Classical Apologetics is an approach to apologetics based upon attempted deductive demonstrations of Gods existence and character and includes such exemplars as Plato, Aquinas, the early Augustine, Geisler, and Sproul.

Classical apologetics which, according to my understanding, attempts to prove the existence of God through deductive arguments. The primary reason I consider this approach virtually ineffective is because I do not believe Gods existence can be irrefutably proven through the utilization of logical and rational arguments. Mans reasoning ability is too restricted. Human ingenuity cannot reach so high as to logically and theoretically prove, without the inkling of a doubt, the existence of God.

The problem with the various arguments, whether it be the cosmological (God as efficient cause) or the teleological (God as final cause), or any other form, in the great final analysis God is not proven or necessarily indicated. The objections of atheists or other non-believers and critics to these arguments are very succinct, detailed, and not easily ignored. For example, suppose the opposition responds to the cosmological argument for Gods existence in the following manner:

Why does the uncaused cause have to be God? If there must be a first uncaused cause, what proof is there that it is God? It may just as well be the world, or an "existence" but not necessarily God as the Christian conceive of Him.

Who can argue that the opposition makes a valid point?

Even if we think in terms of the world as being in the process of decaying (second law of thermodynamics), it fails to prove absolutely that the world was not always in existence. The second Law implies that if the present deterioration continues, the universe will subsequently die. But non-believers may consider the word IF to be of vital importance for their argument that the world has always existed. Suppose the deterioration process discontinues? Suppose it slowly begins a process of reparation? If the world was always in existence, and man having not always been in existence and therefore incapable of observing space and time immemorial, is it not possible to conceive of a vicissitudinous world; that is, a world that experiences phases of deterioration and reparation?

Of course, to think this way a person would certainly have to believe in the idea of a self created universe. And even though this notion may repulse the Christian, the inevitable question the non-Christian may legitimately pose is: Is the notion of a self created world any more absurd or irrational than the idea of a self created God?

Apologists who utilize this approach to defending the faith are seemingly, on an argumentative treadmill; constantly moving but going nowhere.

If someone asserts the belief that no God exists, his claim cannot be positively refuted. I cannot conceive of any rational possibility for a strict proof or an adequate demonstration of God which could prevail over and against such an assertion. There just isnt any absolute, or to borrow from Kant, purely rational way to prove Gods existence that will pass universal inspection and carry universal conviction.

Therefore, classical apologetics, in my estimation, fails to deduce God by theoretical reasoning. It neglects to assure with infallible certainty the existence of God. Consequently, it falls short as an effective method of clarifying and defending the Christian truth.

The bottom line: credo ut intelligam.