A Conversation With an Unbeliever


destroy foundations

The following conversation is inspired by true events — mostly conversations with unbelievers on Facebook. It’s not representative of any single person, but it’s a combination of many different conversations distilled into one that’s representative of the general content of the unbeliever’s arguments and reasoning process. 

The conversation illustrates an application of presuppositional apologetics, a divine weapon for defending the Christian faith that destroys the foundations of unbelievers’ arguments and exposes their moral rebellion against God. When pressed to give an account of beliefs the unbeliever normally takes for granted, it’s amazing just how slippery their arguments become.

Isaiah wrote, centuries ago, that unbelievers label the truth as a lie and a lie as the truth. They invert definitions: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Is. 5:20) Even as you expose their irrationalism, they will continue to label themselves rational and you, the Christian with the coherent worldview, irrational.

THE CONVERSATION BEGINS

Christian: Did you read the article about the stars and the universe that I sent you?

Unbeliever: Yes, I did. I appreciate the thought. I really enjoy camping beneath the stars and gazing at their beauty.

Christian: I know, you’re a big fan of the outdoors. When you look up at the heavens and their vast depth, does it make you wonder how it all got here and where it all came from?

Unbeliever: In some way, I suppose. But not like most people. I think seeing incredible things just reinforces whatever you already believe about creation. There’s a scientific explanation for creation, and then there’s the hokey religious stuff.

Christian: Which means you think theories of supernatural creation are hokey?

Unbeliever: Well, when staring into the unknown I think people tend to connect dots that aren’t really there. Our minds tend to impose patterns on the events they experience because certain patterns are familiar to us. To believe those patterns, which come most easily to us, is lazy. It takes great personal strength to overcome the impulse.

Christian: That’s pretty deep. Sounds very Humean. Are you suggesting that everyone who holds a theory of supernatural creation hasn’t yet overcome a lazy intellect?

Unbeliever: I’m making a generalization, for sure. I’m sure some people challenge their own ideas and try to step outside the box to find the answers.

Christian: You’re right, I’m sure some do. Do you have any supernatural beliefs?

Unbeliever: No.

Christian: Why not?

Unbeliever: Because I don’t see any evidence of the supernatural. In fact, I see the opposite. There just isn’t any evidence that any gods exist. It’s not credible to believe in the incredible.

Christian: Oh, well then what constitutes evidence?

Unbeliever: Anything that’s testable and observable and holds up under the scrutiny of science.

Christian: So like a hypothesis that can be tested using the scientific method?

Unbeliever: Exactly.

Christian: And the scientific method is founded upon the laws of logic?

Unbeliever: Of course. Everything is founded upon the laws of logic.

Christian: Things like reason?

Unbeliever: Especially reason.

Christian: So does that mean you think that the laws of logic are the same everywhere, even in the past and in the future, as they are today?

Unbeliever: Absolutely. They have to be.

Christian: Why?

Unbeliever: If they weren’t, everything would fall apart. If they break down in some corner of the universe, then we have no basis for reasoning and this conversation is pointless.

Christian: I certainly agree with you about that.

Unbeliever: Well you seem to be a reasonable person.

Christian: Thank you.

Unbeliever: You’re welcome.

Christian: So you use testing and observation to challenge facts to develop evidence that supports your beliefs.

Unbeliever: You got it.

Christian: You think that’s a sound approach?

Unbeliever: Indeed. Some of the greatest thinkers and established scientists have used this approach.

Christian: So if I were to ask you how you know the sun will rise tomorrow, your response would be?

Unbeliever: Because, based on past observations, it’s probable that it will. Think of it like a statistical model.

Christian: Sounds complicated.

Unbeliever: Sometimes complexity is unavoidable when discussing very difficult subjects.

Christian: I agree. Can you explain to me what you mean by “statistical model” in terms that a simple person like me can understand?

Unbeliever: Sure. It’s like this. If all of the factors stay the same today as they did yesterday, then I’ll keep believing what I believed yesterday.

Christian: So, in other words, you don’t believe in the supernatural because you haven’t seen any miracles lately?

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: So if you saw a miracle, you’d change your mind about that?

Unbeliever: Yes, I’m a reasonable man after all. But I do admit it would be very difficult to persuade me.

Christian: I suppose so. By their definition, miracles don’t happen very often. If you saw a dead man rise from the grave today, but it didn’t happen again after that, it seems like you wouldn’t believe it was a miracle.

