Presuppositional Arguments For God Are Incoherent Fallacious Nonsense!

Con appears to misunderstand my arguments, I tried to make them as simplistic as possible, yet Con considers such simplification fallacious, which possibly means I'm guilty of oversimplification to the point of abstraction from his epistemological conjectures. Though my second round was not actually a rebuttal, but an extension of my own argument using some of the points made by Con. So there is a mistake there in that I did not state I was making a rebuttal, just highlighting a different take on those points to which Con made. Such as what is meant by Justification, as when dealing with epistemology, many look to philosophy, when the truth is that Knowledge is a personal belief that the individual knows to be true, not an epistemological justified conclusion. Personal, Knowledge is whatever an Individual considers to be Truth. From my second round argument, I have demonstrated that personal knowledge and personal truths can exist, regardless of god. Even if we were brains in vats, we would still hold personal perceptions of what we believe to be real. This is personal knowledge of what we perceive it to be true. Objective Knowledge or what the majority of humans consider as Justified True Belief, is what Cumulative Consensus of humans consider to be Justified True Belief. Thus our objective knowledge comes from the cumulative observations of other humans, not any God. The only genuine source of Justification for true belief humans have is Cumulative Consistent, Careful Observation or Science. There is no evidence of everybody discovering the fundamentals of trigonometry at the same time as would be if such knowledge was given by a God. One person ( i. e. Pythagoras) may discover it by trial and error (not God given) and then others must develop the rest by their own research, again knowledge is derived by research not God endowed. The scientific method amounts to a Set of Cumulative, Consistent Outcomes which indicate Justification of Truthfulness. There is no other defined form of cumulative consistency in any other human endeavor. No such consistency exists in any Epistemological framework. Here is a Rational Wiki definition of Presuppositional Apologetics:" Presuppositionalism is a tactic cooked up by Christian apologists when they realized that their old arguments were not working. The crux of presuppositionalism is a twofold technique: First, that only the (Reformed, Westminster Confession) Christian theistic worldview can account for logic, morality, science, induction, consciousness itself, and peanut brittle. Second, that all other worldviews are absurd and/or fail to account for these. Presuppositionalists often go further and assert that classical apologetics and evidential apologetics are sinful and blasphemous, as they savor of "autonomy" and make human reason the judge of God's existence". http://rationalwiki.org...Considering Yahweh and the Old Testament were invented by ancient Bedouin pastoral tribes and Judaism was invented by King Josiah in the 7th Century BCE, the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam was a human construction, created during civil unrest in Judea. Prior to the 7th Century, the Bible God did not exist as the Creator God and shared the universe with multiple Polytheistic Gods that Josiah banished from Judea in the 7th Century BCE. So Presuppositional Apologetics created its own Strawman, namely Christianity which stems from Judaism which Archaeology has proven as being Human Created in the 7th Century BCE. Had the Presupposed God been that of Einstein or Spinoza, namely the natural laws of the Universe, instead of the Christian God, then yes, if this God did not exist, there would be no universe, thus no knowledge. But to assert the Christian God above all other Gods as Presuppositional Apologetics definitely does, creates a massive strawman that has been burnt to ashes by Archaeological findings. Now to Rebut Con's round 1 argument:P1. Without presupposing God, one cannot justify their reasoning & logic. P2. You must justifying your logic & reasoningC. You must presuppose GodLets add real Historical knowledge into this argument. P1 Without presupposing (Yahweh (7th Century BCE Invention of Bedouin Pastoralists) one cannot justify their reasoning (ability to think) and Logic ( thinking framework). P2 You must Justify your Logic (framework) and reasoning (thinking) C: You must presuppose God ( Yahweh/Christ specifically)Premise 1: Is a Blank Assertion or an assertion without evidence or an Argument from Ignorance fallacy! Thus C is automatically False since the first premise is definitely a falsity. Con's defense of P1, is "Presupposing God gives an objective basis to ground logic and reason into, and gives a platform from which we can know some things for certain, such as the soundness of the logical absolutes, and God’s existence, and that these facts are known a priori. These basic facts allow us to build our logical systems in a sound and valid manner. We can trust our cognitive faculties to be reliable which would be impossible to do under naturalism/atheism cf. Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (more on this later). This is a Blank presumption. It does not explain how Not Presupposing God can also give us an objective basis for grounding logic and reason. As I have mentioned from my second round argument, all our morality and logic evolved with our brain development and through naturalism. Along with that of our near relatives, or apes who also have Theory of Mind, or knowledge of the thoughts of others. The Existence of many tribes, such as discovered in New Guinea and the Congo Delta who have no concept of God, yet they have reason and logic, also the Australian Aboriginals who were animistic and had no concept of God, yet developed knowledge of aerodynamics with their boomerangs. These destroy the Presuppositional Apologetics claim that all humans are born with a concept of God, which is funny, because I and many of my friends had no concept of God prior to middle school, which was a Christian school, so I was thrown into the deep end with wtf is this God character. Now I know it is a human fabrication, well Yahweh and Jesus Christ are certainly fabrications. Further Explanation: "Basically, presuppositionalism involves declaring that all reasoning depends on the truth of Christianity, then asking an atheist a bunch of questions, then declaring that the atheist’s inability to answer the questions to the presuppositionalist’s satisfaction proves that all reasoning depends on Christianity and therefore Christianity is true. "Source: . http://www.patheos.com... Since for Presuppositional Apologetics to be true, the Christian religion also has to be True, the fact that Christianity may not be true, destroys the Presuppositionalists blind assertion, which as previously mentioned. Without evidence (knowledge) to support Christianity, such claims that without belief in the Christian God, nothing can be known, is non-sequitur. The History of Religion and History of humans bumbling acquisition of knowledge through trial and error completely destroys the Presuppositional Apologetics claim. Had Presuppositionalists cited Spinoza's God then it would be a different story and likely a different set of fallacies. The reason for bring up Sye Ten Bruggencate is that he has developed his own even more fallacious version of PA. Though here is a video giving his additions to PA and why these arguments are Fallacious. Something I would cover if I had more time to do so. Being an Abstract Apologetics construction Presuppositionalism is also incoherent with reality as we know it and thus can be considered as complete and utter Nonsense! The Biblical God is definitely non-existent (being the product of Josiah's reign) and to base any claim on presupposing it exists is Irrational, Incoherent with reality and thus Entirely Nonsensical. Thanks Con for your interesting attacks! Pity I have become too busy to spend any more time on this to answer them. Work always increases when I want to pursue other more interesting things. Such as having 2 debates going and now no time for research.