Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined

[Neo-Scholastic]

Remember i'm try to learn here so knock off all this emotional garbage.

Fair enough. I appreciate that you want to learn. That’s great. My point is that the speakers, who appear to be some kind of para-ministry, are not equipping their students to defend the Christian faith. I can guarantee that if the students’ rely on such flimsy justification their beliefs will fold like lawn chairs in a hurricane when faced with even the most basic objections. So, yeah, I get a little emotional because this is the kind of nonsense that I was fed repeated when I was a kid.

My impression, is that it points out a foundational flaw for naturalists epistemology. Now i wouldn't claim that it is an argument in the traditional sense of premisis, and a conclution. But rather the way i would aproach it, is by pointing out naturalists don't have a justification for objectivity.

The problem is their “presupposition” that acceptance of special revelation, specifically the bible, is necessary to justify belief in 1) the efficacy of human reason and 2) the intelligibility of the reality. That’s completely backwards. Belief in the efficacy of reason and the intelligibility of the world are necessary to justify subsequent beliefs about not just biblical texts, but pretty much everything else.

Atheists can count, but can't account for their counting.

I agree that physical reductionists have no adequate solution to the problem of universals. That is a separate issue. And not all atheists are physical reductionists.

Do you feel it is a necessary precondition, and the exception to the rule? Do you deny objectivity, everything is subjective?

I believe that knowing subjects can hold justified true beliefs about objects that have independent existence. No one needs the bible to believe that.