re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes

Habermas is no different than Craig and other haughty academic apologists. He’s very articulate and is able to dress up simplistic and thoroughly refuted arguments in fancy sounding theological verbiage but it’s little more than that.

Habermas builds his entire case on the following grounds:

- the gospels are historical fact
- the report of an empty tomb and the alleged witnesses of a resurrected Christ prove the resurrection occurred
- the conversion of Paul is a meaningful truth in any account
- the rapid success of Christianity and its success today proves its validity and the divinity of Jesus

He has built a 40 year career on these completely spurious claims and preposterous logic. The facts, when viewed objectively, reveal how thin and fragile this entire argument is at each juncture.

The simplest explanation I can give is this: Every single argument he uses, every one, can be altered slightly and utilized for Islam. In the case of Islam, the presentation would come with far more historical data given how much more recent and well documented the origins of that faith are compared to Christianity.