It is important to understand that from a biblical perpsective, it is never the case that unbelievers need God’s existence to be proven to them. Romans 1:18-21 teaches that all men know God but supress the truth about Him in their unrightousness: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Thus the task of apologetics (Defense of the Faith) is never merely proving God’s existence to someone who demands evidence for something they do not know, but rather apologetics is the process whereby we unmask the fact that the unbeliever knows the God of whom we speak and is suppressing this truth in their unrightousness. The problem among many Christians in defending the faith is that they use a method of defense that does not assume this truth, and instead of unmasking what the unbeliever knows in his heart of hearts to be true, we accept the unbelievers description of himself instead of God’s description of the unbeliever. It is the unbeliever that claims “ignorance” of this God we speak of while God clearly tells us in His Word that all men know Him and are without excuse (Romans 1:19).
It must be understood at this point that it is one thing to say that “all men know God”, but is quite another to actually demonstrate that this is so. Thus the claim that “all men know God” is not my merely quoting scripture without showing that what the scriptures say in this regard is true. Rather it can be shown that all men know God. This truth can be seen in the way unbelievers act. Interestingly enough, the atheist who denies the existence of God will appeal to moral standards that he cannot account for given his own worldview. The atheist who believes that all reality is matter in motion will appeal to things like logic and reason (two things that are neither matter nor are in motion: Logic and reason are conceptual and therefore non-physical). On the Christian perspective, it makes sense to believe in absolute moral standards; for such standards allow us to condemn certain actions as evil or wrong. Moral standards are a reflection of God’s unchanging and holy character. It makes sense for a Christian to hold to things like logic and reason. Logic are rules of thought, without which nothing could be made sense of, not even human language; yet the atheist who holds to the belief that all reality is “physical” cannot account for immaterial, changeless, and universal laws of thought. For the Christian,the laws of logic are not created by God, but rather they are a reflection of His orderly thinking. Because we are created in the image of God, we can think in orderly ways utilizing the laws of logic to make sense when we speak and think. As a matter of fact, everytime an ubeliever speaks or thinks anything in his mind, he must first assume things that are inconsistant with his professed belief (atheism or whatever worldview he or she holds) and are only consistant with the Christian worldview (i.e. reason and logic), thus making any thought or utternace proof that he really does not believe what he says he believes. Such a person actually has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to argue against it.
Christian apologist Cornelius Van Til once described the above situation like this: The unbeliever is like a child sitting on his fathers lap. As the child reaches up to slap his father in the face, he must first already be sitting on his father’s lap to accomplish this. The same is the case with all unbelievers; in order to deny the God they know to be true in their heart, they must first be sitting on his lap so as to reach His face. Thus the unbeliever is relying on the truth of God even to argue against God. Thus all the more they deny God proves that in their heart of hearts they know God; hence the title of this article: Unbelievers are Believers. Now this is not to say that unbelievers are Christians, but rather they have a knowledge of God that makes them culpable thus worthy of judgement unless they repent.
Talkingworldviews 
here is the problem you are treating logic as if its proscriptive rather then descriptive, a fatal mistake and as well a fallacy of equvication, also you cannot treat all athiests as meterialists, to do so is a fatal mistake, and please dont get me started on morality….
Interesting. “Logic is not prescriptive, its descriptive”. First, how do you know this, and second, if logic is descriptive, what is it descriptive of? Something that is descriptive must be describing something. Is it describing reality perhaps; if so, how do you know what the nature of reality is? The Laws of Logic are necessary presuppositions of intelligibility. They are not “laws” in the sense that they are mere descriptions of how people think. If they merely describe how people think then they become subjective conventions: People think differently and not always “logically”. The laws of logic, are immaterial, universal, invariant, and abstract. The point I was making in my article was that “logic” as such could not make sense in a purely physical universe. Of course not all atheists are materialists/physicalists, obviously. There are even atheists who believe in ghosts and all sorts of things. My article was applying the issues of logic specifically to that kind of atheism which assumes the physical universe is all there is. On that kind of atheism logic is a problem. Now, for more general purposes, I really am not concerned what kind of atheist one is, I would still challenge them to account for logical laws from within their own worldview; for I am convinced that it cannot be done; but of course, you are welcomed to try and explain how they do, if in fact you can account for them within your own worldview perspective.
