Editing Presuppositional apologetics (section)

==Comparison with other schools of apologetics==
Presuppositionalists contrast their approach with the other schools of Christian apologetics by describing the others as assuming that the world is intelligible apart from belief in the existence of God and then arguing on purportedly neutral grounds to support trusting the Christian [[scripture]]s and the existence of God. Specifically, presuppositionalists describe [[Thomas Aquinas|Thomistic]] (also "traditional" or "classical") apologetics as concentrating on the first aspect of apologetics with its [[logical argument|logical proofs]] for the existence of God, simply assuming common ground with the non-Christian and using a piece-by-piece methodology.  In this scheme, the common foundation of neutral [[brute fact]]s leads to a generic concept of deity, then to the various characteristics of the Christian God as revealed in Scripture, and so forth. Piece-by-piece, Christian theology is built up from a neutral common ground.

Presuppositionalists assert that many of the classical arguments are logically fallacious, or do not prove enough, when used as arguments to prove the existence or character of God.{{Efn | However, Thomas Aquinas never speaks of "proofs" for the existence of God ''per se'', and on one reading, his "ways" may be taken as demonstrations of the inner coherence of belief in God, rather than proofs<ref>{{Citation | first = Alister | last = McGrath | author-link = Alister McGrath | title = [[The Dawkins Delusion?]]}}</ref>{{Page needed | date = October 2013}}. Taken in this sense, Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, ''et al.'', have embraced the traditional arguments.}}  They criticize both the assumption of neutrality and the "block house" or "piecemeal" method for failing to start at the level of the controlling beliefs of worldviews and implicitly allowing non-Christian assumptions from the start, thereby trying to build a Christian "house" on a non-Christian "foundation".{{Sfn | van Til | 1967 | pp = 122–23, 126–29, 131–32}}{{Sfn | Bahnsen | 1998 | pp = 266–68}}  Evidentialists demur from this assessment, claiming that presuppositionalism amounts to [[fideism]] because it rejects the idea of shared points of reference between the Christian and non-Christian from which they may reason in common.

The conclusion of evidential apologetics is that the Bible's historical accounts and other truth-claims are more probably true than false, thus the whole of scriptural revelation may be rationally accepted, and where we can't approach absolute certainty we must accept the explanations most likely to be true.{{Sfn | Carnell | 1948 | pp = 113–18}}{{Sfn | Frame | 1987 | pp = 135–36}}  The goal of presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, is to argue that the assumptions and actions of non-Christians require them to believe certain things about God, man, and the world which they claim not to believe. This type of argument is technically called a ''[[reductio ad absurdum]]'' in that it attempts to reduce the opposition to holding an absurd, i.e., self-contradictory position; in this case, both believing in facts of Christian revelation (in practice) and denying them (in word). So, in essence, evidential apologetics attempts to build upon a shared acceptance of self-evident or worldview-neutral facts, while presuppositional apologetics attempts to claim all facts for the Christian worldview as the only framework in which they are intelligible.{{Sfn | van Til | 1969 | pp = 18–19}}

Another way presuppositionalism has been developed is by first presupposing reason as the laws of thought (common to all thinkers), then critically examining beliefs for meaning, and finally constructing a coherent worldview from the ground up. This way of arguing has been called Rational Presuppositionalism. They postulate that thinking (or reasoning) is presuppositional in that we think of the less basic things, like the nature of man, in light of the more basic things, the existence or non-existence of God. How we view mankind's purpose and destiny depends on our assumption about man's origin. Philosopher [[Surrendra Gangadean]] (1943–2022) opened his book ''Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis of Basic Beliefs'' by stating the following. “Some things are clear. The basic things are clear. The basic things about God and man and good and evil are clear to reason.”<ref>{{Cite book |last=Gangadean |first=Surrendra |title=Philosophical Foundation: A Critical Analysis of Basic Beliefs |publisher=Public Philosophy Press |year=2022 |isbn=978-1736542491 |edition=2nd |location=United States |pages=30 |language=English}}</ref> He argues step by step from knowledge is possible to the existence of God to the Good for man as knowledge of the eternal Creator.