The Reason I Thought Apologetics Would Be Good---My Ultimate ''Formal Defense''

Tweet

I think I heard somewhere that 'a feature of Apologetics' was that you could present your statement (with supporting evidence) and then that premise would be 'the object in play' (which others could refute or deny). i.e. When defending a truth, 'whether-or-not I believe it' is not at issue. But ... too often it seems that one of Apologists' 'premises' is "that it says so in The Bible." So much so that it stands as 'evidence against reality.' For example (and this isn't necessarily against The Christian Belief (that we are forgiven for sin), but just to show 'how their mixed-up logic works'): I 'present the fact' that stars are tens-of-millions of light-years away, making "the fact that we are seeing them" proof that the universe is millions of years older than The Bible implies. Their 'defense' is that "since God can do anything, he just 'made the light travel to us instantly.'" (Reminds me of the 'light for three days without a light-source'-paradox---the defense-of-which being 'that the sun & other stars aren't the sources of sun- & star-light! ... which we can talk about in another discussion ...) Leading to my 'ultimate defense' (be it for- or against-Apologetics): 'Truth is true whether you believe it or not.' Christians believe many of their 'truths' "because at least two others agree on it." And sometimes no 'new evidence' (newly revealed, hidden at the historical time) can convince them otherwise.