Practical presup question

[Henoch]

So if an atheist asks me "give me the evidence for God"
How do I answer from a presup position without necessarily giving evidence?
Do I ask why does evidence matter/how do you know it's reliable?

 

[MW]

So if an atheist asks me "give me the evidence for God"
How do I answer from a presup position without necessarily giving evidence?
Do I ask why does evidence matter/how do you know it's reliable?

You can give him evidence. For Van Til the traditional arguments are like the furniture on the floor. A floor is needed to hold up the furniture. The presup method provides that floor. The key is to show how the traditional arguments require dependence on the self-attesting God of Scripture. So instead of a two step method there is a single source of revelation that we depend upon.

Having said that I am somewhat guilty of just giving the evidence and seeing what effect it has on people. These days I am glad if they grasp anything. Any argument seems lost on the meme-generation.

 

[jwright82]

So if an atheist asks me "give me the evidence for God"
How do I answer from a presup position without necessarily giving evidence?
Do I ask why does evidence matter/how do you know it's reliable?

Ask him/her "why do you have to give evidence? What's their evidence against God?" Too many times we fall into the trap they set that the burden of proof is on us. If you initiate the claim, than yes you have the burden but if they initiate the claim than the burden is on them.
If they initiate the claim and then say they see no evidence then that's their problem. They like to sit back and just not convinced over and over doing no work, a true presup won't let them.