Reddit mentions of Classical Apologetics

> There's absolutely no burden of proof on the theist.

gupol - a typo? If not, the first full bullet point is non-coherent.

----


So .... the fallacy of presuppositionalism is what you, OP, gupol, consider evidence for the existence of God? Damn, I am getting dizzy from going round and round on this merry-go-round of the faculty of fallacious reason.

And what do we say about the crapfest of presup?

As much as it pains me to agree with William Lane Craig, I will have to go with what this Great Christian Apologeticist god (lower case 'G'), who has said regarding Christianity (but is applicable to other Theist belief systems):

"...presuppositionalism is guilty of a logical howler: it commits the informal fallacy of petitio principii, or begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism....It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists. Therefore, God exists.' Nor is this said from the standpoint of unbelief. A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything..."

Source: Five Views on Apologetics by Steven B. Cowan, page 232-233

Or we can go with Drs. John H. Gerstner, Arthur W. Lindsley, and R.C. Sproul ....

“Presuppositionalism burns its evidential bridges behind it and cannot, while remaining Presuppositional, rebuild them. It burns its bridges by refusing evidences on the ground that evidences must be presupposed. “Presupposed evidences” is a contradiction in terms because evidences are supposed to prove the conclusion rather than be proven by it. But if the evidences were vindicated by the presupposition then the presupposition would be the evidence. But that cannot be, because if there is evidence for or in the presupposition, then we have reasons for presupposing, and we are, therefore, no longer presupposing.” (source: Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics)

> There's absolutely no burden of proof on the theist. This is nothing more than the postmodern slogan-speak of the atheist in the gaps fallacy.

Post modern huh? Damn those postmodern 16th century dead-language speaking time-traveling lawyers: "semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" ("the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"/"The claimant is always bound to prove, [the burden of proof lies on the actor.]")

> theists are not beholden to the presumptuous and arbitrary constraints of the materialist's metaphysics regarding what does or does not constitute justified true belief.

"True belief" - an imagination or conceptual possibility artificially elevated to a positive probability to absolute (or near absolute) certain based upon feelings, appeal to emotion based on confirmation bias, the ego-conceit that highly-subjective mind-dependent qualia-experience of self-affirmation that what "I know in my heart of hearts represents Truth" supports a mind-independent actually credible truth or fact value. Got it. Super. And I bet you vote OP.