Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

My apologies to Con for missing the last round. But I will do believe 5 rounds may be one too many anyways. ;) Also , though I am not apologetic personally nor am i a presuppositionalist, but I am a firm believer, and i still see there are few glaring misconceptions about the presuppositionalist view and their resulting arguments, and I must point out why the type of argument i hereby provide, is in nature "apologetic." The apologies are meant for the opponent in apologetics. We apologize to the opponent because they did not understand us the first time, when we said "God is truth". Even so, I agree with the first two axioms that we exist and we are conscious of it. However, Con seems to miscatrgorize the notion of God to begin with. If I am to say, God is the truth, then i am also claiming that everything about God, including his "revelations" to man (should they exist) would be true as well. True, in the sense that you could not just call if "mysticism" or "magic" and brush it off. Even if it APPEARS to be magic or inpossible to you, there is an underlying truth behind it. Each of those words you use deal with the supernatural. Supernatural occurances are not necessarily magic or voidoo. They are only , in so far as having explanatory foundations , highly lacking in any means of scientific scrutiny. This does not mean supernatural occurances do not happen. As we all know they do. This does not mean those supernatural occurances cannot ONE DAY be explained by science. Like UFOs or the Bermuda Triangle, are as of yet supernatural things that apparently exist yet are unexplained. So mysticism could very well be a path to esoteric knowledge, that is simply unexplainable by scientific or empirical means. Con seems to forget that even without empricism and science, humans have accumulated vast amounts of knowledge and truth about how the universe works. And even scientific inquiry itself is led by the yearning to know that which everyone calls "God." Yet, until science can discover His hiding place, it can never definitively rule out the uncanny abilities of the consciousn mind to reach knowledge beyond the visible, legible, or audible realm. Also, its interesting to note rhat "knowledge" itself is an abstraction of reality that exists outside of the reality itself. Ergo, since senses are a means of assessing realities, one must reach beyond their senses to reach "knowledge." Here Con seems to argue that one can go from senses to knowledge by method of "reasoning." He also misapprehends that revelation is referring to the ability to reason and presuppositionalists somehow circumvent all reason and live life as if the bible was a how-to-instructional for all things. This is a false idea of their views. No matter what the views of any individual may be, by virtue of our first axiom, we have agreed that an objectice reality exists. We also agreed there is inherent subjectivity in the conceptualization of reality, being tied to a conscious mind and body. From this point each mind reasons about the objective reality God has revealed in the bible. Again, although God may reveal truth, conceptualization or reasoning will be subjective. The list of cons attempts to draw relation with reasoning capabilities and sensory input, is highly fallacious and does not draw a distinct causal relationship, only assumes one. Further, as mentioned several times already, the revelation is the " truth" being revealed to man. And although i do not believe in the presuppositionalist claim that the bible must be literally true, i believe it must be logically true. Or in the least, make logical sense so as to deliver a messgae conveying some "truth." This is distinct from reasoning itself, or rationality. My apologies if That was not made clear. The argument is that REVELATION is the objectice truth, and that even with our reasoning and rationality, we cannot arrive at the full truth ONLY relying on sensory input from our external existence. Also to add straws to strawmen, con has presupposed 1. The definition of god, 2. The definition of existence (though i conceded to his axioms about existence in this observable reality, we did not clear define existence. Do ideas exist? If god exists..as the bible says , and is before time and space as the bible says, yet to exist is defned as occupying time and space..does God still exist? If heaven exists, and I am in heaven..does that count as existing?") There are many ontological and epistemological precepts that Con is in absolute disregard for, which does not do justice to my position or to that of the presuppositional xtian. I appreciate your rebuttal thus far, but also would like you to address my argument face on. Simply. That given much of what we know about this reality, taking a sincere look at the bible as well as the history surrounding it, one can get a clearer grasp of "truth" (atheist and theist alike), than any scientific theory could ever possibly do on its own. And provided that the bible is some how true, and accurate, and reflecting truth about this "existence," then it it could very well be a wealth of mystic esoteric supernatural knowledge that science isnignorant to. Finally..science has yet to disprove Jesus or God or the bible as divine revelation and people have been living as christians for 2000 years. For the past 2000 years christianity has brought tremendous success and profress to all different creeds and races all around the world. It is the one central religion of this modern world, and as the bible says the "governments will be upon his shoulders." Most nations today are majority christians with christians in government for at last1600 years. Please argue how christianity and The teaching is Jesus Christ are not revealed words from God. Please tell me how if Godn existed,!how you would reason his existence as well as the coming of Jesus Christ. One can not reason such things. Yet they appear to be very true. Throughout history and time, christianity has proven to be a reliable source of truth again and again, allowing each generation after the next to continuously improve after one another for 2000 years.