You Can't Account for Nuthin' Yo

It's time that I, as a Confessional Lutheran, tip my cap to some Calvinists. After all, I used to be a pretty dogmatic one. In my opinion, one thing the Calvinists do better than us Lutherans is apologetics involving atheism. They're much more involved in that sphere, and I think they do an excellent job of it.

There are two basic types of Christian apologetics approaches. The first one is called evidentialism or empiricism. That is to say, people look at all the visible evidence and argue for the existence of God. Or, in more general terms, they argue for the existence of intelligent design, or a Creator. Some Calvinists argue in this manner. R.C. Sproul would be a good example. The formidable Christian apologist William Lane Craig would be another example, although Craig is clearly not a Calvinist.

The other - and in my opinion better - apologetic approach toward athsism is called presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositionalism cuts directly to the heart of the matter in places where evidentialism fails.

Evidentialism surely has its place in apologetics; especially where evidentialism argues for Christ and not just for some random "god." Arguing from the historicity of the resurrection would be one such example.

The reason presuppositionalism is proper when doing apologetics with atheists is that evidentialism fails. We can present all the evidence in the world and we're going to point out that it points to the existence of God, while the atheist is just going to interpret the evidence in a different manner.

The bottom line is that since we both will look at the same evidence and argue for different conclusions - we must look directly at the root of the worldviews. If the atheist is going to try to force a "burden of proof" on us, and ask for irrefutable empirical evidence, well, they can't offer any either. And in effect, this "burden of proof" demand is nothing more than a silly canard. We can give them all the proof they need but they'll deny it. Not only that, but they're actually making the same claim, just in a negation sort of way. To put it bluntly, we have every right to ask for "burden of proof" too. In short, these demands are nonsense. We both will look at the evidence and come up with what our underlying worldview says the evidence means. That's just human nature. Then they'll fall back on science. Well, Christians aren't against science, you know. The irony of it is that the atheist really has no basis whatever for using science or logic or reason or mathematics. Of course, they use such things and they are right to do so, because the laws of logic, mathematics, and science are absolute. As an example, 1+1=2 in all times for all people.

But therein lies the folly and internal disaster of atheism. They can't account for any of these things. Their worldview does not allow for it.
Are the laws of mathematics absolute and unchanging? Well, yeah, they are. What about logic? That's the same too. So when the atheist attempts to say that the laws of logic and mathematics are societal conventions, they've committed a major error in one of two directions. First, they could be admitting without realizing it, that the laws of mathematics and logic can change, because people change. And if we invented these as conventions in the first place, what happens when someone comes up with a new convention? That's silly of course, and the atheist would say as much. The other problem is that they could be asserting that human reason is absolute in its deductions. But herein lies a massive double-edged sword. Yeah, human reason changes and sees things differently about different things and such. That's true. But human reason did not create the laws of mathematics or logic. We discovered them perhaps, but they already existed and were already absolutely true.

So, what made those laws absolutely true? Why are they like that? The atheist has no answer. In fact, the atheist ultimately cannot account for anything. The Christian does and can.

Presup. It's what's for dinner.