Unbeliever: Because it probably isn’t.

Christian: Because things like that don’t happen?

Unbeliever: Right, because they are supernatural.

Christian: Which you would be willing to change your mind about if you saw evidence that supported the existence of supernatural events?

Unbeliever: Of course.

Christian: And based on your method of deriving evidence, you need to test something over and over again before you accept it as truth?

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: So if you saw a miracle, which by definition doesn’t happen very frequently, doesn’t that mean that you probably wouldn’t accept it as a miracle?

Unbeliever: What do you mean?

Christian: Well, if you have to test something multiple times before you accept it to be true, it seems that you are intentionally blinding yourself to one-time events.

Unbeliever: Like miracles?

Christian: Yea.

Unbeliever: I see your point. But I don’t think that’s exactly right.

Christian: Where’d I go wrong?

Unbeliever: I can’t quite put my finger on it…

Christian: Don’t you claim to weigh all evidence neutrally without biasing the results based on your personal opinions?

Unbeliever: Yes. That’s the very definition of science, after all.

Christian: But it seems to me that you’ve adopted a view that screens out certain kinds of evidence in advance based on your predetermined personal opinion.

Unbeliever: Come again?

Christian: Just hear me out. If you require something to be testable multiple times before you’ll accept it as evidence, then you could never test miracles because, by the definition of the word, they are extraordinary but unusual events.

Unbeliever: Well–

Christian: If you saw a dead man rise from the grave, and it really was a miracle, you wouldn’t believe it to be a supernatural event because it only happened once. That means you have adopted a system which contains a prejudicial bias against certain kinds of evidence. In your case, supernatural evidence.

Unbeliever: Whoa, look, now you’re just putting words in my mouth. I never said anything like that. I said I don’t see evidence of the supernatural. I didn’t say I overlook evidence of the supernatural on purpose because I don’t want to see evidence of the supernatural.

Christian: Sorry, that wasn’t my intention. Maybe you can explain where I went wrong?

Unbeliever: Apology accepted. We all make mistakes.

Christian: Thank you.

THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

Unbeliever: What we’re ultimately talking about here is the classical problem of induction.

Christian: Yea.

Unbeliever: Do you understand what induction is?

Christian: Yea, it’s when we infer broad general principles from numerous specific events. We predict the future based on our observations about the past. For example, since the sun has risen every morning for the past 6,000 years, we can infer that it will probably continue to do so into the future.

Unbeliever: Basically, yea, though the sun has risen far longer than that.

Christian: How much longer?

Unbeliever: Billions of years. But let’s not digress.

Christian: Good idea.

Unbeliever: So you understand the problem is that we seem to have no justification for assuming that things will happen in the future the way they always have in the past? A famous quote on the matter is that “induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy.”

Christian: Yea. The big question is Why should we expect the universe tomorrow to behave similarly to the way it behaved today? How can we justify such a belief? What evidence can we use to support our reason for having that expectation?

Unbeliever: All good questions. That’s the problem in a nutshell.

Christian: I’m not a complete buffoon.

Unbeliever: So then I’m sure you’re aware that the problem of induction doesn’t have an accepted solution?

Christian: That’s not true at all. I have a perfectly reasonable solution.

Unbeliever: Oh really? Do enlighten me.

Christian: It’s simple. God has promised to sustain the universe, to regulate it so that we can be confident that things tomorrow will generally behave the same as they do today. Things like the “laws of physics” and the “laws of logic” and such.

Unbeliever: Wow. And no one has awarded you a Nobel Prize for this insight?

Christian: You seem skeptical. That’s a perfectly reasonable explanation.

Unbeliever: Yea, but you have no proof to support that belief.

Christian: That’s not true either. I have Scripture.

DISTASTE FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF EVIDENCE

Unbeliever: That’s not evidence.

Christian: You’re saying that a God who writes his words down in a book for all of creation to see isn’t evidence?

Unbeliever: What I mean is that I don’t consider it to be evidence.

Christian: You mean you don’t like my evidence?

Unbeliever: That’s a rather unflattering way of putting it.

Christian: Is there any better way?

Unbeliever: I mean it isn’t evidence because it isn’t true.

Christian: How do you know that?

Unbeliever: Because you have to have faith to believe it.

Christian: And faith is bad?

Unbeliever: Terribly so.

Christian: Why do you say that?

