I wanted to jot down all the Christian apologetics out there. Let’s see how fast I can refute each one. This list is taken from Wikipedia.
- Cosmological argument – Argues that the existence of the universe demonstrates that God exists. Various primary arguments from cosmology and the nature of causation are often offered to support the cosmological argument. This is more or less the first mover argument. It has many flaws, most keen is the fact is the even if there is a first mover, there is no link between that first mover and whatever god you believe in.
- Teleological argument – Argues that there is a purposeful design in the world around us, and a design requires a designer. Cicero, William Paley, and Michael Behe use this argument as well as others. I do not accept the world looks designed. Evolution by natural selection may make it appear there is design, but even Darwin debunked this one.
- Ontological argument – Argues that the very concept of God demands that there is an actual existent God. This is thinking god(s) into existence. Even when it was formulated over 750 years ago, contemporaries pointed out you can substitute any other word for god and the argument still works.
- Moral Argument – Argues that there are objectively valid moral values, and therefore, there must be an absolute from which they are derived. There are no morals outside of thinking brains and brains are subjective. There are no moral absolutes.
- Transcendental Argument – Argues that all our abilities to think and reason require the existence of God. Silly argument, machines and animals can think, do they require a god? There is no transcendent reality, it is a fiction.
- Presuppositional Arguments – Argues that the basic beliefs of theists and nontheists require God as a necessary precondition. This one is just stupid, God exists because we need god to exist to have reason and we need reason to reason god. It is a stupid, circular argument.
- Alvin Plantinga’s argument that belief in God is properly basic, reformed epistemology. Which is basically Presuppositional arguments restated.
- Pascal’s wager, is an argument that posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists. Somehow we can trick god into believing we believe? Seems a better argument against god than for.
Moral apologetics states that real moral obligation is a fact. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said, “We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.” There are no moral absolutes and empathy is enough for me.
Many Christians contend that science and the Bible do not contradict each other and that scientific fact supports Christian apologetics. Bwahahaha. The earth was not created before the sun. Your argument has no value. People do not come back from the dead. Your argument has no value.
The Creation Museum is a museum run by Answers in Genesis, a young Earth creationism apologetics organization
Creation apologetics include young Earth creationism, old Earth creationism, and theistic evolution. Young Earth creationists believe the Bible teaches that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and reject the scientific consensus for the age of the Earth.
Experiential apologetics is a reference to an appeal “primarily, if not exclusively, to experience as evidence for Christian faith.” Also, “they spurn rational arguments or factual evidence in favor of what they believe to be a self-verifying experience.” This view stresses experience that other apologists have not made as explicit, and in the end, the concept that the Holy Spirit convinces the heart of truth becomes the central theme of the apologetic argument.