4 replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
source | link

In effect, the field of apologetics accepts the idea that we may be wrong - Christianity may be based on faulty assumptions, but does the evidence lean toward that conclusion, or is does it lean toward the idea that Christianity is Truth? Can we defend the argument that the Bible is inerrant and infallibleinerrant and infallible? Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?

In effect, the field of apologetics accepts the idea that we may be wrong - Christianity may be based on faulty assumptions, but does the evidence lean toward that conclusion, or is does it lean toward the idea that Christianity is Truth? Can we defend the argument that the Bible is inerrant and infallible? Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?

In effect, the field of apologetics accepts the idea that we may be wrong - Christianity may be based on faulty assumptions, but does the evidence lean toward that conclusion, or is does it lean toward the idea that Christianity is Truth? Can we defend the argument that the Bible is inerrant and infallible? Can we defend the argument that it's reliable and hasn't been changed over the years to the point where we can't trust it?

3 added 1 characters in body
source | link

That said, there comes a question of the burden of proof. Apologetics entails the application of logic and reason to defending the faith, which is quite different than proving*proving the faith. When it comes to establishing the burden of proof, the same rules that apply in general debates apply to apologetics. From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

That said, there comes a question of the burden of proof. Apologetics entails the application of logic and reason to defending the faith, which is quite different than proving* the faith. When it comes to establishing the burden of proof, the same rules that apply in general debates apply to apologetics. From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

That said, there comes a question of the burden of proof. Apologetics entails the application of logic and reason to defending the faith, which is quite different than proving the faith. When it comes to establishing the burden of proof, the same rules that apply in general debates apply to apologetics. From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

2 added 128 characters in body
source | link

Neither can stand on it's own. Evidential apologetics often deals with unprovable assumptions, but with evidence. 

For example, the death and resurrection of Christ. Today This is the central event that defines Christianity. If this never happened, then Christianity has no basis whatsoever.

Today, right now, we can't go back and prove that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected. Skeptics have offered plenty of counter-arguments to the Biblical accounts.

Neither can stand on it's own. Evidential apologetics often deals with unprovable assumptions, but with evidence. For example, the death and resurrection of Christ. Today, right now, we can't go back and prove that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected. Skeptics have offered plenty of counter-arguments to the Biblical accounts.

Neither can stand on it's own. Evidential apologetics often deals with unprovable assumptions, but with evidence. 

For example, the death and resurrection of Christ. This is the central event that defines Christianity. If this never happened, then Christianity has no basis whatsoever.

Today, right now, we can't go back and prove that Christ died, was buried and was resurrected. Skeptics have offered plenty of counter-arguments to the Biblical accounts.

1
source | link