Presuppositianal apologetics revisited.

I am going to revisit presuppositional apologetics today. For those that don't know presuppositional apologetics is an attempt to make god the necessary presupposition, stating that without god you can't explain things like logic or inductive reasoning. The common practice used here is to then attack the atheist for not knowing. From what I gather of this technique is that they are trying to use a actual logical argument that can be valid. This argument is Reductio Ad Adsurdum or in other words to reduce other position to absurdity. The problem here is a misunderstanding of the dichotomy.

Most of the time the atheists position is that we may not know what the actual reason for these things are so they don't know. The theist will attack this position, where in reality they need to attack the other positions in the actual dichotomy of options for the existence logic or inductive reasoning. To do so would be a ridiculously futile attempt,so I understand why they try to blatantly cheat, by insisting that the atheist doesn't know proves god. Though that is telling the atheist their position. The theist is being very intellectually dishonest, there are many things in life that we may not personally know the cause of but we can still use them. So lets take a look at the options that are part of the true dichotomy of possibilities that could be there for inductive reasoning. This will not include all options, because what makes this even more ridiculous is that there may be many more possibilities we have never thought of. Here is a list they would actually need to attack to be able to use reductio ad adsurdum as their argument(this will be for inductive reasoning for our purposes):

Inductive Reasoning is a brute fact of the universe
Inductive Reasoning fairies
Inductive Reasoning trolls
Other gods, if they intend to prove their god
Inductive reasoning Unicorns
The invisible pink unicorn
Flying spaghetti monster
and many other unthought of natural explanations


Now I can here the morons who use this argument whining, well you don't believe that. Well guess what, whether I believe any of them has nothing to do with whats the truth. That is my point, I don't believe your god either, you need to show me why your god is more likely. I can make cases for several of these options over your god. Lets just try 2 to show the presuppositional apologetic proponents how it is done:

I will defend that inductive reasoning is a brute fact. I would argue that being a brute fact requires the simplest easiest explanation with the least amount of baggage. To add a god would violate the logical construct of Occams razor, that says that the explanation that requires the least amount of extra baggage is preferred, and god is a lot of extra baggage.

I would also argue that Inductive Reasoning fairies are more likely then the christian god as it only requires one seemingly unknown thing, inductive reasoning, where as the Christian god actually requires: zombie resurrections( Jesus, Lazurus, and the zombie apocalypse of Matt 27), so again based on Occam's razor, I argue they are more reasonable.

See how that works, you actually attack the dichotomy of possible answers the question, what is the reasoning we can know inductive reasoning, rather then attacking the withholding of judgement based on their being a larger dichotomy then you want to admit.

I here a recent person I debated on this topic, whining, but we are saying you must presuppose god, not that god is the cause. Well get this, a believer in inductive reasoning fairies could whine the same thing. The burden is on you to demonstrate your presupposition is necessary, not just to whine that I don't believe the other possibilities.