Pressuposition Apologetics Cross Examined

[Mister Agenda]

As the conclusion of a logical demonstration I agree that the rational order of the world is contingent on a rational Creator god. What I object to is saying that the existence of a rational Creator can serve as a valid premise with which to start a logical demonstration. That is the difference between classical apologetics (like the 5 Ways or the Kalam) and a presuppositionalist one.

Hmmmm... Okay progress...

So the way i understand it, if the premisis are true than the conclution must be true. And what seems to be the issue with this aproach is that we cannot empericaly prove the existence god. Leaving both presupositions at a loss.

However, this is negating the supporting evidence for the premise. If there is reason to believe in the premise of a creator, it is AT LEAST more reasonable than justifying the brain with the brain.

And as it turns out, the athiest have dug themselves into a hole by dissmissing all evidence in support of a creator...

Amazing, it's all clicking together now.

If the premises are true AND the argument leading to the conclusion is valid, the conclusion will be true.

There's a way to demonstrate that you're here to learn and capable of doing so, btw; and you're failing at it. Have you considered less arrogance?