I read the wikipedia article on Presupposition apologetics. It seems pretty wacky, i could be off but isn't it just trying to argue that the bible/scripture should be used as a heuristic to compare against other world views etc because it is the best? Basically saying, the bible has the best track record, therefore we should use it as the basis for comparison, and if anything disagree's with the bible it's wrong.
Seems like lunacy. If you believe in the bible, then of course your using it as your heuristic, if not . . then not!
No, that's one of the misconceptions about it. Their argument is that the Bible MUST be true because it is the only worldview that makes sense of the many bits of knowledge we take for granted, while 'unbelieving worldviews' always founder upon these basic questions. For instance, the atheist supposedly believes that all that exists is matter in motion, but this is antithetical to the existence of immaterial entities such as (supposedly) the mind and laws of logic.
And that it 'seems like lunacy' is precisely why it's ignored. Of course it is in error, but it's not *obviously* in error, as many people suppose. It really does deserve an adequate answer.
Funny, I have no trouble logging in at work, but I can't do it at home. Somebody trying to tell me something?
Anyway... I saw that and sample some of his stuff there. Can't say that anything I've read so far is convincing enough to get me to jump back on the old hamster-wheel. He makes a lot of assertions... Well, you're writing the book. I don't need to tell you.
I wouldn't guess that it would be very convincing, and that's because much of it is not easy to understand. It's bizarre and contrary to common sense, but that's no argument against it. As for Cheung, yes he does make a lot of assertions, but he also sets up a justificatory framework by which he justifies (or pretends to justify, as I plan to point out) his assertions. His method is to ask the opponent to do the same, getting to the foundation of why or how they know any thing at all. He demands them to be thoroughly rational (by which he really means 'rationalistic' - a la Descartes), and if a person's fundamental epistemological belief is 'irrational' he claims to have exposed them as fools. He says the opponent of Christianity therefore has no right to call the Christian an irrational fool. But, he confuses 'irrational' with 'non-rational' or 'non-rationalistic'. Something is not irrational just because it's not founded on a principle of rationalism.
This is not the only thing Cheung is confused about.
He also employs philosophical critiques of empiricism and the scientific method (which he gets from Gordon Clark). So, if an opponent defers to observation and science, he will launch these criticisms and leave them nothing to stand on. (or so it seems).
Unfortunately, it does succeed in arming Christians who understand it with some debate tricks that most everyday people cannot break out of, if they are caught in the trap. I've read only one paper by a professional philosopher that addresses presuppositionalism, but it addresses the more popular form. He does a pretty good job, but much of what he says does not apply to Cheung.
The popular presuppositionalism uses abductive arguments to argue for the necessity of the existence of God. The easy argument there is that this god that it 'proves' isn't necessarily the god of the bible. Cheung, on the other hand, seeks to prove the necessary truth of the Bible against all other systems of thought - and, if the Bible is true, then there must be a god.
BTW... I like your signature.