You scored as Reformed/Presuppositional Apologist.

You do apologetics in the tradition of reformed and presuppostional apologists. You may have considered going to Westminster to study theology. You’ve studies important works by Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, and Alvin Plantinga.

I have no idea what any of that means or who those people are. Should I be pleased or offended by these results?

I think that’s fine. Plantinga argued that belief was properly basic. That is, for believers, God can be believed to be there just as I believe my chair is there. I do not need evidence to believe. It is not only basic, but properly basic, because I have experienced God (the difference being the basic propositional belief in 2+2=4 versus the properly basic belief in my chair).

In that case, I agree with the guy! God is there whether I believe it or not. God is an axiom, not something to be proved.

Dude! Kev, I got the same thing.
“I have no idea what any of that means or who those people are.” Ditto - almost. I have read a bit of Plantinga and liked his stuff.

I like Plantinga, although I agree with Lewis and Co. that there is a usefulness in using evidence to prove the reasonability of believing in God as well. I guess that is what puts me between you and Eduardo as a classical apologist… I mix both other types of apologetics.

I don’t disagree with those who want to provide proofs, but I don’t think the proofs are necessary. They are interesting, but not required.

Good point, Kevin.