Unbeliever: Because it is opposed to reason.

Christian: How can that be?

Unbeliever: By its very definition, it is opposed to reason. Faith is a belief without a basis in proof.

Christian: I guess that depends on whose definition you use. The Christian’s definition is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). By its very definition, as you like to say, faith is, itself, a kind of evidence. 

Unbeliever: That’s absurd.

Christian: How do you mean?

Unbeliever: Everybody knows that if you have evidence, you don’t need faith.

Christian: Everybody? 

IGNORANT CONJECTURES

Unbeliever: Besides, that verse you are talking about was probably added in the dark ages by some monks in a monastery somewhere. And they were probably drunk.

Christian: You mean 225 AD.

Unbeliever: What’s that?

Christian: The earliest dated copy of that verse that we have discovered was written around 225 AD. 

Unbeliever: Oh, well that’s not important. What’s important is that we use Webster’s definition because it probably wasn’t written by a Christian. 

Christian: Because you think a Christian’s definition would be biased?

Unbeliever: And contrary to reason with their “faith is evidence” nonsense.

 Christian: And you don’t think a non-Christian’s definition would be biased?

 Unbeliever: Certainly not.

 Christian: Why’s that?

Unbeliever: Because those non-Christian definition writers are men of reason in search of truth. 

Christian: As opposed to men of faith in search of truth?

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: Because faith is opposed to reason?

Unbeliever: Now you’re catching on. We must be reasonable when discussing matters like this, after all. There’s no need for any hocus-pocus.

Christian: You mean magic? 

Unbeliever: That’s right. 

Christian: Well, as a Christian I don’t believe in magic, either, so on that point we agree. But let’s not get distracted. 

Unbeliever: OK.

Christian: I guess I’m still confused. Despite all this talking we’ve done and these explanations you’ve given me, it still sounds like you don’t have any actual proof or evidence to support your belief in the validity of the inductive process. What reason do you have for believing in the uniformity of nature across time and space?

Unbeliever: I just went over this. The proof is that inductive reasoning can and has been accurate in the past. Nature has been uniform in the past. So there’s no reason to suspect that it’ll change.

Christian: You mean that, in the absence of hard evidence, you have faith that the future will behave like the past?

Unbeliever: Not at all. You’re not understanding me.

Christian: Apparently not. Do you mind if I try approaching this from a different angle? 

Unbeliever: Shoot.

THE UNBELIEVER’S CIRCULAR REASONING

Christian: How do you know when you’ve discovered a principle that’s true?

Unbeliever: Because I use a scientific process to test it. I observe the results. If they don’t change, test after test, I’m pretty sure the hypothesis under test is true. We have been over this several times already. 

Christian: I know, but I guess I’m having a hard time following you for some reason. Just walk me back through this one more time. You use a scientific process to test theories and determine which are true?

Unbeliever: Yes. 

Christian: And that process rests upon the laws of logic?

Unbeliever: Naturally.

 Christian: And so you use past results to predict future results?

Unbeliever: Yup.

Christian: Which makes sense because of our ability to apply inductive reasoning because of the uniformity of nature?

Unbeliever: Elementary, isn’t it?

Christian: And you support your belief that inductive reasoning won’t fail us tomorrow with evidence based on observable, testable results determined by the scientific process?

Unbeliever: Yes, that sounds right…

Christian: And the scientific process relies on the validity of inductive reasoning? 

Unbeliever: Yes.

Christian: So you do science based on inductive reasoning to generate evidence of truth, and you believe inductive reasoning is true based on the scientific process, which depends on inductive reasoning?

Unbeliever: Uh…sort of. But– 

Christian: Can you explain to me how that’s not circular?

Unbeliever: You know, we’ve been talking an awful lot about my beliefs . I think we need to spend a little more time focusing on you. Especially since you brought up the topic of circular reasoning. 

Christian: What about it?

Unbeliever: Well, now I need to ask you about the details of some of your beliefs.

Christian: Sure, it’s the least I could do. What do you want to know?

Unbeliever: Tell me again about how you explain the solution to the problem of induction.

THE CHRISTIAN EXPLANATION OF THESE PROBLEMS

Christian: Sure. As a Christian, I don’t worry about this problem of the laws of logic or the laws of physics changing or not. Scripture tells us that God is logical by nature. He created us in his image, so we tend to be logical in our thinking, too, except our reason is corrupted by sin. That’s where logical fallacies come from. Nature behaves predictably too, because it was also created, and is actively sustained, by a sovereign God. Scripture tells us that God will keep the universe regulated so that we can continue to learn about it and study it and subdue it to his glory.

