Reverse Presuppositional Apologetics

Buona sera. First, a bit of business to take care of. An atheist troll keeps bugging me about the Photoshop "Crocoduck" picture that I had up for a while.

"What does it mean, Cowboy Bob?"

(sigh)

It's something that some of us who are Creationists mention. Since there are no examples of transitional forms between species in the fossil record, the crocoduck is an illustration of that point — if evolution were true, you'd see change of this nature all the time.

Can we move on, now?

Did the big words in the title scare you? Don't let them. According to Matt Slick of CARM, "A Christian presuppositionalist presupposes God's existence and argues from that perspective to show the validity of Christian theism. This position also presupposes the truth of the Christian Scriptures and relies on the validity and power of the gospel to change lives (Rom. 1:16)." Essentially, I see it as, "Let's assume for this discussion that God exists", and build on that notion. The approach of presuppositional apologetics is used in the Bible. Theologian Cornelius Van Til helped revive the approach. Others followed, including Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Clark. There is no "one school" of presuppositional apologetics.

"That's not fair, Cowboy Bob! It's an unfair advantage!"

You think so, huh? Well, guess what? Nobody is unbiased. Yes, I've said it before, and I will keep saying it. Nobody leaves their biases or presuppositions at the door. One scientist can have a fossil of a trilobite and say, "This is a simpler life form in the geologic column. More advanced life forms evolved later." Another scientist can see the same trilobite fossil and say, "This is evidence of a global flood where billions of creatures were buried in what became rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth." Each scientist will want evidence to support his or her interpretations and presuppositions, but the only fact is that it is a trilobite fossil.

Atheists loathe the Christian approach of presuppositional apologetics. When it comes to discussing the existence of God, the validity of the Bible, ethics and morality — we are supposed to use their rules, their playing field — and their presuppositions. 

"What are the atheists' presuppositions, Cowboy Bob?"

Everything is materialistic (discernible to the five accepted senses); most things can be tested and measured. Evolution is an established fact. Any appeal to the supernatural, including God, spirits, angels &c. is streng verboten.  Also, terms must be carefully defined, because modern atheists love to twist words and definitions in their efforts to trap and mock their opponents. 

This also applies to the rules of logic, as atheists like Norman and many others like to skip over the rules of logical discussion, create their own reality (which would require the existence of Godlike powers, thus defeating their own arguments) and simply play word games instead of having a rational discussion.  One desperate move is done by atheists like Norman, who will indicate that my statements are invalid because I use Christian and Conservative sources. You really have to watch yourself with those types!

I still say that mature atheists who actually want to have a discussion should be embarrassed by the childish antics of their non-believing brethren. But never mind about that now.

However, some of us do not buy into the idea that atheists should have the monopoly and the "right" to control the discussion, make the rules and have a de facto advantage.  My belief is that atheists want to hold all the advantages, and to engage in a discussion where they have to set aside their own presuppositions is unthinkable to them. After all, their position is logically and intellectually weak, so to give up their advantages is frightening to them, capice?