Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

Firstly I feel as though I owe Con an apology. This contention was aimed at being a parody of the recurring "How does an atheist rationally know truth from fiction" series, as opposed to an argument I would construct from scratch. Con has therefore responded to my cartooning of that thread rather than an actual argument I would put forward. Having said that I am happy to move this forward in good faith, because some of my own worldview is buried in it. So thank you for your considered response Con. I will not say you said the word revelation and therefore you lose. But hopefully actually present you with something more coherent. I am aware of the purpose of the presuppositional apologetics, and its attempt to expose incoherency in other worldviews. Even if they defeated every worldview available today (I am not sure they have defeated any), they would still not be able to claim Christianity is the basis of truth. This is because, we could not rule out other future worldviews, all one could ever say is that any attempt made by the presup. to claim total victory is at the very best inductive. However the recent (and to be fair mainly Vantillian based) attempts are an attack against Global Skepticism, on the assumption that atheists are Skeptics. They have not, for example, attempted to attack Objectivism. So let me define a few terms: reason - understand and form judgements logically from data derived from the senses senses - the faculties by which the body perceives external stimulii mysticism - spiritual apprehension of knowledge, inaccessible to consciousness magic - the power of apparently influencing events by supernatural forces revelation - supernatural disclosure of something relating to existence If we start with the axiom of Existence. That Existence, exists and does so independently of the mind, we can state that there is something. There is an Existence for us to comprehend and that our only tool of comprehension is our consciousness (which includes our reasoning). We are able to feed our consciousness via our sensory inputs and using logical methods we can assimilate, integrate and differentiate data into objective concepts. The validity of consciousness is also axiomatic, any attempt to deny it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. I will contrast this approach with mysticism. Mysticism is the view that I (or anyone) can get a direct, unmediated "revelation" from a supernatural source. That somehow I get bootstrapped with pre-packaged truth quite literally by magic. I reject this view because it is fallacious, incoherent and multiplies assumptions beyond that which are required. Firstly, we are now in a position where we need to determine whether reason or mysticism is the path to knowledge, what approach would we use to determine the answer? [insert answer here]. Hopefully it is fairly obvious that we would reason to it. So we must start with reasoning itself, and not a mystical revelation of reasoning. Secondly, we can instead rely on the validity of our senses and reason axiomatically. There is no need for further justification. Consider the following: 1) If we deny the validity of our own senses, what do we use to confirm that denial? 2) If we deny reason, then what did we use to form the concept of reason to deny in the first place? In other words any attempt to deny their validity results in an immediate incoherence, making their invalidity (literally un-reason and non-sense) impossible. That is not to say that validity is perfection, or that there are no people with cognitive impairment, that is quite another matter. Just to say that the senses and reason are reliable for grasping reality. Thirdly. How are we to distinguish fact from fiction if we accept this perspective. Quoting Dawson Bethrick on the Bahnsen Burner Blog: "To say that God is ones proper epistemological starting point likewise commits the fallacy of the stolen concept, for " because even according to Christianity itself, it is supposed to be imperceptible " it could not (even if we supposed it exists) number among the objects of which man is aware directly. Even if the believer claims that we all know his god directly (following Rom. 1:18f), he cannot identify any objective means by which one could have awareness of his god, let alone explain how one can reliably distinguish between what he calls "God" and what he may simply be imagining. If the believer says "God exists" is his starting point, we simply ask where he got the concept "exists". He must have already formed this concept in order to apply it to his god, thus indicating that he in fact does have knowledge that is even more fundamental than his claim that his god exists. " Fourthly, there is further inductive support for my view, which seems inexplicable on presuppositional (Clarkian) terms: - we know, from experimentation, that total sensory deprivation causes a marked decrease in the ability of individuals to reason. Why would this be the case if direct, unmediated access to reason was available? - we know that childrens ability to reason is limited by their sensorial experience. For example they may not know that "fire is hot", but would be aware later in life through experiences. Why would this be the case if direct, unmediated access to reason was available? - humans with extreme sensorial impairment do not develop the same reasoning as those without. eg In cases where humans are insensitive to pain, they have often bitten off the tip of their tongue, or caused fractures to bones without realising what they are doing. The person that cannot feel pain, may not respond to problems the same way. Why would this be the case if direct, unmediated access to reason was available? - we know animals have a capacity to reason. Why would this be the case if it was a revelation from a god to humanity? To bring this together. The claim that reason is infact the "revelation" is not a move available. Con states "...it is argued that it is because the disbeliever is suppressing the "truth," or "revelation", or logical "reason", which would need to be consistent with the bible, they have drawn an illogical conclusion"". This betrays this particular apologetic, restated and in other words "your reasoning is invalid unless you believe in Jesus". This statement commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Belief is already a reasoning process thus you cannot use it to deny the validity of it. In short I have demonstrated we have no choice but to axiomatically presuppose the validity of our reasoning. The problems only really start if we accept that reasoning is infact "revealed", or "imbued", or "a pre-condition established" by a diety. It leads to a slew of problems that do not exist if we drop that assumption. Those problems make this apologetic fallacious, irrational, and render the presup. unable to tell the difference between truth and fiction. To turn to some specific points in your response: Clark may have stated there is a wide gap between sense experience and propositions, but instead of offering a theory of concepts he imports a god into the gap. It is a bold statement to claim that empiricism fails as a truth finding method. These statements are constrained in our daily life by pragmatism. Would you get on the plane if a revelation said it is safe to fly, and all the empirical tests say it isn't? Would you only step on to the plane if you thought you knew a god had revealed your reasoning was valid? I think the point you made about the "logos-logic-beginning of the Universe etc" is self refuting. If you argue that a logical construct was in place to allow the universe to come into existence, then you have to explain which laws it operated by. The laws of logic that I am aware all require time to be in place as a pre-condition (eg A cannot be A and B in the same way and same time). How did a logical construct exist "before" time, but only exist in time ?