Start at your local park. Hand out some tracts and try to get a conversation going. Hardest part about evangelism is starting. God Bless you!

Do something better with your life than bothering people.

I would say, yes, the law of non-contradiction is presupposed. That's the whole point. We don't throw out the laws of logic as useless... because God created them. The reason we can presuppose it is because Yahweh exists. The non-believer uses the laws of logic (your argument above is a logical conclusion) but has no basis to do so. That is the problem. We all know the law of non-contradiction is there, and the point is to show that the REASON for that, is Yahweh. If you are suggesting that the law of non-contradiction has no reason to be presupposed, well then there is no way to have this discussion. We are right back to absurdity and we all know it deep down in our hearts. Nothing can be lived out without it, and that is because we all know the Creator and his absolute laws. I see no reason to think this disproved presuppositionalism. It just doesn't follow, that because non-contradiction is ALSO recognized, it means we are not first presupposing Yahweh.

No sir. You don’t understand presuppositional apologetics. My suggestion to you is to buy Van Tillian Apologetics by Greg Bahnsen or listen to his Van Tillian Apologetics series on your favourite podcast app.

@@matthewmanucci Please render the presup argument in the "premisses->conclusions" format

@@JMUDoc Hello there. I actually heard of the transcendental argument for the existence of God from Eastern Orthodox apologists in contrast to Reformed apologists; hence, the argument I give would be the one I heard from the Eastern Orthodox. From my understanding, the transcendental argument for the existence of God is structured like this: P1: The Triune God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge. P2: The possibility of knowledge. C: Therefore, the Triune God exists. Definitions: A worldview is a person's metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Knowledge is justified true belief. First, I note that the goal of the argument is to show that if someone does not assume the existence of the Triune God, then they are lead to a worldview that destroys all knowledge. Second, I note that there is nothing wrong in the logical structure of the argument. Although it appears that I am committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this problem is avoided by saying that God is the NECESSARY precondition for the possibility of knowledge. Next, I note that if P1 is denied then the apologist will show how the opponent's worldview makes P2 false. Third, we note that the argument above can be used against not just atheists but also against Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, etc. Now, the apologist will use the same argument but will often focus on different things that make knowledge possible. For example, the apologist will usually start debating with an atheist about the Laws of Logic while he will be debating with a Buddhist about the Self and an objective external world. Note, that the things that make knowledge possible are the Laws of Logic, an objective external world, the transcendental unity of aperception (the Self), meaning, casualty, etc. Finally, I note that the belief that the Triune God exists is justified and true by way of the transcendental argument above.

@@eulerspupil4032 *P1: The Triune God is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge. P2: The possibility of knowledge. C: Therefore, the Triune God exists.* P1 has to be demonstrated. *Although it appears that I am committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent, this problem is avoided by saying that God is the NECESSARY precondition for the possibility of knowledge.* No, you would avoid it by *proving*, not just _saying,_ that god is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge. *Next, I note that if P1 is denied then the apologist will show how the opponent's worldview makes P2 false. * No presupper does this; you would be the first.

They've been told that unless they are being persecuted they're not doing it right. Thus, criticism of any kind or degree is construed as persectution because then they are validated.

I would suggest looking up the word persecuted.

@@coltonbrewer6632 According to the Murican Christians, persecution is when you are no longer allowed to abuse and persecute others.

Denial of persecution/justifying it is very typical of people who participate in persecution. This is the result of pretending your worldview is value neutral when it isn’t. You take your worldview as the basic assumption, assume indoctrinating people into it is normal, assume removing kids from their homes is protecting them from their parents, assume the FBI is right to investigate Catholic parishes, etc You’ll justify it all so it’s kinda worthless to explain it. I’ve been around long enough to know how this game goes. You deny it’s happening and then when it’s pointed out you say it’s actually good. Deny, then justify.

No one is* good

Fallacious arguments are not 'good responses'. All Jeff or any other theist has is fallacious arguments, but no evidence.

