Giving evidence for one's ultimate authority

[CatholicSoxFan]

I’ve delved a bit into presuppositional apologetics, and while I find that most of their arguments against evidential apologetics aren’t very good arguments (so what if an atheist could build a rescuing device; what matters is the most rational conclusion), but there is one argument that I have had trouble refuting; if you accept God as your ultimate authority, how do you provide evidence for Him? Wouldn’t the evidence then become your ultimate authority? It’s similar to St. Anselm’s concept of the “greatest conceivable being” or “maximally great being”; if one could conceive of (come up with a concept of that was logically coherent, and doesn’t violate a necessary truth, like a shape definition, or a law of logic) a being which was greater than God, than that being would be the maximally great being, not God. So, how does an evidential apologist respond to this charge?

 

[TRH1292]

I’ve delved a bit into presuppositional apologetics, and while I find that most of their arguments against evidential apologetics aren’t very good arguments (so what if an atheist could build a rescuing device; what matters is the most rational conclusion), but there is one argument that I have had trouble refuting; if you accept God as your ultimate authority, how do you provide evidence for Him? Wouldn’t the evidence then become your ultimate authority? It’s similar to St. Anselm’s concept of the “greatest conceivable being” or “maximally great being”; if one could conceive of (come up with a concept of that was logically coherent, and doesn’t violate a necessary truth, like a shape definition, or a law of logic) a being which was greater than God, than that being would be the maximally great being, not God. So, how does an evidential apologist respond to this charge?

That seems to be presupposing that the evidence is something adverse from him rather than a part of his own self revelation to us. The evidence we see is His very own condescension to us in natural revelation, not something we invent.

What kind of presupossitional apologetics are you studying? What apologists specifically?

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

That seems to be presupposing that the evidence is something adverse from him rather than a part of his own self revelation to us. The evidence we see is His very own condescension to us in natural revelation, not something we invent.

What kind of presupossitional apologetics are you studying? What apologists specifically?

A lot of the popular creationist apologists (I’m a theistic evolutionist) have adopted this brand of “apologetics” (depending on how you define apologetics, it may not be apologetics at all), and I’ve watched some YouTube videos and debates on the matter. I particularly watch videos of Sye Ten Bruggencate, Eric Hovind and Jason Lisle defend presuppositional “apologetics”, and as I’ve said before, a lot of their arguments against classical theistic arguments miss the mark entirely.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve delved a bit into presuppositional apologetics, and while I find that most of their arguments against evidential apologetics aren’t very good arguments (so what if an atheist could build a rescuing device; what matters is the most rational conclusion), but there is one argument that I have had trouble refuting; if you accept God as your ultimate authority, how do you provide evidence for Him? Wouldn’t the evidence then become your ultimate authority? It’s similar to St. Anselm’s concept of the “greatest conceivable being” or “maximally great being”; if one could conceive of (come up with a concept of that was logically coherent, and doesn’t violate a necessary truth, like a shape definition, or a law of logic) a being which was greater than God, than that being would be the maximally great being, not God. So, how does an evidential apologist respond to this charge?

what prevents the maximally great being from *always *being God? What prevents us from ever growing in an ever-expanding concept of God?