Presuppositional Apologetics is unique in that it assumes there can be no common ground between a nonbeliever and a "True Believer."
This means that for the PA, like William Lane Craig, lying is not off the table. In fact, they presuppose that logic, reason and morality are impossible without God. Atheists, therefore, are aware God exists, but are "lying to deny their creator."
If you are lucky enough to encounter a Presuppositionalist who is honest enough to present their worldview, they begin with the TAG argument:
Instead of advancing arguments for the existence of God, the Presuppositionalist simply assumes it as granted. They assume, therefore, that atheists must assume God does not exist in order to formulate arguments, and reject any argument that does not presuppose <God Exists> as invalid.
I'm interested to see some forum refutations to this kind of intellectually dishonest crap, as it catches most people off guard, and Presuppositionalists like William Lane Craig and Ken Ham use this to their Gish-galloping advantage. And it appears convincing, to those who buy the opening BS.
This means that for the PA, like William Lane Craig, lying is not off the table. In fact, they presuppose that logic, reason and morality are impossible without God. Atheists, therefore, are aware God exists, but are "lying to deny their creator."
If you are lucky enough to encounter a Presuppositionalist who is honest enough to present their worldview, they begin with the TAG argument:
Quote:The TAG is a transcendental argument that attempts to prove that God is the precondition of all human knowledge and experience, by demonstrating the impossibility of the contrary; in other words, that logic, reason, or morality cannot exist without God. The argument proceeds as follows:[3]
If there is no god (most often the entity God, defined as the god of the Christian Bible, Yahweh), knowledge is not possible.
Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality).
Therefore a god exists.
Instead of advancing arguments for the existence of God, the Presuppositionalist simply assumes it as granted. They assume, therefore, that atheists must assume God does not exist in order to formulate arguments, and reject any argument that does not presuppose <God Exists> as invalid.
I'm interested to see some forum refutations to this kind of intellectually dishonest crap, as it catches most people off guard, and Presuppositionalists like William Lane Craig and Ken Ham use this to their Gish-galloping advantage. And it appears convincing, to those who buy the opening BS.
