Matt B writes:
Hello, I’m a Christian and am very fond of presuppositional apologetics, but I’m wondering if you could help me a bit. I feel I can confidently articulate the basic premise of Van Til’s apologetic, and the implications of it for atheistic/polytheistic worldviews, but could you help me explain why this particular apologetic is only applicable to the God of Christianity, rather than various other worldviews (e.g. open theism, deism, agnosticism, etc.)? Thank you, your answer will be much appreciated.
Open theism may be dealt with philosophically, but since open theists make a claim to our God and our Scripture, it is perfectly fine to address the system from Scripture itself. See works by John Frame and Bruce Ware on this topic.
Deism lacks a revelation, and hence shares virtually nothing in common with the Christian worldview especially as it pertains to transcendental argumentation. Deists are forced to rely upon natural theology in order to posit their god, but natural theology will not get us to their god. There are other problems, but they generally follow from this problematic lack of revelation.
Agnosticism can be defeated the same way that atheism is defeated, for agnosticism is, on one end, atheistic. That is, the agnostic will claim that he or she does not know whether or not God exists, but then let us just assume that He does not, and take a look at the unacceptable consequences.
You will find better material in response to your question here: