I remember Vincent Cheung saying in Blinded by Atheism, “Apologetics is so easy that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose.”

He is correct; if you use biblical deductionalism or rationalism. If I choose not to be nice and always take apologetic arguments to the presuppositional level straight away (supposing my opponent even has the intellectual ability to go there), I win no matter what happens. If I stick to the scripture, I win. It doesn’t matter what my opponent says; if they say anything, I win. Even if all they say is the word “as,” I win.

The presuppositional level has to do with your starting point for knowledge and to a larger degree the things you must have in order to have any intelligence. My worldview is not their worldview. My Bible says it is true and all others are false. It says knowledge comes from God, not observation or empiricism. Thus, my worldview disagrees with all other worldviews about the presupposition of knowledge. Because other worldviews always disagree with my worldview about knowledge and the Bible is always right, then any knowledge they use does not come from their worldview, and so they never have logical justification for any knowledge they have. It does not matter if it is their own name, if it is knowledge about a tree, bird, or something abstract like “as,” “the,” or logic, or math; all such knowledge does not come from their worldview. Their worldview has no intelligence, or true or false premises about anything in reality; it has no subjects or predicates; it has no logic or math.

Even if I argue my position in a poor way, I still win. If we consider the worldview argument like a tree, the presuppositional level is the axe laid at the trunk of the tree. Even if I poorly argue for a point and my opponent seems to win a small point, they only manage to save a small twig at the top of the tree. However, one swing with my axe and the whole tree comes down.

If they make any statement about reality, or ask any question about reality or my worldview, I am not allowed to accept it, because the Bible says only it is true, says all others are false, and only it has knowledge. They do not have knowledge, and so they cannot use knowledge to make a statement about anything. If an atheist says rock layers show… (it does not matter what the conclusion is; the important thing is the knowledge of the terms rock and layers), I cannot receive his statement without presupposing his epistemology gives him knowledge. But the Bible clearly says only God gives knowledge; all others are false. If I accept his epistemology gives him the ability to use the terms “rock” and “layers,” then I reject the Bible at the same time because the Bible says only it gives knowledge (via God’s direct power) and all others are false. To use empiricism with my opponent is to reject my God at the same time. To use empiricism is to give the tree trunk to my opponent, so that the very best I can do is cut down some of his worldview branches, because I have now lost the ability to chop down the foundation of his worldview.

I would tell my opponent,

I do not use your epistemology of empiricism, which you used to produce the terms of rock and layers. If you are going to question me using an anti-biblical epistemology (the very thing we disagree about), then the logical burden of proof is on you to justify the knowledge of rock and layers. I admit, if I were to use or assume with you your empiricism, I must also reject my Christianity. But this is the very thing we disagree about, or will you just accept the Bible is the only starting point for knowledge? Because if you do, then I win, and you will be saved. I don’t believe in your worldview. I refuse to go further, because the burden of proof is on you. If you do not have knowledge of rock and layers, it is pointless what the conclusions are. You attacked me with the certainty that you have the knowledge of rocks and layers. I do not believe you. I don’t presuppose your worldview.