Many of the threads that I watch and occasionally kibitz on here look to me to be “train recks” from the start.
I know they are going to be a mess, but I just can’t look away.
The consistent “fatal flaw” seems to be arguing a point from “the other guys” set of rules when you know in advance that those rules dom the argument to failure.
For example presenting “proof” of Christianity to someone who does not accept the Bible as Historically or Theologically accurate.
Presenting “proof” of th Perpetual virginity to someone who maintains a Sola Scriputra view and rejects the teaching of the Church and the writings to the ECFs.
“Proving” that Womens ordination is something the Church “does not have the Authority” to do to someone who does not accept Church Authority.
It seems to me that in each case we give authority to the “doubter” to limit the conversation to exclude apeals to that on which the belief is primarily based.
In the end your left with a case hat says: Christianity does not contradict rationality or logic, The Perpetual Virginity does not Contradict Scriptue, An all Male Priesthood does not contradict Scripture or Tradition.
You can never pull “explicit” evidence from the sources your limited too, so the train wreck is inevitable.
So should the “first” objective be to show that a particular belief is “not opposed” to the “accepted supporting data” or should it be to establish “another suporting data set” as legitimate?
i.e. If you can’t get a non Christian to “eventually” accept the testimony of the Bible (or the ECFs or the Church) then what’s the point?