On: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems (2015)

[throwaway729]

> The main problem with ontological arguments (and why, even as a Christian, I don't like them) is because they seem to embed the conclusion in their first premise

But that is also true of the informal rhetorical arguments that are more common in (christian) apologetics.

The gift of formal proofs is that they make explicit and unavoidable this embedding of conclusion in premise, which is fundamental to all (epistemologically rational) apologetics

[dvt → throwaway729]

> this embedding of conclusion in premise [...] is fundamental to all (epistemologically rational) apologetics

It might be true of all ontological arguments, but certainly not all apologetic arguments.