TreesNightly

I wrote in my last post how a newly popular Christian apologetic argument is claiming that God is needed as a foundation for logic. I was trying to classify the argument and the best I could come up with is simply a bundle of talking points I�ll label the Foundation Arguments . What strikes me as particularly fallacious about each example of this type of reasoning is that they clearly don�t take into account the entirety of the deity they argue for. Let�s go over a few. God is needed as a foundation for logic. And yet God, as many Christians define him, is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal--qualities that break logic in several different ways. Examples follow. An omnipotent God can�t both make a stone so heavy that he can�t lift and then lift said stone. An omniscient God can�t know what is it like to learn considering he has always known all, yet he must know what it is like to learn in order to know all.  An omnipotent God can, by definition, commit suicide; yet an eternal God...

Is it just me or have apologetic arguments become more vague and confusing than ever before? I�ve been seeing the claim that atheism can�t account for the laws of logic and mathematics because they need a foundation in the divine. Upon asking the apologist why they think this is so, the responses vary. Most often they say something about logic and math working on faith because we can�t show why they work. In their minds, this makes atheists have faith in something thereby putting theists and atheists on equal ground. In their minds, it actually gives them a 1-up on atheists in that they can define a source for their faith...which just so happens to be what they have faith in, God--thus showing that their minds need more regular maintenance. This is where we can offer a tune-up. Math works. I need no faith that math works, I can show that math works. This is evidential, which is right in the unfaithful�s wheelhouse. I don�t even know how to classify the argument that the...