Kudos to Nocterro (who sometimes comments here) for writing a pretty clear explanation of what presuppositionalists have been saying for some time now.
Showing that the Bible is correct in its historical claims does not show it is correct in its theological claims…
Imagine for the sake of argument that someone showed that Jesus did indeed resurrect…All it would show is that a man resurrected, not that Yahweh exists and that such a being was the cause of such an event. It could have been that it was the doing of some other sort of god, or even something else supernatural.
Nocterro perhaps inadvertently calls attention to the presuppositional nature of the dispute between Christians and non-Christians by rejecting so-called evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ according to his own presuppositions just prior to explicitly recognizing that presuppositions are involved in the claim a Christian might make in his scenario.
But let’s go even one more step further. Evidence of an actual resurrection does nothing to show that ANY supernatural event took place. All it would really show, at its core, is that we are incorrect in our belief that resurrection after death is not naturally possible.
To show that Jesus is lord, you have to first show that the God of the bible exists via another method. if you don’t, that means you’re presupposing that such a god exists. [sic]
Good on him. The remainder of the post is not so promising though. Most of his examples of “bad arguments” appear to be not arguments, but observations.
I have not found a typical response from atheists concerning “faith” in science or atheism, but when unbelievers I have spoken with have affirmed their faith in science (for example) I do not equate this faith with a believer’s faith at all. They differ in content and they differ in provision for rationality. If Nocterro thinks he has reached something without resting ultimately upon some sort of faith then I would love to hear what it is and how he reached it.
It is unwise to present the Problem of Evil as a logical problem for any but the non-Christian position. There is no logical inconsistency between the existence of God and the existence of evil, though there is a logical inconsistency between the non-existence of God and the existence of evil.
It is telling that Nocterro offers a straw man of the TAG and allegedly refutes it prior to offering what is actually meant by the challenge set forth by the TAG. It should be pointed out that if the argument is correct not even what is presented in his straw man has actually been explained, however. Therefore just stating what he has with respect to an alleged explanation is insufficient to deal with the actual argument.