Pressupositional apologetics

John Bynum Van Tils apologetic is not question begging. That is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Circularity becomes cogent in regards to the preconditions of intelligibility.
Example: Logic. Logic can only be justified by applying logic. It’s truth is a precondition for rational thought, intelligibility. Without it we could not reason.
The preconditions of intelligibility (logic, reason, uniformity in nature (induction) and morality) all must exist necessarily otherwise a rational worldview could not exist. This is circular but not arbitrary.
The only problem in a question begging argument is whether it is arbitrary.
And that is the crucial point. If you are making a circular argument which is arbitrary, then it is fallacious. But if your arguments is a justified circle, as in scripture proving scripture, or when God could swear by no higher authority than himself, in other words he authenticates his own authority by the very fact that he is the highest authority that could possibly exist, in those examples circular reasoning is cogent.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge per Proverbs 1:7 and that the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ per Colossians 2:3. On the basis of my worldview, revelation from God is necessary to know anything, and thus the existence of God is provable by virtue of the impossibility of the contrary; in other words, the proof that God exists is that if He didn't, we couldn't prove anything.
Romans 1:18-21 says that everyone knows God exists so sufficiently that they're without excuse for denying Him.
My question for you is...
How do you presume to know anything on the basis of your atheistic worldview?

We don’t “present a case” to the unbeliever. You present cases to judges. The unbeliever is not Gods judge. That is the wrong way of viewing it. God is the judge. We use reason and logic to show the unbeliever that if their worldview were true then we could not use reason and logic. Only because Christianity is true is the world rational. They can only use reason and logic because of God and if God did not exist reason and logic would not exist. God is the very foundational basis for all things.
Examples: If evolution were true and we were just a byproduct of natural processes our brains would be no more than chemical fizz which cannot account for truth, logic, morality etc. If polytheism were true then which god gets to decide what the basis of truth is? Buddha and the other eastern mysticism religions do not even attempt to define truth. Judaism is incomplete Christianity. Islam is a perversion of Christianity In that it denies the deity of Christ yet says the Bible is scripture which says Christ is God. Islam both affirms and rejects the Bible at the same time which violates the law of non-contradiction.
Any worldview, I repeat ANY worldview except Christianity can be shown to be internally inconsistent by doing an internal worldview critique.
If the very basis of existence (whatever non-Christian worldview you choose) breaks down into absurd contradiction that would mean the world could not be rational.
But since the world IS rational Christianity must be true because it is the only view that can account for rationality.
Scripture says “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” prov 1:7
“In him (Christ) are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Col 2:3
We can not justify reason, truth, morality or the uniformity in nature unless we start with God.

God's existence isn't just a matter of probability or evidence – it's the bedrock of all reality, the very foundation without which nothing else can stand. Think about it: how can we even begin to reason, to trust our thoughts, or to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow without an unchanging, all-powerful Creator upholding the universe?

Every time someone tries to argue against God, they're borrowing from His reality. They use logic, which only makes sense if there's an absolute standard of truth. They appeal to morality, which crumbles without an ultimate Lawgiver. They rely on the regularity of nature, which is inexplicable unless Someone is sovereignly sustaining it.

You see, it's not just that belief in God is reasonable – it's that reason itself demands God. In a godless universe, our minds would be nothing more than the products of blind chance, our thoughts mere chemical reactions. Why trust them? Why believe that the rules of logic that work today will work tomorrow? It's only because God has made us in His image and placed us in an orderly cosmos that we can know anything at all.

People might say, "But can't we just assume these things without God?" No, we can't. That's arbitrary. That's building a worldview on quicksand. Only the self-revealing God of Scripture provides the solid ground we need. His Word isn't just true; it's what makes truth possible.

So when I say God exists because the contrary is impossible, I'm not playing word games. I'm pointing out that every argument against God, every alternative worldview, borrows from what only God can provide and then tries to deny the Source. It's like someone sitting in God's lap to slap Him in the face – they have to assume His existence to even make the motion.

Without God, we're left with absurdity. Morality becomes mere opinion, science loses its foundation, and rationality itself goes out the window. But the amazing thing is, we don't live like that's true. The staunchest atheist still expects the law of gravity to work, still condemns evil, still trusts their mind. They're living on borrowed capital from the Christian worldview.

That's why we don't just believe in God – we know Him. He's revealed Himself, and that revelation isn't just one truth among many. It's the Truth that makes sense of everything else. So the question isn't "Does God exist?" The real question is, "How can anything exist, or be known, or matter, unless God does?"

Question: Suppose you are right about all of the other stuff about logic, rationality and morality (all of which are debatable); NONE of it establishes the existence of the Christian God, yet you have somehow managed to smuggle it in.
How do you, from the premises you outlined, justify the claim/conclusion you make about “living on borrowed capital from THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW”, as opposed to any other religious worldview?

Reply:  You raise a crucial point, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. You're right, the transcendental argument I've presented – that God is necessary for logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature – doesn't automatically lead us to the Christian God. After all, couldn't a Muslim or a Jew make similar claims? So let's dig deeper.

The key is that we're not just looking for any deity, but for one who can truly ground these transcendentals in a coherent, non-arbitrary way. This is where I believe Christianity stands apart.

Take the problem of the one and the many – how can there be unity and diversity in reality? In Islam, Allah is a monadic unity, which struggles to account for real plurality. In contrast, the Trinity provides an eternal, loving relationship within the Godhead – unity and diversity together.

Or consider the personal and the absolute. Eastern religions often depersonalize the divine, while Western monotheisms can make God seem distant. But in Christ, we have the infinite God who becomes finite, the Word made flesh – the absolute who is also intimately personal.

What about the foundation for human dignity and ethics? In Christianity, humans are image-bearers of God, giving us inherent worth. Moreover, God's nature provides an objective standard for good, while His incarnation, death, and resurrection show the lengths to which true love will go.

Epistemologically, how do we bridge the gap between our finite minds and infinite reality? Christianity offers divine revelation, but not just any revelation – the living Word, Christ, who is the truth, mediating between God and man.

Now, you might say I'm still smuggling in specifically Christian doctrines. But that's precisely the point. The Christian worldview isn't a bare theism with some doctrines tacked on. It's a comprehensive system where core tenets like the Trinity, the Incarnation, and God's redemptive action in history are essential to resolving the big philosophical questions.

Of course, other religions have resources and answers of their own. I don't mean to caricature them. But I would argue that only Christianity provides a God big enough, personal enough, and loving enough to ground the preconditions of intelligibility without falling into arbitrariness or incoherence.

This is why I spoke of "borrowed capital from the Christian worldview." It's not that non-Christians can't reason or be moral. Rather, the rational and moral realities they're tapping into find their most coherent home in the Christian conception of God.

You're absolutely right that this needs justification, not mere assertion. The task of the presuppositionalist isn't just to argue for generic theism, but to show how the particularities of the Christian faith provide unique explanatory power for the deep structures of reality and human experience.

Does this mean I can prove Christianity with airtight logic? No. Faith is still required. But I would contend that it's the most reasonable faith, the worldview that makes the most sense of the world as we actually find it.