Unbeliever: That’s a mouthful.

Christian: Sorry. Sometimes I get excited when I talk about this. 

Unbeliever: I don’t believe any of it though.

Christian: Why not? Do you think it’s illogical?

Unbeliever: Not exactly, it seems to be logical, if it were true. But it’s not.

Christian: How do you know? 

Unbeliever: Because there’s no proof that it’s true.

Christian: I already explained this. Scripture is the foundation of all that we do, even governing how we determine what constitutes evidence… 

Unbeliever: Now the shoe’s on the other foot.

Christian: No kidding. 

Unbeliever: Proceed. 

Christian: In a nutshell, we have the Bible. It is God’s revelation about himself to mankind. He wrote it himself. It even testifies that God himself wrote it. It is the evidence upon which we base our faith because it is God’s self-revelation about himself and this world. He is trustworthy, as opposed to the contradicting opinions of people. 

THE ACCUSATION THAT CHRISTIANITY IS CIRCULAR

Unbeliever: Remember when we were talking about circular reasoning?

Christian: Yea, just a minute ago.

Unbeliever: Well, what you just said sounds circular to me. For example, if someone asks you “How do you know God exists”–

Christian: To which the Christian replies “Because the Bible tells me so.” 

Unbeliever: After which the scientist asks “How do we know that what the Bible says is true?” 

Christian: And the Christian replies “Because the Bible is the word of God.” 

Unbeliever: Exactly. Because then if the scientist asks “So how do you know God exists,” and you again reply “Because the Bible tells me so,” we just get right back into the same vicious loop. That’s circular reasoning. 

Christian: I see how you might get that impression. Let me explain. 

Unbeliever: Enlighten me.

Christian: Assume for a minute that God did exist.

Unbeliever: That’s a real stretch, but ok.

Christian: If he reveals himself to his creation, then it would be his own words that tell us what his revelation is. 

Unbeliever: I’m not sure I follow.

Christian: If you come up with a new idea that you haven’t told anyone about, will anyone else be able to explain it for you? 

Unbeliever: Not unless they can read minds.

Christian: Ok. So that means that God’s word must validate his word. 

Unbeliever: Are you sure this isn’t sophistry…

Christian: No, let me give an example. When you write a letter, you use your own words, right? 

Unbeliever: Right. I don’t get paid enough to dictate my letters to a secretary.

Christian: Ok. So after you write the letter using your own words, you probably sign it, right?

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: So you are validating your own words with your own words, in a sense, when you sign your name. You attest that this letter was written by you. 

Unbeliever: Ok, sure. I’m with you now.

Christian: Ok. So God must be the ultimate authority since there are no authorities higher than God. His word has to be self-validating.

Unbeliever: That depends on your conception of what “God” is. How do you know there are no higher gods than “God”?

Christian: We are talking about the conception of God as revealed in the Bible. He tells us that there are no other gods, higher or lower.

Unbeliever: OK. Then sure, that makes sense.

Christian: Alright. Then what else can validate the word of God except a word from God? 

Unbeliever: Beats me.

Christian: So that’s what we have, the Bible validating itself. It’s like God’s own hand-written letter to us.

Unbeliever: Good explanation.

Christian: So you don’t see any logical problems with that explanation?

Unbeliever: Not at all. 

Christian: So you’re ready to become a Christian?

Unbeliever: Whoa, not so fast.

Christian: What’s the problem if you don’t see any logical gaps?

Unbeliever: Well, simple. It’s just not true.

Christian: How do you know that?

Unbeliever: Because it requires faith to believe that the Bible is the revelation of God. 

Christian: But the Bible explains the existence of the laws of logic and their uniformity across time and space. And we refer to the Bible for proof, which rests on God’s own authority, that we are reasonable to expect the future to behave like the past.

Unbeliever: We don’t need the Bible to justify a belief in those things.

Christian: I disagree. If the claims of Scripture weren’t true, nothing would make sense. All other worldviews except the Christian worldview pretend to be logical, but at some point they always contradict themselves. They’re really just borrowing the Christian worldview but saying they aren’t.

Unbeliever: That’s a bold claim, but it won’t stand up to reason. 

