Apologetics Final

What are the laws of logic?

-The law of identity (a is a)

-the law of non-contradiction (a cannot be both a and not a)

-the law of the excluded middle (must be either true or false)

What are the two types of arguments?

Deductive and Inductive arguments

What is a deductive argument?

Deductive arguments use major premises, which often focus on universal principles and minor premises, which often focus on particular principles, to form conclusions

What is an inductive argument?

Inductive arguments proceed with specific observations or data that lead to general principles and conclusions

What does S.A.F.E.R. stand for?

S: Self defeating statements (if true, they are false)

A: Arbitrary Assumptions (statement without reason)

F: Factual Inaccuracies (believing based of false info)

E: Equivocation (term/phrase used multiple times dif mean)

R: Results (consider the results of the argument)

Why is it important to show gentleness and respect in our apologetic arguments?

-Showing gentleness and respect treats people as God's image bearers

-Showing gentleness and respect shows people the difference the gospel makes

-showing gentleness and respect keeps focus on issues rather than insults

-showing gentleness and respect creates further opportunities to talk

How can we show gentleness and respect?

-Cultivate real, but redemptive relationships

-Listen to understand first before responding

-Distinguish between people and the beliefs they hold

What are the key features of tactics?

-Focus on asking questions (method)

-Focus on demeanor and attitude (ambassador for christ)

-Focus on finding weaknesses in arguments

-Position on purpose of conversation

What is the columbo tactic?

Also known as the "Queen mother tactic"-asking questions to:

-Gather data

-shift burden of proof

-discussion via questions

What is a suicide argument?

An argument that is self-refuting

What is a sibling rivalry argument?

Two objections that contradict each other. It’s like saying, “All food is yucky” but also “I love pizza!”

What is the formal suicide?

A formal suicide is a violation of the law of noncontradiction examples:

• “No one can know anything about God.” (How do they know that about God? Their idea says they can’t know, but they’re claiming to know!)

• “All sentences are false.” (Is that sentence false? If it’s true, it’s false, and if it’s false, it’s true—it’s all mixed up!)

• “My brother is an only child.” (If he’s your brother, you’re his sibling, so he’s not an only child—oops!)

What is the practical suicide?

These views do not contain an obvious logical contradiction (internal) but do contain a practical (external) contradiction examples:

• “You should never say anything is wrong.” (But then they say lying is wrong—they’re saying something is wrong, so they can’t follow their rule!)

• “Everyone should do whatever feels good.” (But if someone feels good stealing your toy, you’d say that’s not okay—you can’t live like everyone can do anything.)

• “There are no rules.” (But they get mad when you cut in line—they’re using a rule that says cutting is bad!)

What is the infanticide tactic?

An objection that is based on a prior concept, which is faulty, thus disqualifying the object, a parent (prior idea) ends up killing infant (objection) more difficult to identify, yet effective - THINK BULLDOZER

• Someone says, “There’s no such thing as right or wrong,” but then says, “It’s wrong to hurt people.” If there’s no right or wrong, how can hurting people be wrong? The first idea smashes the second!

• They say, “Everything is just a dream,” but then say, “I ate breakfast this morning.” If it’s all a dream, breakfast wasn’t real—the dream idea crushes the breakfast idea!

• They say, “God made everything perfectly,” but then say, “The world is full of bad things.” If everything is perfect, how can there be bad things? The perfect idea bulldozes the bad-things idea.

What is the reductio ad absurdum tactic?

A method of showing the fault in an argument by taking the argument to its logical conclusion, which ends up being illogical

— TO REFUTE IT IS TO TAKE THE ROOF OFF

What is taking the roof off?

Reductio and God's reality (how they live, as opposed to what they say is true)

• Someone says, “There’s no free will; everything we do is decided for us.” Follow that idea: If we have no free will, then we can’t choose to be good or bad, so punishing people for stealing is unfair—they didn’t choose it! That’s absurd—it makes justice impossible. You could ask, “If we have no free will, why punish anyone for anything?”

• They say, “Truth is whatever you believe.” Follow it: If truth is just what anyone believes, then someone who believes 2+2=5 is right, and so is someone who says it’s 22. That’s crazy—math and reality stop working! You could ask, “If truth is just what I believe, can I believe I’m a dinosaur and be right?”

• They say, “Morals are just opinions.” Follow it: If morals are only opinions, then saying bullying is wrong is like saying pizza is yucky—just a feeling. So nobody can say bullying is really bad. That’s absurd—it makes right and wrong meaningless. You could ask, “If morals are just opinions, why is it wrong if someone bullies you?”

What is the steamroller tactic?

The steamroller tactic is a defense tactic to help a person stop an opponent who is overwhelming, not with facts or evidence, but with interruptions.

Steps:

-gently request them to stop

-expose the bad manners they are using

-if they do not stop, walk away

What is the rhodes scholar tactic?

-reasons are missing and they are substitued with an expert's opinion when this argument is used...

Key question: how did you come to that conclusion?

• Someone says, “A history professor says Jesus never existed!” You ask, “What evidence did the professor give? Are they a historian of ancient times, or do they study something else, like modern history?” If they don’t know the reasons or the professor’s expertise is off, their claim isn’t strong.

• They say, “All scholars agree evolution means there’s no God!” You ask, “Which scholars? What did they say about God? Are they experts in science or philosophy?” If they’re just quoting a vague “scholar consensus” without specifics, it’s a weak argument.

  They say, “A famous book says the Bible is all made up!” You ask, “What reasons does the book give? Is the author an expert in the Bible, or are they just a writer?” If it’s just a big name with no evidence, it’s like an empty toy box.

What is the just the facts ma'am tactic?

Sometimes a person will make an assertion that is based on inaccurate information.....these assertions should be answered with accurate information and ask if there is any factual error in play in the assertioni

• Someone says, “Christianity is bad because it causes wars!” Fact: Some wars involved Christians. Opinion: Christianity is “bad” or caused the wars. You ask, “What facts show Christianity itself caused those wars, not just people fighting for other reasons?”

• They say, “Science proves God isn’t real!” Fact: Science studies nature. Opinion: Science proves no God. You ask, “What scientific facts show God can’t exist?”

• They say, “Jesus was just a nice teacher, not God’s son!” Fact: Jesus was a teacher. Opinion: He was only a teacher and not divine. You ask, “What facts prove Jesus wasn’t more than a teacher?”

What is the cosmological argument?

God is the best explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing

What is the teleological argument?

God is the best explanation of why the universe seems fine-tuned for life

What is the moral argument?

God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties

What are arguments for christian theism?

-Historical evidence for the resurrection

-Historical evidence for the reliability of scripture

-Historical evidence for the reliability of scripture

what are transcendental arguments?

-they propose that God is necessary to ground transcendent realities like logic, morality, and beauty

What are the three criteria for testing a worldview?

-a true worldview must be internally consistent

-a true worldview must be externally verified

-a true worldview must be existentially livable

Ambassador Philosophy

Ready, Honest, Fair, Attractive, Tactical, reasonable, clear, patient, humble and dependent on God.