@I'm Second "You're wrong." *Gee, what a compelling argument. LOL*

@I'm Second "No" *At least you admit your unevidenced assertion isn't compelling.* "Just stating the obvious." *So obvious you can't even state why I'm wrong. LMFAO!* "Simple, to the point." *The only thing your unevidenced assertion points out is that you can't even point out how I am supposedly 'wrong'.*

@I'm Second *Then demonstrate I'm wrong. We both know you can't and that's why you won't. You're a joke, little boy.*

@I'm Second *Hmm, no evidence I'm wrong. Typical response.* "God bless." *You haven't evidenced any 'god' exists to 'bless' anyone.*

So they can have the money to give you this content.

Wrong. He said dispensational premillennialism. And he was right.

I have thought about this a bit and from what I have observed, the majority of atheists are not going to be able to even begin to understand the classic approach. This may be evidence of my lack of experience but most people I meet in everyday life are not the same as the students I see many apologists debate with at universities. The average person tends to have more assumptions and second hand teachings than actual knowledge or expertise in philosophy and such. What does everyone else think?

@@judethree4405 if you're giving evidence then you are essentially going back to at the very least the evidential method. So, you end up doing the same thing you would do if you would have started with the classical method. I went to the Ark Experience right after it first opened. As I was moving through, it was obvious that even though Ken Ham is a staunch proponent of the presuppositional method, he was using lots of evidence to argue for the validity of Christianity. He especially uses Science. So, why not just start there where we have common ground?

@@astrohed that can be the case if it is presented in a lofty way. However, you can make it really easy to work with. I taught at a conference a couple of years ago here in NC. It was a very rural county and the majority of the folks at the conference had at best a high school education. I was able to present the information to them that many said changed the way they think. Now, I realize that not all are able to teach in a way where everyone can understand. Some folks aren't good teachers, however, there are ways to present the classical method without being overly academic.

I think it's all necessary. We have to know it all and pay attention to the holy Spirit with a heart of love while listening to whoever we're talking to and know how and when to reply. It's all useless without that. If they don't know I love them and my intentions are for their benefit they won't hear anything but I clanging symbol and a banging drum but at the same time the worldview must be destroyed so that a seed has the possibility of being planted at some time.

David Probus As an Atheist and former Christian apologist, I agree with you. A Presuppositional approach will not convince an unbeliever. Van Till used that approach, but it only worked with those who were nominal believers or who culturally accepted the existence of a God. It is, more importantly, poor reasoning. I don't think the philosophical approach will help win many converts either. Unless the person you happen to witness to has a strong concern over epistemology, I don't see why trying to establish the presence of objective truth would be effective. I know I would not find that approach convincing. In my experience, that argument often becomes very similar to the presuppositional approach by assuming there is ultimate meaning and objective purpose. I would agree for instance that truth (with a small t), can easily be demonstrated. But one cannot demonstrate that there is an real purpose to the universe--no truth with a capital T. If an apologists argument begins with the assumption of a universal truth that implies meaning, that would be a presuppositional argument. Just some thoughts. Anyone can change their mind, Atheists included. But, the arguments must be very strong and convincing. To demonstrate the actual presence of a God an incredible amount of evidence is necessary. Theists are often surprised when non believers are unconvinced by arguments they themselves found compelling. I would recommend beginning the conversation by trying to discover what the unbeliever thinks would convince him or her. That would be more personal and authentic. The person you speak with will probably not feel as if you are just going through a method with them. People appreciate real conversations and will speak with you when they feel you respect their choices and intelligence. Thanks for your time. --Rich Miller

"Baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

*Soooo, you're hung up on other people's sex lives. Why?*

That's how most people engage in discourse. Haha! You're not making sense. Why argue for a thing you don't think it is right (unless you're in debate club)? I will change my mind if need be, but I'm still justified in arguing for the position I presently believe is right and against the one I think is wrong. Smh

Just curious, but where is he being a hypocrite?

E Christian in what way?