study of God—be any different? Why believe it can be approached in a haphazard and undisciplined way and still yield right conclusions? Unfortunately, this is the approach many take, and this is one of the reasons why so many religions exist. That said, we now return to the question of how to reach truthful conclusions about God. What systematic approach should be used? First, we need to establish a framework for testing various truth claims, and then we need a roadmap to follow to reach a right conclusion. Here is a good framework to use:

1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.

2. Empirical adequacy—is there evidence to support the belief system (whether the evidence is rational, externally evidential, etc.)? Naturally, it is only right to want proof for important claims being made so the assertions can be verified. For example, Mormons teach that Jesus visited North America. Yet there is absolutely no proof, archaeological or otherwise, to support such a claim.

3. Existential relevancy—the belief system should address the big questions of life described below and the teachings should be accurately reflected in the world in which we live. Christianity, for example, provides good answers for the large questions of life, but is sometimes questioned because of its claim of an all-good and powerful God who exists alongside a world filled with very real evil. Critics charge that such a thing violates the criteria of existential relevancy, although many good answers have been given to address the issue.

The above framework, when applied to the topic of religion, will help lead one to a right view of God and will answer the four big questions of life:

Credit where it is due: http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html#ixzz33j9WKS9w

Also check: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140604161532AALXqRb

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080224122919AA7ORG3

and

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141003021701AAyaVZC

^{— Unsigned, by: 174.25.12.206 / talk / contribs}

First off, I moved this here because it's slightly less irrelevant to the subject of this article than to the one where it was initially posted.

Our budding apologist completely missed that this bit of apologetics is utterly irrelevant when considering the topic of the article on whose talk page it was originally posted, namely the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Now, if anyone feels like engaging with such "Apologetics 101", feel free. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

BoN seems to dismiss polytheism offhand in the systematic search for the correct religion. Fonzie (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, but I don't see deism even mentioned as a possibility either, unless you count the high school-level "philosophical" 'Gotcha!' levelled against Buddhism.

It's like "professional philosopher" William Lane Craig "philosophising" his way to an a priori conclusion that the Holy Spirit tells him that Christianity is true by using his heart as some sort of spiritual phone ('Pick up the receiver, I'll make you a believer'). ScepticWombat (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

one of the links goes to "Does anyone know what happened to Chip Tatum?" which does not appear to be at all relevant. How do you get christianity being logically consistant when a prinary source (Bible) is so flawed ? What are the four big questions in life ? Absence of evidence for a proposition does not directly show that proposition to be wrong, it simply makes it unproven. Hamster (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

some nitpicks

Further, we learn some interesting things about this God who created the universe. He is:

• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)
• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)
• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)
• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)
• Timeless and changeless (He created time)
• Immaterial (because He transcends space)
• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)
• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)
• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)
• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)
• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)
• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)
• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)
• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

Did you intend to actually PROVE any of this ? Hamster (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Supernatural in nature (as He exists outside of His creation)

If he is supernatural in nature, then he is both in nature and above nature. Since "Above Nature" excludes "In Nature", we can conclude that this axiom cannot be taken. Second, if he is above nature and the universe and all creation, then isn't he in a different realm from "Earth". How was this realm created?

• Incredibly powerful (to have created all that is known)

Weasel word. If god created all that was known, does that mean he created himself, or is he not known at all? If he is not known, how can we conclude that one religion knows him? How can we conclude he exists? Can he create something more powerful than himself

• Eternal (self-existent, as He exists outside of time and space)

Nothing in the Bible suggests that god exists outside of time and space, and if he does, then how can he interact with space without forcing the law of the conservation of energy to disappear

• Omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it)

If all things must have a creator, then who created god.

• Timeless and changeless (He created time)

Time is created in time; time cannot be created, it is a property of space and light and all items

• Immaterial (because He transcends space)

See incredibly powerful

He also conveniently defies the third law of thermodynamics, and most laws of causality; therefore, he cannot be logical, and thus not moral as morality requires logic.

• Personal (the impersonal can’t create personality)

What is this "personality that you talk of? If you are talking about him being able to create multiple things

• Necessary (as everything else depends on Him)

What makes him necessary? His "morals"?

• Infinite and singular (as you cannot have two infinites)

You have two infinites, right there. Second of all, this doesn't exclude Hinduism because some sects propose that all gods are unified, and thus there is only one infinite being, "Brahman". He is literally described as an infinite wall that spans the entirety of the universe

• Diverse yet has unity (as all multiplicity implies a prior singularity)

Begging the question? It seems as if you have stated "it is diverse and unified because it is diverse, therefore it is unified". No postulation can result to this. If they postulated as such, then they just repeated common descent in evolution

• Intelligent (supremely, to create everything)

He's not smart enough to foresee that A&E would eat the the apple of knowledge. If he truly was omniscient then he purposely evades his own knowledge, making him ignorant

• Purposeful (as He deliberately created everything)

How do you know? What if he decided on whim?

• Moral (no moral law can exist without a lawgiver)

Morality is dependent on pain; if pain didn't exist than morality would fail to exist either. We make our decisions over which one will create as little pain as possible in the world. A world devoid of pain, is happiness. While the Christian urban myth states that where there is evil is devoid of god, it is the other way around, (and for fairness, let's keep both in adjectival form) godliness is devoid of evil. This suggests that evil must've existed before god. There's only one type of morality dependent on god; morality that is dependent on god, a great example of circular reasoning.

• Caring (or no moral laws would have been given)

Your god hasn't given the most caring laws. Second, morality doesn't imply caring. Does an evil cop care for the tyrannic laws he enforces?

All in all, these show a lack of a god, rather than a god (Qwed117; didn't log in) 96.225.89.127 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Separate articles?

I was just wondering, shouldn't there be more articles on other apologetic positions, or just apologetics in general? My apologies (joke intended) if this would be better suited in the to do list - Shouniaisha (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There is an entire category you can search through if you so choose. The more articles on specific apologetics, the better. Gooniepunk (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Debunking Atheists on the Apologetic method

• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B

So, ladies and gentlemen — are we done for? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)