I know a bit about classical apologetics (e.g the works of Richard Swinburne and W.L Craig) and evidential apologetics (e.g Gary Habermas, Mike Licona). Overall, I think the reasoning is clear. What I found a bit confusing is presuppositional apologetics. Consider this: > You take the teachings of Scripture and act as if they are true > (which, of course, they are), even if they contradict what your > discussion partner is telling you. In this way of apologetics, you > let Scripture tell you what is true about the unbeliever, his > challenges, what he already knows, and the whole conversation. And you > view the whole conversation through the lens of Scripture. > > https://thethink.institute/articles/presupvsevidential I remember learning some methods of proof on Discrete Math class many years ago, and one of them was proof by contradiction . If you want to prove Christianity is true, then start at the assumption that Christianity is false, and see if the consequence support that. So, I wonder if the presuppositional folks are doing circular reasoning. Perhaps I misunderstand something about their approach, though.

Well, recently I've been trying to better understand the different apologetics approaches, but am having a hard time understanding the presuppositional apologetics standpoint. I've heard several apologists claim that the book of Acts shows the apostles using evidentialist apologetics, and that even Jesus used a form of evidence based apologetics by using miracles to persuade people of his divinity. They use this as an argument against presuppositionalism. I was simply wondering how someone of the presuppositonal persuasion would respond to this argument.

[Cornelius Van Til](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Van_Til) was the pioneer of [presuppositional apologetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics) , and was one of the founding members of Westminster Theological Seminary. The defenses of faith that he developed sought to apply the Reformed tradition to apologetics. --- With Easter almost here this year, I was wondering how Van Til would address the resurrection with unbelievers? In particular, did he use historical proofs for the resurrection of Jesus Christ? **What was Van Til's view on the use and validity of historical proofs for the resurrection?**

I've been impressed lately with the presuppositional apologetic work of Sye Ten Bruggencate and how his arguments seem to be irrefutable by those he debates. The only problem I have is that he claims the Bible is the only ultimate authority that can be used in this argument. (See Bruggencate's site, question 4 ) Other religions have their own scripture which are held in the same regard as the Bible (for example the Quran in Islam, the Book of Mormon for Mormons, the Jehovah's Witness translation of the Bible). These other scriptures, though they may be dismissed by non-believers, seem to be of equal value in the presuppositional apologetic argument. Can anyone explain why the Bible is seen to be the only "scripture" that holds true in the presuppositional apologetic argument?