The Fundamental Philosophical Identity of God.

That's the kind of "reasoning" that leads to belief in so many false deities, not to mention the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, etc. You seem to imagine a visible God. Unbiblical.

 

You still don't seem to grasp the nature of the problem, nor the points that have been made, and so cannot be convinced. Your position sounds like that of neo-atheists, who insist theirs is the default thus needing no proof.

But beyond that, the notion that arguing for God is effectively arguing against him is simply nonsense, even regarding existence. Again, you are welcome to your view, but don't be surprised when called out for falsely accusing.

 

Perhaps I will regret asking, but how do you imagine this supports your view?

 

By the way, they briefly discuss four different apologetics methods, noting that none covers everything, and each has strengths and weaknesses:
Apologetics Methods: The Classical Approach
Apologetics Methods: The Evidentialism Approach
Apologetics Methods: The Pre-suppositional Approach
Apologetics Methods: The Existentialism Approach

 

Again, this displays basic confusion. Something that is self-existent needs no cause. Something that is self-evident needs no proof.

 

You just don’t understand what you are saying. Because you don't start your own argument with God's existence, by your own standard you are effectively denying God's existence. Your standard is utter nonsense and should be abandoned by you and never embraced by anyone.

"There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan, that can succeed against 'I AM'." Amen. Proverbs 21:30 is a great verse, but does not support your accusation. It would be a wicked application to imply it means those arguing for God are effectively arguing against God.

 

I doubt you meant it so, but this sounds very much like an admission that you are, in effect, wrong in your accusation.

 

Yes, by reason you will eventually get there—though this alone cannot effect faith in God and Christ. Follow the thread and you will see you employ tactics indicated in your last clip. I find his comments, or rather Frame's, rather telling:

So, then, what distinguishes Frame’s softer form of presuppositionalism from the other forms of apologetics? Frame acknowledges that on the surface there might not be much difference at all: “It may no longer be possible to distinguish presuppositional apologetics from traditional apologetics merely by externals—by the form of argument, the explicit claim of certainty or probability, etc. Perhaps presuppositionalism is more an attitude of the heart, a spiritual condition, than an easily describable, empirical phenomenon.”​

It is the attitude that needs to accuse brethren falsely I address. Use your method if you wish. I can appreciate all manner of apologetics methods for helping reach the lost, though personally need none, as the Bible and the Holy Spirit are sufficient, neither being without reason.

 

Oh, I think we both get it, but just disagree on perspective, and may always do so. Presuppositionalism, intentionally, by definition, skips the logical starting point and logical steps for its own purposes. An honest presuppositionalist will admit this, that is, that they are there, he just doesn’t want to go there, though some might at some point, which is part of the point of your last video clip.

Per the webpage link below (also containing your cited clip), “The way some proponents articulate this apologetics system can make it sound like a narrow, circular argument.” But again, that is not the real sticking point here, rather it’s the extreme, unfounded accusation against brethren. In the final analysis, nothing should interfere with the ‘apologetics method’ of “knowing Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/presuppositional-apologetics

 

When confronted with someone who doesn’t believe, I suppose my presupposition is that I don’t necessarily know exactly where the other person is coming from, but that it would help to.

Paul walked around Athens awhile before delivering his sermon, and then first referenced where they were at, not where he was at. He looked for a connection, a bridge, and found one. Of course, being as learned as he was, he already knew some of the culture, as evidenced in citing their own writers.

 

Yes, and you are still doing precisely what you have been doing, skipping relevant parts, or pretending they aren’t there. Prior to what you quote, is this passage (Acts 12:22-23), which indicates Paul’s true method, namely first finding a genuine connection with those he wants to reach:

22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.​

But now you sound as if you think those who employ various apologetic arguments never mention God, Christ, the Bible, or the Gospel. If you think this, you are dead wrong. I’m not saying you might not find such an example, but that it would be far from the norm.

People’s perceptions are important, as they may hear something entirely different than you intend. You should want them to hear the Gospel, not imagine some perversions previously placed in their minds, and there are plenty of those around to dispel. How best to dispel them is the business of apologetics.

By the way, some other parts of Paul’s presentation, including what you highlighted, were also useful for reaching his audience, as they weren’t quotes from the Bible but from their own literature.

The NIV provides footnotes regarding the quotes in Acts 12:28:

28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[b] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[c]

b. Acts 17:28 From the Cretan philosopher Epimenides.

c. Acts 17:28 From the Cilician Stoic philosopher Aratus.

Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17 - New International Version​