[Dr. Worm]

I understand Bahnsen's and Van Til's presuppositional argument, at least pretty well I think. What I don't understand is how they go from an atheistic worldview not working to a Christian theistic worldview being the only one that works. Would not Judaism or Islam offer viable worldviews? It just seems to me that he goes from saying atheism can't be true, so therefore Christianity must be true. How does he go about using his presuppositional approach to show Christianity to be more logical than any other kind of theism?

[Jay42]

I haven't read their stuff enough to know (Travis - where are ya?), but once they bump things to the theism side, there are some great writers like Lewis and McDowell (his Evidence stuff - NOT his social stuff) that subsequently pick up the ball from there.

[Travis]

They don't just skip over all other religions, it just that there's not time to cover all others and refute them all in those debates. Bahsen in particular has many lectures about other religions also and why they are wrong.

[DarylB]

Where or what can i read to learn more about presuppositional apologetics?

[Travis]

www.reformed.org/apologetics

[DarylB]

Yes i've seen the multitude of articles but which are the best to start. Something basic or foundational.

[Benny Hicks]

This article by Greg Bahnsen looks like a good article to start with

Ben

[DarylB]

Thanks.

[DarylB]

I read that article. Very interesting, he doesn't go into much detail or explanation on how "If Christianity is not true, then nothing can be proven". Why is this? Any articles or explanations on the part of the article called "the impossibility of the contrary" (Atheism)?