Christian: I see. Then how do you justify your belief in the universal and absolute nature of the laws of logic in light of the problem of induction? 

Unbeliever: With reason that’s founded upon evidence.

Christian: So you have evidence of the laws of logic?

Unbeliever: Yes. They are principles we have observed that seem to hold true. 

Christian: You have seen a principle?

Unbeliever: Yes.

Christian: What color was it?

Unbeliever: Don’t be cheeky. That’s not what I meant.

Christian: Sorry. Philosophical humor. 

Unbeliever: There is little evidence to justify your belief that your humor is actually funny.

Christian: I see. Back to the problem. These principles you’ve observed have been tested with science? 

Unbeliever: Of course. 

Christian: Which relies upon the laws of logic?

Unbeliever: Indeed. 

Christian: I know I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but that sounds circular to me.

Unbeliever: It isn’t. 

Christian: Are you sure?

Unbeliever: Absolutely. I wouldn’t be reasonable if my logic were circular.

Christian: But you haven’t observed or tested the laws of logic in the past or at the edge of the universe?

Unbeliever: Not exactly, but the principles are universal.

Christian: So you have faith that the laws of logic are universal and don’t change with time?

Unbeliever: Again, as I’ve already said, no. You aren’t understanding me.

Christian: But you said you require observable and testable evidence to support your beliefs. 

Unbeliever: Yes, that’s right.

Christian: But you haven’t observed the laws of logic operating at the edge of the universe. 

Unbeliever: Not exactly, but they are general principles, you see, and they must be universal or else everything is meaningless.

Christian: That sounds a lot like faith to me.

Unbeliever: But it isn’t. 

Christian: Why not?

Unbeliever: Because faith is opposed to reason, and I’m a reasonable person.

Christian: So because I have faith, I am not?

Unbeliever: That unfortunately seems to be the case. I spoke too soon earlier.

Christian: Sorry to hear that. Let me revisit a point. You don’t really have evidence that the laws of logic operate at the edges of the universe the same way they do here?

Unbeliever: Why yes, I just cruised in from Milliways at the end of the universe. They have great hamburgers, but I don’t recommend their salads. It’s actually quite nice out there.

Christian: Witty.

Unbeliever: Thank you. I’m a witty person.

Christian: I can see that.

Unbeliever: I appreciate it.

Christian: Please answer the question. 

Unbeliever: No, I don’t exactly have what you would call testable and observable evidence about the operation of the laws of logic at the edge of the universe. 

Christian: But you believe they do actually operate the same way they do here?

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: But if you believe something without observable evidence, that sounds like your definition of faith.

Unbeliever: It isn’t.

Christian: And if you’re going to have faith in something, it seems much more reasonable to put your faith in the Creator and regulator of the universe instead of making all these assumptions. First you have to assume the laws of logic operate the same everywhere in the universe. Then you have to assume they will operate the same everywhere in the universe in the future. Then you have to assume that they won’t change their operation between then and now. What–

Unbeliever: All of those assumptions conform to reality.

Christian: But what reason do you have to justify all of these assumptions? It seems more reasonable to accept the Christian worldview and believe the claims of the Bible, which are comprehensive about all of reality, things seen and things unseen. Its claims about the nature of reality are dead-on. Why not trust the word of the Creator himself? 

Unbeliever: You just aren’t getting it. There’s no way I will believe that kind of thing.

Christian: Why not?

Unbeliever: Because it requires faith.

Christian: And faith is bad.

Unbeliever: You’re smarter than you look, even for a guy with more faith than sense.

Christian: I’m glad we are able to have a conversation like this and keep it polite.

Unbeliever: Me too. That’s what I like about you Christians.

SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH

Christian: The fact that you can’t account for any of these beliefs is explained by Christianity. You do know God in your heart of hearts, and you do know him as your Creator, but you are rebelling against him. You know the truth, but you suppress it. You need to repent and then you can make better sense of questions like this. Your contradictions show that you know better. They are evidence. It testifies against you. 

Unbeliever: Seems I spoke too soon. Here I was, thinking we were having an intelligent conversation, and then you go and bring morality into the realm of the intellect.

Christian: But your problem isn’t an intellectual problem, it’s a moral one. You are contorting your intellect to evade your underlying ethical problem, primarily that you are rebelling against your creator and so, like a child, you are being deliberately disobedient. God is not very happy with you right now.

