The Presuppositional worldview cannot justify its knowledge claims

Thanks. Same to you. "In this debate, I will be supporting the contention that the Presuppositionalist worldview as expressed by Greg Bahnsen, and affirmed by my opponent, cannot know anything because of the fundamental presupposition that the noetic effect of sin has made mankind unable to trust their autonomous reasoning" The Christian claim is that in Christ our reasoning has been restored. As long as we are thinking God's thoughts after him we can be assured that our conclusions are valid and sound. "Contra Bahnsen, who states that the Bible is both clear and self-attesting, Clark points out that we must first decide what IS scripture and then decide what that scripture means! In fact, recent discoveries have confirmed the existence of apocryphal scripture (5). " The bible is clear and self-attesting. Scripture is what God says it is. We believe that over time the church recognized by the leading of God what would be included in the canon. The meaning of scripture can be known by proper biblical hermeunatics. Some questions for Clark are why does he trust his resoning? How does he know if he is reasoning correctly? ". If we cannot trust our ability to autonomously reason, then on what basis can we dismiss the Infancy Gospel of James or other apocryphal gospels? We cannot determine which books are authentic without first trusting our ability to reason. Further, even supposing that the books of the modern Bible are authentic, we must remember that documents we have are not the original documents. This is a problem since there are variants in scripture" Are you familiar with textual criticism? If you are, you would know that not one variant invalidates any major doctrine of Christianity. Even the radical skeptic Bart Erhman admits this. See his debates with James white and Daniell Wallace. Regarding Michael Martins claims, The bible is clear that Christ was crucified, died, burried and raised. So, what specifically is he referring to? "Issue 1: Any such experience would require us to make a determination about the experience. What this means is that we have to first presuppose that we are able to trust our reasoning with regards to any sort of experience. If we cannot trust our own ability to reason then how can we trust any conclusions about the experience? What it was, what it means, or whether it is true or not are all activities that we have to engage our reasoning facilities with. " By faith. In fact, we all reason by faith. The difference is that I have God's promises and the unbeliever doesn't. He is left to his own destructive devices. We trust What God says. That is, that the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. " Does Hezekiah believe that Dena's experience was genuine? If the revelation experience is supposed to transmit certainty, then it would appear that there can be no method to distinguish between a false revelation and a true revelation because the only method available would rely on us trusting our cognitive faculties. Make no mistake; Dena is not an isolated case (11). " No, I don't. God speaks through his word in the bible. I would like for Dena to provide scriptural support for her actions. Specifically, in the new testament. The claim is that God has last spoken to us by Christ. Your conclusion only proves my point. That if you don't start with God's promises you cannot know anything. Why do you trust your reasoning? How do you know that "autonomous reasoning" is the only reasoning we can "trust"? Is your reasoning about "autonomous reasoning" correct? How would you go about verifying that Clarke is giving you reliable information in spite of him not seeming to be do sure about his reasoning? Blessings.