From my understanding of the Van Tillian approach to presuppositionalism, the unbeliever is to be shown the "impossibility of the contrary," that is, that every worldview except the Reformed Christian one leads to absurdity and contradictions. How does this square with the Van Tillian understanding of "apparent contradictions" in scripture? What I mean is, how can one's apologetic method be to show the absurdity, irrationality, and self-contradictory nature of another worldview while simultaneously embracing irreconcilable contradictions? Is this not self-defeating? It seems like the initial response would be "of course, the contradictions aren't
real contradictions; they merely
appear to be so." So why isn't the unbeliever allowed to turn this right back around on us and say "I know my worldview looks absurd, illogical, and self-contradictory, but it only
appears that way"?
NB: I'm not attacking Van Tillian presuppositionalism. This is all just a little new to me and I'm trying to learn.
