A person who is incorrigible is unable to be corrected. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing repetitively and expect different results. A devious person will repeat falsehoods until he is caught. Once again, William Lane Craig continues his lucrative pattern (choose your label) in spite of repetitive correction. Click on the link below for an appropriate counter-apologetic.
“It’s impossible for atheists to do this!” …but It’s Not
The multiverse hypothesis is a common counter-apologetic against religious apologetics. However, the religious do have a point: it is not clearly true. That said, they ignore the facts behind its hypothesis. Click on the link below for a clear and concise presentation of scientific reasons for its possibility and, perhaps, its probability:
Do We Live in a Multiple Universe?
Theists challenge atheists with the claim that all people have presuppositions, which are assumptions made in advance and taken for granted. Is this true? Let's take a look at the actions of religious apologists: they assume that there is a supernatural, a God, spiritual beings, and miracles. Unfortunately for them, there is no objective evidence for any of it. In comparison, science and its methods make NO assumptions and only accept claims with sufficient supporting objective evidence. Most atheists with whom I have been in contact are science-based thinkers like myself. Click on the link below for clarity regarding how science works:
" - - - Science, at least ideally, is committed to the pursuit of truth about the nature of reality, whatever it may be, and hence cannot exclude the existence of the supernatural a priori, be it on methodological or metaphysical grounds, without artificially limiting its scope and power. Hypotheses referring to the supernatural or paranormal should be rejected not because they violate alleged a priori methodological or metaphysical presuppositions of the scientific enterprise, but rather because they fail to satisfy basic explanatory criteria, such as explanatory power and parsimony, which are routinely considered when evaluating claims in science and everyday life. Implications of our view for science education are discussed."
Does Science Presuppose Naturalism (or Anything at All)?
"The bible says over and over again that God is jealous while also telling us not to be jealous. It also tells us to be meek while also asking us to worship him.
"Why is there a difference? Why would the writers of the bible focus on this aspect so much?"Christian apologists present God as "Perfect": all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-present. However, one doesn't have to go very far in reading the Bible to understand the true character. Click on the click below if you are open to a different way of looking at God.
Why Would A God Need to be Worshiped?
"Science's relationship with the concept started out simply enough: an event causes another event later in time. That had been the standard understanding of the scientific community up until quantum mechanics was introduced.
"Then, with the introduction of the famous "spooky action at a distance" that is a side effect of the concept of quantum entanglement, scientists began to question that simple interpretation of causality.
"Now, researchers at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Oxford have come up with a theory that further challenges that standard view of causality as a linear progress from cause to effect."
Religious apologists frequently lead out with variations of the Cosmological (First Cause) argument for God. Click on the link below for more murkiness regarding causation.
Religious apologists frequently will point to religious scientists, either in the past or present, and use the fallacy of numbers to support the notion that science and religion are compatible. However, they ignore the fact that members of the ELITE scientific organizations in the USA (National Academy of Sciences) and the UK (the Royal Society) overwhelmingly reject the claims for the supernatural and a God because of the lack of evidence. The fact that some scientists personally accept these unsupported claims is much different than science as a discipline accepting them: it doesn't (full-stop).
These religious people misunderstand the concept of Scientific Consensus, which is nicely and concisely presented in this link, some of which is below:
"I like to imagine the scientific method as resembling the solar system. The planets, traveling in perfect orbits, represent the pillars of the scientific method: Observations, hypotheses, predictions/experiments, and continuous refinements.
This Catholic apologist talks about truth and evidence as if there were no science in our reality. Take a 1/2 hour to get into his mind and understand the level of indoctrination and subsequent ignorance that society HAS to marginalize if it ever is to thrive.
