I’m curious how others here approach apologetics. I lean heavily presuppositional, but I’ve found myself occasionally drawing from classical or evidential methods depending on the context. For those of you familiar with the different approaches, what’s your primary method—and what has shaped that preference?

So in my head Jesus === God === Holy Spirit... The only reason humans in 3 dimensions perceive this in a "triune" fashion is for the same reason we could poke our finger through a 2d world and they'd see magic, draw ourselves in their reality and they'd see "us" but not in our full 3d nature. But someone mentioned that's "partialism"? Vs the water analogy being modalism... A question that came to my mind was about whether or not Jesus lived "forever" (the same way God is/does/has) like people talk about how Moses saw the burning bush and it was Jesus, or there's a few other sort of unnamed characters in the OT stories that we could say are Jesus but we won't really know till we die. If Jesus is eternal then it makes sense he's a projection of a 4d (or any higher dimension) God into our 3d reality... Interesting not sure if/how relevant to my question/rhetoric this is? https://youtube.com/shorts/XoGU4_o18sU?si=4xKXFyM5TKam2Ygi I'm less intrigued / distracted by other religions because if the Bible is truth then God is Logic, and if God reveals himself to us then we CAN understand God in so much as he's revealed himself to us. Not that we can ever become God but that he's not unintelligible to us. Esp in that we are created in his image we should have some capacity that is like God (as we are to the animals) but we just don't know everything (or really much of anything in the grand scheme) 😅