As to morality: You said: “Please don’t get me started on morality”. Now I am not sure what you are (atheist, agnostic or whatever), but I would challenge, “Please get started on morality”. If you are an atheist (Of course I am not sure what you are), I challenge you to give an account for objective morality, if you believe morality is objective. If you do not believe morality is objective, then I challenge you to show that my Christian worldview cannot make sense of morality. Please “get started” indeed:)
this is a fallacy of equivocation, you are confusing with what logic is describing (logical absolutes) with logic its self The accounting goes as follows: The logical absolutes — the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle — are a set of descriptive statements which describe “the uniformity of nature”, a fundamental property of the nature of the reality we observe. And because of the law of non contradictions these laws cannot change These logical absolutes then provide the foundation for the laws of formal logic, a set of prescriptive laws about what logic can or can not do. (ie. the logical fallacies). Please note, the laws of logic and the logical absolutes are not the same thing, they are related but separate. The majority of presuppositional claims stem from equivocations.
You are correct that the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle- are a set of descriptive statements. But you are woefully mistaken if you think that these descriptive statements describe the “uniformity of nature”: a fundamental property of the nature we observe. The problem with this is that the descriptive statements describe an unchanging, universal, abstract reality which transcends space and time. The uniformity of nature is merely the principle that we observe that nature (in a limited sense: No one can observe all of nature and its behavior) has behaved in a particular way in the past; and based upon this observation, we project into the future that nature will continue to behave in like manner given the environmental circumstances have not changed. But as Bertrand Russell (Atheist) and David Hume (Great Scottish Skeptic) have pointed out in their writings, there is no rational warrant in assuming that the future will be like the past, or that nature will remain uniform. This is because it is impossible to prove without begging the question. The uniformity of nature has to be assumed in order to prove its validity. Furthermore, if one were to argue that they are warranted in projecting into the future the uniformity of nature due to past experiences of nature’s uniformity, then this would allow for absurd argumentation: I could argue that I will never die: For since I have never experienced my death in the past, then I will not experience death in the future; this is clearly absurd. Yet, the idea that nature may not act uniform in the future does not violate the law of non-contradiction in any way, and therefore, it is not a necessary truth. However, if the descriptive statements: (law of identity, law of non-contradiction, law of excluded middle) are a description of the uniformity of nature then that would entail that the descriptive statements actually are describing something that is not necessarily the case, and therefore the logical laws become subjective, that is to say, they do not necessarily obtain. So whatever the descriptive logical statements are describing, they cannot be describing the uniformity of nature unless one is willing to accept the subjectivity of logical absolutes.
As to your statement: “The majority of presuppositional claims stem from equivocation”: I am not sure what you mean. The majority of what “presuppositional” claims? Surely you know that not all presuppositionalists are the same in their thinking and method. To prove that a “majority” of presuppositional claims stem from equivocation you must first define what form of presuppositionalism you are referring to, and then proceed to analyze the “majority” of their statements. Furthermore, you would have to see whether the particular presuppositionalists you were examining were consistently applying their method correctly. Presuppositionalists say a lot of things, as do evidentialists, atheists, agnostics, etc. The real issue is whether the particular presuppositional method itself is built upon an equivocation. While I do not agree with all forms of presuppositionalism (I am a presuppositionalist of the Clarkian persuasion, with some variation) I do not think any of them are built upon or stem from equivocations although particular presuppostionalists can slip up and equivocate. As to your other replies: I will respond as soon as I can. Thank you for the interaction:)
as for morality one of the commandments says “thou shalt not lie” Many Christian apologists and evangelicals interpret this commandment as “Thou Shall not Lie” to forbid all lying. To them, lying in order to save another person, is just as criminal in the eyes of God and the Bible as committing perjury or Richard Nixon lying about Watergate. and yet many times in the bible lying is condoned by God himself. Genesis 12:10 and onward tells a story of Abraham lying about his wife Sarah (claiming she is his sister) to avoid punishment from the Egyptians. When the truth is later revealed (right after the Pharaoh married Sarah) the Pharaoh asks Abraham “why did you lie to me? Why tell me she was your sister? If I knew of your relationship and she already belonged to another man, I would not have married her.” The Pharaoh gets punished, Abraham gets rich, and then the Pharaoh tells Abraham and Sarah “Get out of here!” Abraham goes unpunished for this lie. Abraham lied, and yet was rewarded.
