D
Deleted member 11889
Guest
Classical apologists have no problem showing internal consistencies in a false worldview. Naturalists cannot account for abstract entities. That's not what "impossibility of the contrary" means. Impossibility of the contrary (or the strong, global form of TAG) makes a far stronger claim: it asserts that *no* worldview save Christianity can account for x, y, z. The simple problem is they can't possibly know that. They haven't examined every single worldview.
I mean, in one sense, the presup claim is true there. No other worldview can satisfactorily account for x, y, and z. I can make that assertion simply by nature of being a Christian, and if you can't make that assertion then there's really no point in being a Christian. It's not necessary to have to examine every other worldview.
On the flip side, unbelievers won't and can't grok that. Atheists and Muslims do believe that their worldview satisfactorily accounts for everything. Apart from the illumination of the Spirit, no one can understand that about Christianity. So one is reduced to pointless shouting at the unbeliever that he can't know anything apart from Christianity... which is something that the unbeliever can't know apart from Christianity.