David Smart pointed out to us and posted about The Arrogance of Atheism on a familiar day to me.
In one of his posts that I was reading, he stated the case in the following manner:
"When it comes to Christian apologetics, there are basically two camps: on the one hand is evidentialism, and presuppositionalism on the other. Please notice that neither of these two systems deny the Atheist his presuppositions and epistemological criteria! (To charge either with the arrogance I speak of requires ignoring the facts.) The evidentialists tend to argue from the same epistemic axioms and criteria as the Atheist, starting from this common ground toward defeating the Atheist’s metaphysical presuppositions (to their peril, as they forget that ontology grounds epistemology). And the presuppositionalists actually enjoy granting the Atheist his presuppositions and epistemic criteria because it’s the very means by which they achieve their end, the self-stultifying death of any non-Christian world view (q.v. the TAG). When a Christian employs either apologetic approach when confronting Atheism, he is not guilty of the same arrogance which so many Atheists are because he does allow the inverse—especially presuppositionalists, who purposefully allow the inverse.
Nature of evidence Edit
Cline suggests that it is legitimate or fair to question the nature of evidence expected for some claim, and then attempts to assert that "trying to exempt one’s own personal god-claims from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy."
Wrong. This fallacy is committed only when "someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception" (FallacyFiles.org; emphasis added). Empirical claims require empirical evidence; however, God-claims are not empirical claims. To demand that empirical evidence be provided for non-empirical claims is to commit a gross categorical error. It is akin to someone demanding that the Law of Non-Contradiction (a non-empirical claim) be proved with empirical evidence. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhrgLBpFP7Q The evidentialist line of reasoning is shown to be full of holes by the ATheist and the Christian attempting Aquinas caused/uncaused argument fails. He fails in this because the question is how does on justify the Law of Excluded middle or Platonic opposites without appealing to God first. If the laws of logic can be derived separate from God, they become greater than God and induce Agrippian regress. Logic can only be justified by starting out with God first. On what basis do unbelievers assume that God either exists or does not exist as our only option in any possible multiple universes?
http://pointofcontention.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/contra-apologia-why-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-fails-to-impress/ Atheist perspective on Kalam argument