I have now seen it is used about a proof of God, or a type of such, the one item of which I consider valid is the one I called "the C S Lewis proof of God". As given in his book Miracles.
I have before that discovery used it as a fancy modern description of circular reasoning, in one title:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Who is Too Presuppositional, Plus Telomeres and Chromosome Numbers (The Debate PZM Finally Refused Me on His Blog)
And I have since defended the type of argument (or the CSL version of it) after having attacked its name:
New blog on the kid : Sye Ten Bruggencate, C. S. Lewis, Aquinas, Existence of God
The real presuppositional (see article) apologetics may be summarised as follows (for details go to article), in a correct sorites:
- What everyone without exception believes, is true.
- But what someone presupposes while reasoning, one believes.
- So, what everyone without exception presupposes while reasoning, is true.
- But things incompatible with a purely material or polyspiritual origin of universe (insert item) and with a monospiritual present of universe (insert item) are presupposed by everyone while reasoning.
- So, things incompatible with a purely material or polyspiritual origin of universe (insert item) and with a monospiritual present of universe (insert item) are true.
The latter sentence is also expressible as that items of presuppositional apologetics excluding materialistic atheism (purely material origin of universe), shintoism and animism (polyspiritual origin of universe), averroism and hinduism (monospiritual present of universe).
The real question is whether there are such items, and yes, I think there are (see article) and they are presupposed by everybody while reasoning./HGL
Update: as also stated in this reply to RomanMissalExegete. Here:
... on Presuppositional, Again ...