Unbeliever: Name-calling is no substitute for solid reasoning. 

Christian: Hell is no prize for the foolish.

Unbeliever: There you go with your ad-hominems again.

Christian: So please explain, for the record, how you know the laws of logic are universal and unchanging?

Unbeliever: Because if they weren’t, nothing would make sense.

Christian: I meant more along the lines of What evidence do you have to support your belief?

Unbeliever: That requires a very complex answer.

Christian: Like another statistical model?

Unbeliever: Most definitely.

Christian: Which is founded upon the laws of logic?

Unbeliever: Why don’t you get to the point already? 

Christian: You said you were a man of science, right?

Unbeliever: Correct.

Christian: And you said you require testable and observable evidence to support your beliefs?

Unbeliever: You’re a fast learner. 

Christian: Thank you. And reasonable?

Unbeliever: Let’s not jump the gun. You tend to resort to logical fallacies when you get pressed for answers.

THE UNBELIEVER REJECTS AN EXPLANATION CONSISTENT WITH HIS PRINCIPLES

Christian: So if you believe that the laws of logic will be the same tomorrow as they are today, and you require testable and observable evidence to support your belief, doesn’t that mean that you have somehow observed the future? 

Unbeliever: Hmm. That sounds like a paradox.

Christian: Not if you believe in the power of prophecy.

Unbeliever: Not on my worldview, remember. There is no such thing as the supernatural. 

Christian: Oh, right. So how do you make sense of this question?

Unbeliever: That’s a tough one. I don’t know what the answer is. 

Christian: Which means it could be anything? 

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: Even the Christian explanation?

Unbeliever: Except that. 

Christian: So you don’t know what the answer is, but you know it isn’t God?

Unbeliever: You’re no dummy.

Christian: Isn’t that what you might describe as a paradox? 

Unbeliever: Not at all.

Christian: Why not?

Unbeliever: Because contradicting yourself is opposed to reason.

Christian: And you’re a reasonable person? 

Unbeliever: You got it.

Christian: And reasonable people don’t contradict themselves? 

Unbeliever: That’s right.

Christian: And reasonable people don’t have faith?

Unbeliever: Hopefully not. 

Christian: Even when it comes to believing that the world tomorrow will behave like the world today?

Unbeliever: Right. Reasonable people rely on evidence, not faith.

Christian: And evidence is derived from testing and observation.

Unbeliever: Yes.

Christian: Except when we are talking about the laws of logic and the problem of induction? 

Unbeliever: Kind of. Then we’re talking about a different kind of evidence. 

Christian: You mean like the kind which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?

Unbeliever: Now you’re just trying to be funny, and this is a very serious subject. 

Christian: You’re right, I apologize. You mean a different kind of evidence other than that which is testable and observable?

Unbeliever: Exactly.

Christian: Which isn’t faith?

Unbeliever: Yes. How many times do we have to keep going over this?

Christian: I’m sorry. I just don’t know how much more of this I can take right now. 

Unbeliever: Ok, I understand. These conversations are best understood by a rational mind, not one that is tarnished by irrational ideas, like faith. Let me know once you get some of those hang-ups worked out, and then we can talk some more.

Christian: Your generosity is exceeded only by your manners.

Unbeliever: I appreciate your kind words. Talk to you again soon.

Christian: Lord willing.

Unbeliever: Whoever he is.

——————————-

CONCLUSION

This essay is written in the tradition of “Conversations with Nathan” by David Chilton (see page 163) and “The Excommunication of Ronald Reagan” by Gary North.

Presuppositional apologetics gets to the heart of the unbeliever’s worldview. They usually hate the presuppositional method. They want to jump right in to using logic to “reason,” but the Christian, using the presuppositional method, asks the unbeliever to first give an account for the laws of logic and other beliefs on their worldview that most people take for granted.

“On your worldview, how do these things make sense?”

They don’t. They never can give an account without contradicting themselves. This is the divine power to destroy strongholds. This is how we “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

But it’s not the apologist’s task to make the unbeliever cry uncle. It’s only his task to expose his faulty worldview and present him with the only true and reasonable alternative: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job alone to change the unbeliever’s heart.

To learn more about presuppositional apologetics, start by clicking here.

Advertisements

2 responses to “A Conversation With an Unbeliever

  1. Pingback: Mid-September 2014 Van Tillian Apologetics Links | The Domain for Truth

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s