I am intrigued by the presupp. apologetic, but really cannot understand how it is useful for the majority of discussions. Evid. seems to be much easier and more obvious.
E.g. take the atheist: he has to explain why we have something rather than nothing — without invoking God. (Nothing is what rocks dream about!).
He has to explain apparent design (Dawkins) by appealing to laws that are (as yet) unknown — this is science of the gaps and an inductive fallacy.
If he wants to justify being moral rather than morally relative, he must invoke the good genie from his moral teapot — this is wishful thinking at best.
In the first two of these, it seems E is more effective than P. For morality, not being a physical entity but rather existing in minds, perhaps the P apologetic is better.
Most Ps will use some Es and most Es will use some Ps in there interactions, but is going to either extreme profitable? What do you think?
One Comment
I have used all three in debates/discussions. Though I like evidential, presuppositional is superior in content and context because the through-line is God’s view. I plan to study P and it’s more difficult path.
~Lorenzo