Evidentialist generally use presuppositions in dealing with their case.
1. Epistomologically, knowledge is possible. You can learn certain t hings and u can learn them truly and accurately.
2. Metophysically, the universe is regular. There are certain things that are said about hte world that are going to be true. (things will get older, fall off cliff, etc.)
3. Ethically, the result of imperical investigations will be reported honestly. if you are conducting research, then you are going to report honestly.
Post-modernism provides a challenge to evidentialist apologist. Post-modernist claim that the modernist’s claim that there is a subjective truth in the world that can be discovered by using your rationalism, is not true. They say that there are many truths, not just one.Evidentialism rejects post modernism.
They (generally speaking) hold a high view of science. They are prone to accept many of the scientific theories that are out there. Many evidentialist believe old age creationism because of this fact (progressive creationism & theistic evolution)
CUMULATIVE CASE APOLOGETICS
When people jump on what we believe;
1.We can appeal to fideism???
Fideism- God’s existance is by faith.
2. We can defend the possiblilty of a rational case of theism and Christianity.
3. Cumulative case apologetics. Also called the inference to the best explaination approach. This approach understands these as religious beliefs which can be proven when you look at all the facts. The question is, which one makes the most sense when they are compared. They can be compared by law, history, literature.
G.K. Chesterton, Richard Swinburns, and modern day Paul Feinberg hold this view
Paul holds these views:
1. The arguement for theism and Chrisitianity is an informal one, not a formal one. More like the brief that a lawyer brings, or an explaination that a historian proposes, or an interpretaion in literature.
2. It is a broadly based arguement that is drawn from a number of elements in our experience, which in turn require an eplaination or point beyond themselves.
3. None of these elements that constitute the case, has any priority over any other. WHat Christian apologists are defending is the claim that Christian theism is the best explanation of all available evidence.
4. Unlike some approaches, this approach is not simply a defense of God’s existance, but an apologetic for Christianity specifically.
