First, it engages in question-begging---assuming what one wants to prove. It begins with the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that God exists. Such reasoning would get you an "F" in any logic class worthy of the name!
i) In a stock Van Tilian dialogue, the apologist asks the unbeliever to assume the truth of Christianity for the sake of argument, then consider the explanatory power of Christianity. Presupposing Christianity is a thought-experiment. And a hypothetical scenario isn’t begging the question.
ii) Conversely, the apologist assumes the truth of atheism (or some other non-Christian worldview) for the sake of argument, then asks the unbeliever a series of Socratic questions to show how his non-Christian worldview lacks explanatory power.
Conversely, the apologist assumes the truth of atheism (or some other non-Christian worldview) for the sake of argument
ReplyDeleteThat is "classic" apologists. Don't "presuppositionalists" consider it disrespectful to "put the Bible on trial" even for the sake of argument? ie. "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine ...", etc.
I believe what Steve means there is that we assume the atheistic worldview in order to ask the questions that demonstrate its internal inconsistencies.
ReplyDelete