Apologetics are supposed to be "reasoned arguments to support scripture." [View all]
Last edited Thu Aug 31, 2017, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)
Reasoned. Logical. The problem with all of that lies in the underlying premise that a supernatural deity which is all-powerful, all-knowing and infallible actually exists and affirms what is in the scriptures being discussed. Unless you accept that premise, all apologetics fail the basic tests of logic.
Most apologetics are circular in nature, at best, and can be argued back to that underlying premise, which can only be true based on faith that it is true, rather than on any evidence of truth.
Once the underlying premise is exposed, apologetics fall apart as tautologies. Now, the argument against apologetics is futile, because the believer will simply cite faith in the premise, but there is no actual logic or reason involved. Unless you accept the premise, the logic is false. If you accept the premise, it can be argued as truth, but there is no evidence for the premise.
All religious arguments have that premise as their foundation. It is impossible to succeed in such an argument, since the person you are arguing with accepts the premise on "faith."
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
= new reply since forum marked as read
