An uncaused cause must be eternal, contradicting the claim that nothing can be eternal because it would (allegedly) require an infinity of time.

In other words, the claimed impossibility of an infinity of causes contradicts the claimed imposibility of an infinity of time. The author of the argument simply switches between claims according to his convenience, without admitting to making both claims simultaneoulsly.

He thinks from a human perspective – “Trees create Apples”, “Factories create cars”. Yet we know from the law of conservation of matter that neither energy or matter can be created – they can only be converted from one to another. Trees don’t “create” Apples. They restructure already existing matter into different forms of matter.

Thus, the very laws of physics tell us nothing can be created, only restructured.

We don’t need to speculate on what “created” existence, since we already know nothing can be created. What is, is. Everything else is mystical rubbish.

True ideas do deserve defense when they are attacked. That “capitalism is the only moral political system” is a truth. It deserves a defense, in some circumstances, but there is nothing for which to be apologetic (show contrition).

Such a defense by radical capitalists should, of course, not be called “apologetics,” because historically and conventionally that word names a particular defense, the defense of Christianity’s ideas by Christian theologians. It arose in the ancient world when Christians were attacked by the intellectually more advanced pagan philosophizers.

The word “apologetics” is related to apologia which in Greek meant “defense,” as in a courtroom an accused man offered a defense against charges, but he was not “apologetic” in the modern sense of showing remorse for his behavior.

“Apologetics” (in the theological sense) and “apology” (or “apologetic,” in the modern common usage) have very different meanings, though the words look similar.

Thank you for the clear analysis of the theist argument. The only element of your reply that confuses me is the line I quoted above. What do you mean by “Sounds about right”?

In my experience, “apologetics” refers to the act of intellectually defending a position, specifically the existence of God or the validity of Christianity. Using that sense of the term/idea, Christians I have met consider apologetics to be a branch of theology.

1. They literally have a button that allows you to simply “Cut and Paste” the argument. No thinking required.

2. The copyright for the page is stated to be held by a guy aptly named “Slick”.

Now, that said, I’m pretty sure they’ll ignore it. Everyone but the most moronic recognizes an idea that threatens to smash ones own coping mechanism. Once such an idea is encountered, the mental equivalent of sticking ones fingers in ones ears, closing ones eyes, and singing “la-la-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you la-la-la-la-la….” almost inevitably happens…along with a whopping load of guilt (at knowing that one is trying not to know), doubt (that ones beliefs are knowledge), and anxiety (that one is very near to being tempted into knowing something that will change their understanding of the world).

The world is full of soul-robbing wife-beaters and of wives who – desperate for even the smallest ration of emotional relief from sadness, loneliness, insecurity, or low self-esteem – refuse all offered assistance/encouragement by a concerned onlooker for fear of what their future would hold were they simply to open the door and leave.