Changes

* Semantic apologetics: Asserting that the concepts underlying theism (e.g. "God") are meaningless, such that theism is meaningless, and therefore untrue.  

* Semantic apologetics: Asserting that the concepts underlying theism (e.g. "God") are meaningless, such that theism is meaningless, and therefore untrue.  

* Incoherency apologetics: Asserting that the attributes of God are logically incoherent and/or self-contradictory, such that a God with those characteristics is a logical impossibility, and therefore untrue.

* Incoherency apologetics: Asserting that the attributes of God are logically incoherent and/or self-contradictory, such that a God with those characteristics is a logical impossibility, and therefore untrue.

* Materialist apologists: Assering that because materialism is inherent to the human experience and theism contradicts materialism, it is untrue.

* Materialist apologists: Asserting that because materialism is inherent to the human experience and theism contradicts materialism, it is untrue.

== Semantic apologetics ==

== Semantic apologetics ==

:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."  Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.

:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."  Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.

A theist could respond by challenging his assumption that miracles must be seen as ''violations'' of the laws of nature.  A theist might just as easily see them as ''interactions within'' the laws of nature.  Just as a human's ability to drive a car may appear miraculous to a monkey, God's ability to cause virgin births may appear miraculous to a human.  Yet in neither case was there necessarily a ''violation'' of the laws of nature.  Perhaps God simply understands the laws to such a degree that he is able to manipulate them in ways we cannot grasp.  Our knowledge of the laws of nature is far too limited for us to make the bold claim that events in the universe that defy our explanation are violations of the laws of nature.  If they occur, they are best understood as reflecting laws of nature we do not yet understand.  It would be the duty of science, then, not to exclude these miraculous events as impossible, but rather to acknowledge their occurence, and seek to understand them.

A theist could respond by challenging his assumption that miracles must be seen as ''violations'' of the laws of nature.  A theist might just as easily see them as ''interactions within'' the laws of nature.  Just as a human's ability to drive a car may appear miraculous to a monkey, God's ability to cause virgin births may appear miraculous to a human.  Yet in neither case was there necessarily a ''violation'' of the laws of nature.  Perhaps God simply understands the laws to such a degree that he is able to manipulate them in ways we cannot grasp.  Our knowledge of the laws of nature is far too limited for us to make the bold claim that events in the universe that defy our explanation are violations of the laws of nature.  If they occur, they are best understood as reflecting laws of nature we do not yet understand.  It would be the duty of science, then, not to exclude these miraculous events as impossible, but rather to acknowledge their occurrence, and seek to understand them.