Having been introduced to Presuppositionalism through a back door, I have a very basic question: What is it, snd what is it based on? In other words, on what ground do you pre-suppose your'e pre-suppositions? If Atheos Foolsson asks you "how do you know that there is a God", or "how do you know that Jesus Christ has died and rose again", or "how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inerrant", what is your'e reply? If you can explain the answer simply, without complex philosophical... Read more ..read more

I’d like to discuss this proposition as it relates to comparative worldviews - here’s the framework: Axiom 1 (A1): Reality is all things that logically exist, both material and immaterial, independent of human observation Axiom 2 (A2): Objective Truth (OT) (I.e., that which logically comports with reality) exists Axiom 3 (A3): Human life has inherent value 1. The proposition “Objective (aka Absolute) Truth exists” is axiomatic 2. Any truth claim can be examined for alignment to 1 3... Read more ..read more

Is the moral argument classical apologists use similar to that which presuppositionalists use? I just saw Jeff Durbin using something like the moral argument(you believe in materialism therefore you have no standard as you're just matter in motion,etc.) in a debate. So are there arguments like the moral argument where VanTillianism and Evidential apologetics overlap? Is the only difference that presuppositionalists demolish atheistic presuppositions before they present evidence or something ..read more

Without an ultimately good God as an objective moral and teleological absolute, meaning and morality are subjective, so the foundational proposition of the Epicurean Paradox, “evil exists”, is objectively illogical. However if God necessarily exists and is objectively and ultimately good, then evil must serve some objectively necessarily and ultimately good purpose. That is, evil is logically necessary for God’s good purpose. P1: All that exists serves God’s good purpose P2: Evil exists... Read more ..read more

I can't remember his name but I believe there's a presup guy who wrote based on his dissertation on how logic proves God. I think he's baptist but I don't remember. I want to say his first or last name started with a T. I know it's not very specific but it's all I can remember ..read more

Is there a good book which offers practical advice on how to do presuppositional apologetics(like on how to ask questions regarding presuppositions and so on)? Many books(like Oliphint's The Battle Belongs to the Lord) seem to have more information about apologetics rather than pragmatic advice on how to reason with unbelievers ..read more

(a.) The cosmological argument. Every change is due to some cause. Let us see where this statement will lead us. We exist. We owe our existence to our parents. Our parents owe theirs to their parents, and so on. Unless we adopt Darwinism, we must conclude that the human race is eternal, or that the chain of which parent and child are the links terminates in our first parents. But we cannot believe that the human race is eternal, for this would be like supposing that one link of a chain... Read more ..read more

I want to know how you would answer someone like a Muslim who also claims to have a word from God. How would you prove or how do you know the bible is God's word and other texts aren't? I want to know how classical, presuppositional, evidential, etc would answer. I'm interested primarily in the self-authenticating canon argument but I want to hear different perspectives ..read more

Thirdly, as man is a creature endued with reason, the Law of Nature teacheth him, 1. Something concerning God. 2. Something concerning his Neighbour. 3. Something concerning himself. I mean some general notions concerning good and evil, in respect of Each of these. Whereof the Apostle meaneth, whiles he saith, that the Gentiles shew the work of the Law written in their hearts. First then, the Law of Nature teacheth man, to know that there is a God, and that this God is to be worshiped... Read more ..read more

Hanniah the profit renders van tillian apologetics useless. The reason this is the case is because van tillian presuppositionalism is supposed to show the necessity of the Christian worldview. The problem is the format of these arguments attempt to show that the triune God of scripture is true my necessity. This is where Hanniah the prophet becomes a problem Hanniah is a false prophet who speaks in the name of the real guy who is mentioned in Jeremiah 28 verses 15 to 17. Jeremiah... Read more ..read more