Presup Apologetics

[Byblos]

Don't misunderstand, I don't think presup in and of itself can answer that question. My point was that in areas of evidentialism the failure is that it never gets beyond probabilities. Not that the arguments are useless.

I do think Presup confirms beyond any doubt that the Christian worldview is consistent regarding logic, morality, etc. That there is a creator God who upholds all things.

^ that's the key, thank you.

[Echoside]

Echo, let me ask again.
If you see a sculpture, is the existence of the artist obvious?

Cause, artist, whatever you want to call it yes. But skipping the usual routine for fear of going off topic(this is a presuppositional, not evidential thread after all) I have actually been doing a lot more thinking about intelligent design/prime mover arguments. Even moreso as I've got to topics like quantum mechanics and how the universe is structured.

Eventually this gets down to intellectual honesty. Are you going to sit on the fence or make a decision with the evidence you have.

Can't say I disagree. Knowledge of apologetics for me has increased at an incredibly fast pace over the past year or so, It would probably be dishonest to keep the question off for much longer. Even so , I'd rather not make a premature decision and regret it later.

I’m afraid by assuming the validity of laws of logic and reason you are virtually assuming the truth of the Christian worldview.

And I of course disagree. The Christian worldview may be a possible claim to the laws of logic and reason, but that is no reason to assume it's validity to use logic.

So according to the Christian worldview you DO know God. You know God by his natural law. You USE the tools bestowed on you by God.

possible, of course.

So again, as you have conceded, you simply have no rational foundations to believe in anything law-like without God. That you are actually living and acting contrary to the preuppositions of your worldview is just further evidence that you really do know God. .

Perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree in this specific instance then. There is no contradiction, I know logic exists, if that leads me to God then sure I'll agree with you. But if it doesn't then the stance "I don't know the origin of logic" is fine with me.

Saying that you do not know because you can't know is a bit stretched

Can I please get directions to the post where I apparently said this? The statement just keeps popping up for some reason.

My main question is, any proof can be shown to somehow not be 100%; how would you get past this obstacle?
You are open but at the same time your filter doesn't let anything pass as well. so even if the truth hit you like a train you would simply not be sure of what hit you despite the apparent reference, because you can always question it.

I don't intend to get past that obstacle, I agree to some extent you need to take things on faith. The most obvious demonstration of this is the circularity of all arguments on some level. I'm well aware of the ultimate skepticism and it's negative connotations as you are alluding to, reminds me of a quote from one of my favorite books Joshua by Joseph Girzone, "Even God cannot touch the heart of a proud scientist, because, the very means God would use to communicate, would be called into question, and written off as hallucination or an unexplained psychological phenomenon"