The One True God as Described in the Christian Bible Exists

The core idea of the presuppositional apologetic is to argue that a non-believer, an atheist is philosophically unjustified in asserting positions that they in fact hold. The case against logic in the Round-1A is a good example. I do want to be able to be use logic and do want to be justified in using it. Hence the argument that atheist presuppositions make that impossible, make sense and need to be addressed. The argument is incorrect, because as round-1 shows atheist presuppositions do allow for the construction for a logic but it is not self contradictory in the way the uniformity and the version of the morality argument presented are. In the case of uniformity that is philosophical uniformitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is a theory of geology from the 1780s that spread to the rest of the sciences and started to run into problems by the 1830s. By the 1890s more sophisticated versions of the philosophy of science were commonly held and with the rise of expansionary universe (Hubble) and Quantum Mechanics no one holds this theory today. And this is a definite problem for the argument as stated, "If experiments performed exactly the same way under the exact same conditions sometimes produced one result, and sometimes another, contradictory on, science would be pointless; it would be impossible to prove anything by it." Because the reality is there are many such experiments that can be conducted that produce variable results like this and that doesn't make science pointless at all. Science is empirical verification of complex hypothesis. Once needed in the case of a variable outcome is merely a hypothesis that is itself variable. The double slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org...) is likely the classic example of just such a result. Since this was supposed to be a philosophical debate I'm not going to take advantage of the scientific error, in round 1 and rather give my opponent the opportunity in round 3 to either revise his claim to support a modern theory or prepare to defend uniformitarianism against a century and a half of counter evidence. So lets dispense with the drop claim, atheism makes no current day claim to uniformitarianism at all, though we do claim historical ancestry uniformitarianism led to spiritual materialism which led to naturalistic materialism which is the metaphysics of atheism. Essentially the ideas of uniformitarianism are that: a) the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universeb) "the present is the key to the past", that these laws operated in a gradualistic way and at the same rate as today Uniformitarianism was a vital step in terms of scientific examination of the past. But those 2 major simplifying assumptions are both rejected by modern theories including the original home of uniformitarianism, geology. Today's geology does not picture a static earth gradually changing, there are enumerable processes occurring from the past, like frequently gaining mass from collision that simply aren't occurring on today's earth. Slightly revised versions of those ideas are still quite common in modern science however, so if Pro via this "dropped" claim would like to tie himself to a discredited by the 1830s scientific theory be my guest, but I'm going to proceed the more serious issues in his theory which is actually much more problematic. Uniformitarianism was more than anything else a rejection of catastrophism the idea that world was formed by sudden violent events. The bible unquestionably teaches formation by sudden violent events. It opens with a creation, moves on to a flood which reshapes the earth, has frequent divine interventions and then ends with total destruction. A good example is fossils, as a result of flood myth fossils were attributed to the flood, a theory from catastrophism not uniformitarianism. The bible far from teaching uniformity teaches the precise opposite and this is acknowledged even today by creationists (http://www.nwcreation.net...). That was until da Vinci studies in the alps began to throw doubt on this that while the alps had been under water it was not a sudden flood but a more gradual process, the idea that fish fossils "proved" the flood was taken as a given. On cosmology the issue of biblical incompatibility was much more serious. Take the creation story: Gen 1:2, theum, deep salty water, pre-exists creation, this likely is in your english language bible as “the deep”. God then passes over the fresh drinkable water on the surface (mim). Gen 1:3 God becomes light, sees the light says light is good. good and separates it from the darkness. Then Gen 1:4 he separates light from darkness. Gen 1:5 he names stuff, and Gen 1:6-10 he puts a barrier (raqia translated as firmament in the KJV) splitting the preexistent waters. He gathers the lower waters together. So now you have an upper layer of drinkable water, an atmosphere, a rock layer with a sea on it and then a layer of deep water below the rock (the ocean). Then Gen 1:11-13 life starts. Gen 1:14-18 God then attaches the sun, moon and stars to the firmament (atmosphere) below the upper waters (rain water) so the earth can have light. This is the imagery that makes something like Rev 6:12-14 with stars falling to earth possible. In our modern cosmology, and the cosmology that existed at the time of uniformitarianism, the visible stars are those that are huge, and anyone of the visible stars would sterilize the earth instantly if it got the boundary of the solar system. The remnants of this view were still plainly available in the late 18th and early 19th century. The whole infallibility / inerrancy movement couldn't exist in this environment, the hermeneutic that made it possible wasn't yet invented. My argument is quite simply that the bible is totally incompatible with either uniformitarianism or modern natural materialism. Quite simply if the bible plainly teaches uniformity as per the claim, why is that the Christian culture of the Late middle ages had:1) A non uniform cosmology2) A view of cosmology consistent with Platonism not Newton. 3) A strong belief in astrology and that the stars and planets were spiritual not material beings. And in fact remnants of astrotheology particularly in art. 4) A supernatural view of causation. As an aside, there were Christians who were able to make the bible compatible with 19th century uniformitarianism, but these required deep theological changes. Mormon materialism, best exemplified by Orson Pratt's Absurdities of Immaterialism (http://tinyurl.com...) from this period still has substantial influence on the LDS theory today. There are similar ideas in the Christian Spiritualism movement of the next generation: 1848-1873. We can go down that road, but I see no support in a Reformed tradition for a tie between Christianity and uniformitarianism so I'd want my opponent to assert this non-Reformed Christian direction before going down a theological tangent from traditions he is likely to deny. _______ To summarize what has been shown so far: 1) In round 1 it was proven that logic is intrinsic and constructive. It doesn't require ultimate justification since a logic is a formal description of human mental processes. This undercuts the lynchpin of the Presuppositional apologetic.2) The specific additional problems with uniformity were discussed.3) The inapplicability of the bible was discussed. What remains for round 3 is:1) The logic model constructed in round 1 is extended to a philosophy of science. Attacking the argument my opponent "meant" to make about the inability of atheists to justify any philosophy of science.2) Evidence that this same procedure can also be applied to other arguments, in particular morality. 3) Problems with the specific bible verses used.