I have been unaware of Presuppositional Apologetics for a very long time. Mostly, I assume that Christians in general would use the Philosophical style of Apologetics when defending the Faith against the claims of Atheists. But this assumption of mine turned upside down when a Reformed friend of mine introduced me to it by making me play the Devil's Advocate, as the Atheist in a hypothetical debate.
Generally the sequence of Presuppositional Apologetics goes something like this,https://carm.org/presuppositional-apologetics
*I'm not linking this as a legitimate source for Orthodoxy or an explanation of Orthodox doctrine and belief
Of course the discussion I got myself into didn't really work out in that manner though its rubric is similar. While I forgotten how the argument actually began, one of the main points in the hypothetical debate was that "Science is Circular Reasoning" and then proceeded to show that Sola Scriptura(the extreme form of it since Biblical Inerrency is included in his beliefs) while "circular" is legitimate given how Science works by the same way(How is X true? Through Evidence gathered by observation). From this the belief in Scripture boils down to a kind of blind faith. Basically how Scripture is true because it says so.
I was taken aback by this but I simply told him that any other religious text can make the same claim so which is true?(the mock debate ended here and my Reformed friend admitted that he couldn't answer to this argument)
There are other arguments presented in this mock debate which I couldn't answer since it's basically something foreign to me, particularly in showing how Science is not Circular Reasoning. This is something I never encountered so I couldn't exactly say anything about it since I hardly know anything about it in the first place. Of course from the flow of the debate, there's just something rather disturbing about it. It's basically sweeping key issues and arguments under the carpet as Matt Slick himself showed in his excerpt of how Presuppositional Apologetics works.
Atheistic counter arguments against Presuppositional Apologetics seem to involve the accusation of word play and semantics. I tend to agree with them though(on Presuppositional Apologetics not on religion).
Orthodox philosophers such as Richard Swimburne and David Bentley Hart don't use this form of apologetics. But it still remain to be answered, Is Presuppositional Apologetics something acceptable in Orthodoxy?