Another liar is the brother of Joseph. Joseph is the most beloved of all the brothers and the brothers hate him for it, so they conspire to kill him (Genesis 37) but they settle for something else. Joseph ends up being sold to slave traders. The brothers tell their father that Joseph was eaten by an animal (they lied). Joseph becomes employed by the Pharaoh, warns the Pharaoh a famine is coming, and when it does the hungry come to Egypt because it was prepared for the famine. Among the hungry was Joseph’s family. When the father discovered that Joseph is alive, what was the punishment for Joseph’s brothers? Nothing.
Joshua chapter 2 tells a story of Joshua telling two men to go to Jericho, to the house of Rahab (not the same Rahab from Isaiah and Psalms). When the King of Jericho demands that Rahab reveal the men who came to her house, but Rahab hid the men and lied of their whereabouts. What is her punishment for this lie? None. What does the rest of the Bible have to say about these lies? Jump to Hebrews 11:29-31 and James 2:22 and none of them condemn them or talk ill of Rahab, rather they praise her even though she was a liar.
and God as well was cool with slavery- godda love that moral relativism that Christianity promotes!
Exodus 21:20-21 and Exodus 21:26-27 regulates the beating of slaves, and states that the owner may not be punished if the slave survives for at least two days after the beating.
Leviticus 19:20-22 gives instructions about the sacrifices that should be made if a slave owner has sex with or rapes an engaged female slave. The slave herself is punished with whipping, but no sacrifices or punishment are required if the slave is not engaged.
In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Israelites were allowed to buy slaves from other nations, and then hand them down as an inheritance.
In Leviticus 25:39 buying your brother as a slave is allowed.
In Luke 12:45-48 the Parable of the Faithful Servant, Jesus discusses the punishment of slaves, and says that a slave may be punished for not doing something he wasn’t instructed to do.
In Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul instructs the slaves to be obedient.
There was almost universal approval of slavery among church leaders. Christians vigorously defended slavery (along with other forms of extreme social stratification) as instituted by God and as being an integral part of the natural order of men. At all points, their reasoning was clearly and easily supported by the Bible passages quoted above.
The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God… ( John Chrysostom)
…slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance. (Augustine)
Edmund Gibson, Anglican Bishop in London, made it clear in the 18th century that Christianity freed us from the slavery of sin, not from earthly and physical slavery:
The Freedom which Christianity gives, is a Freedom from the Bondage of Sin and Satan, and from the Dominion of Men’s Lusts and Passions and inordinate Desires; but as to their outward Condition, whatever that was before, whether bond or free, their being baptized, and becoming Christians, makes no manner of Change in it.
So, everyone secret believes, because the bible says so? Yeah sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
While your holy book may claim that I know and suppress knowledge of your god, there is a list of problem with that, the most major of which is as follows;
Your holy book is riddled with error, falsehoods, and contradictions, so why should we take what it says serious?
(Note, if you’re going to attempt to say the bible is the infallible word of god, you’ll need to demonstrate that claim with evidence from outside of the bible, starting with demonstrating the existence of the god you’re claiming this is the infallible word of.)
Now of course, just because the Bible says that you are suppressing the truth about God does not make it the case. Obviously! Further argumentation is required. This article was primarily for Christians interested in apologetic method.
