Presuppositional Apologetics=Good stuff

[darinhouston]

I have no problem with candor -- you have mistaken my motives -- I was in no way even responding to your post (which I barely even read, frankly) but was simply providing this thread with the benefit of the prior conversation since it hasn't really taken off yet, and presuppositionalism hasn't been discussed much on this site, so thought we should keep the topic in one place -- since there's now a thread for it, let's get all the related content in this new thread - that's all - nothing more.

This is a bit off-topic, and perhaps should be offline but how was my post in any way a smear?

Also, I've never suggested I have "many" LDS elders in my firm -- you must be confusing me with someone else. I have known only a few LDS folks, and presently have only one I work with (to my knowledge) -- to my knowledge none of them are elders. They have been pretty secular folks and aren't very interested in discussing such things as religion.

[Jill]

.

[brody196]

I think there is a misunderstanding as to what pre sup apologetics(PSA for short) is all about. I am in no way insinuating that I have a better understanding of anything and I realize that there are many more apt men and women here than myself. What got me interested in the whole PSA thing is the subject of logic, ethics, and the ability to give an account for these things.

I recently had the privilege to share Christ with my neighbor for about 2 hours in which I relied heavily on a PSA. The results were astonishing. Now I will be the first to admit that you don't have to use the PSA to win people to Christ, but I can honestly say that it has really helped me.

How can an atheist give an account for the laws of logic and such? They have to borrow from the Christian worldview to do such, as it is our God who provides the foundation for such.

[darinhouston]

How can an atheist give an account for the laws of logic and such? They have to borrow from the Christian worldview to do such, as it is our God who provides the foundation for such.

I think they simply deny that God is required for logic and such, and that - like the laws of nature, they just "are" as fundamental truths - some would say they aren't laws at all but conveniences that tend to work out, practically.

[lee]

I know that I haven't tried to be rude or anything (I even ended my last post with a haha). But it seems like personal sensitivity is a bit heightened for the time being. Darin, I don't care that you brought in old material (it was a lot though), but it seemed like that old conversation involved personal reflections and views of individuals that are not part of this most recent conversation. It seemed like brody wanted to discuss this topic with the consideration of the substance of the topic. I could be wrong though. Anyhow, hopefully we can keep discussing because this is starting to seem a bit stifled. So, maybe this question can get things rolling. What form of apologetics do you think is more effective...and why?

[Jill]

.

[Jill]

.

[darinhouston]

Brody can speak for himself, but I understand that his desire was to discuss the particular method of apologetics referred to as "presuppositional apologetics." The content I pasted was a dialogue on that very thing. If you wish to discuss other forms of apologetics and not the use or usefulness or details about or perceptions about this particular form of apologetic, then perhaps you can start another thread.

[lee]

Brody, I agree with you. Nobody else except for the Christian can present a logically consistent foundation and framework for epistemology, logic, ethics, and the uniformity of nature. The only other thing a person can hold to is exactly what Darin said...just asserting that these laws are and have always been (which begs the question), or they are reduced to infinite skepticism (they use the laws, but don't acknowledge their veracity). In what ways did you use PSA in your discussion with your friend?

[Jill]

.