You said: “Note, if you’re going to attempt to say the bible is the infallible word of god, you’ll need to demonstrate that claim with evidence from outside the bible, starting with demonstrating the existence of the god you’re claiming this is the infallible word of”:
My Response: Now why do I “need” to demonstrate my claims to divine authorship of the Bible by appealing to evidence from outside the Bible? While I have no problem appealing to extra-biblical evidence, this is not a necessary component for proof. Imagine I told an atheist to prove his particular brand of atheism (or whatever religion or philosophy the person holds) by only appealing to my religious text, the Bible. No one would agree to this kind of methodology, so I am not obligated to adhere to your obviously fallacious standard of proof. Furthermore, if I claimed that a proof that the Christian God existed, was that he has revealed himself in his Word, the Bible, why would I have to appeal to something outside the Bible. “If” the Bible is the word of God, then I should appeal to it, not necessarily something outside of it. Imagine if we had to only appeal to something other than the thing we were trying to validate. We could never validate anything. Because once we appealed to something else, that other thing must be justified as valid, likewise, this could go on forever as we tried to justify each thing we appealed to. Imagine proving the reliability of our eye, by not using our own eyes, that is ridiculous. Likewise, imagine proving the validity of our reasoning, by not using our very own reasoning. “If” the Bible was the Word of God, then hypothetically it would hold the highest authority possible. What can possibly be appealed to to validate the Word of him to which nothing higher exists. Such a word, at least hypothetically speaking, would have to be self-justifying. But as such, self justifying claims can be proved transcendently. Which is how I usually try to prove my claims for the Bible.
Now to your comments in regards to errors, falsehoods, and contradictions: Make your case for goodness sake, don’t just say there are errors, falsehoods, and contradictions. Give me something to bite. And please do not just bombard me with a list of 100 Bible contradictions cut and paste from some website. The Bible contains 66 books so there is a lot we can discuss; so give me something one at a time so I can give you my responses. All in all, thank you for commenting on my blog. I look foreword to future interaction.
Here is a fine example of copy-pasta. Did you actually read any of Frames or Van Til’s arguments, I doubt it. All this looks like is a repost of Sye’s dribble. Please! For a person with a degree in theology could you at least add something to the discussion rather than aping another’s original work.
“Copy-pasta”, I like that. Its kind of fun to say. Now of course your comments don’t seem to make any point worth considering, but I guess I do have something to say in response. First, I have read almost all of Van Til’s major works, or at least have had a good acquaintance with his other works in which I have not read entirely. As for John Frame’s work, I have actually had the pleasure of meeting the good doctor at Reformed Theological Seminary in Florida. He was kind enough to allow me to interview him about methodology and the like. So your comment: “I doubt it” in reference to having familiarity with their work is much too quick for only your first reply. (Sheesh, you don’t even know me so how do you know if I have ever read someone or not). When you say: “All this looks like Sye’s dribble”: I hope you realize that Sye’s dribble reflects the thought and apologetic method of Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, and John Frame, (Although Frame and Bahnsen disagreed on some points, they both agreed with what was expressed in my article); So it seems irrelevant to suggest that I perhaps didn’t read Van Til and Frame, but I am only reposting Sye’s dribble. Sye, Van Til, and Frame all agree with eachother at least on the thoughts reflected in my article. In regards to aping another’s original work: I am not sure who I am aping; Is it Sye? No, because the thoughts reflected in my article do not originate from Sye; he learned it from Van Til and Greg Bahnsen’s material (who derived it from the Bible). Am I aping Van Til ( I would argue that they just learned it from the Bible)? Well, perhaps not entirely (I am not a Van Tillian, I am more in line with Gordon Clark, but I do agree with much of what Van Til taught), but then again, the idea that unbeliever’s really know God but are suppressing the truth about him reflects the thoughts of the Apostle Paul, for crying out loud, he wrote this before Van Til, Frame, Sye and Bahnsen were even born (see Romans 1:18-23). So I am actually happily aping Paul. But so what? If I believe what Paul says is true, what’s wrong with writing about it and sharing my affirmation with what he taught. You may not agree with Paul, Van Til, Frame, or Bahnsen, but calling something dribble does not prove that it is dribble. You need to throw your gloves into the ongoing debate and prove your points. Now of course, the purpose of my article was not to prove to someone like you that you are suppressing the truth about God, but rather, it was geared to other Christians. And therefore, I do not attempt to go into too much detail how such a method is laid out. Although I would be happy to if you were interested in a little Blog debate.