To take for granted the preconditions of intelligibility is only consistent with the Bible.

I don't know where to begin on this. I guess i will start with the preconditions, which i have many problems with. .The basic reliability of memory. - false memories are always a possibility. In an experiment "About one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print ad describing a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny said later they remembered or knew the event happened to them." (1) .The basic reliability of senses. - ever hear of illusions? .Laws of logic. - granted for the 3 logical absolutes: The law of identity - something is what it is and is not what it is not. The law of non-contradiction- a statement can not be both true and false at the same time in the same sence, at the same time. The law of Excluded Middle- a statement is either true or false. Their may be others that I did not think of. .Uniformity of nature. - what scale are we talking about? .Morality. - I have thought about it and do not believe objective morality exists. I will grant the existence of subjective morality .Personal dignity. i wouldn't call this a precondition but i will grant its existence .Freedom. Demonstrate true free will exists. I agree that in my life I act as if it does exist without giving it a thought, but when we talk about the true reality we must talk about what is true, not what we act as if is true. I am of the intellectual position that free will does not exist (meaning when i think about i reach that conclusion, not that it is the 'smart' one) While we may think in terms of these existing, our thoughts have no effect on the nature of the universe, so the fact that we take them for granted is irrelevant and you must demonstrate their existence. Con: "the Bible does not need defending" Yes it does! Pro's resolutions: 1) The Bible is the word of God 2)Evolution cannot be true pro re-states this in the following way "if biblical creationism is false we cannot know anything." i fail to see how he says this is the same as his two resolutions. Also I hope this isn't going to be about semantics because we can not know anything with absolute certainty whether or not biblical creationism is true. But i would just say that wasn't really his resolution, just a faulty explanation of it. In response to the 'evidence' argument I agree people (sometimes) distort evidence to support what they are trying to prove. By saying this occurs does not invalidate either sides evidence, in order to do that we have to see how they got from observance to conclusion and find flaws their. It is impossible to do anything on this subject in the abstract if you want you can present specific examples and we can go from there. In response to the Rescuing Device The method we use to arrive at our current model does not affect the truth of our model. Con: "All we do is interpret evidence to match our world view." correction: All YOU do is interpret evidence to match our world view. Science changes with new evidence. For example it used to be the scientific consensus that the universe's expansion would slow down. However while investigating the rate the expansion would slow, they discovered that it is accelerating, and that is know the widely believed theory. Con: "A contradicting world view cannot be true"-agreed Con: "Unfortunately for the secularist, if their world view were to be true it would be false and therefore it would be false." this is simply an accretion, you must demonstrate the internal inconsistency. And even if you did that, proving that we are wrong does not prove that you are right. Can you provide a clear definition of ultimate standard? Con: "The Bible or as Christians tend to call it, the Word of God is the ultimate standard" again, an assertion. Con: "the claim that there is no God [is not the ultimate standard]." assertion. this statement is not internally contradictory, and I am taking the position that I am not justified in believing in God due to lack of evidence Con: "Everyone has ultimate standards, but only one is self-consistent, all the others lead to contradiction. As a result of a inconsistent ultimate standard, knowledge cannot be found." Demonstrate that only standard that only one standard can be SELF-consistent, and that it is yours. Con: "Take relativism for instance" i will grant that relativism is false, SO WHAT? To respond to the paragraph beginning with "just because a world view is self-consistent," In this paragraph we are assuming evolution is true. Con draws the following conclusioins: 1) creationism isn't true-agreed 2) it would be logically incorrect to have the Bible as our ultimate standard. - we don't need evolution for that 3) we must have other ultimate standards. - why? other points in the paragraph 4) Preconditions of intelligibility must be true if we are to know anything about the universe.- with absolute certanty, and don't you have the same problem with Biblical creationism? 5) memory cannot be trusted.-agreed in response to the next paragraph, you established that in the beginning. Con:"We take for granted that our senses are reliable and our memory is reliable, and that laws of logic exist. This view suits the biblical world view perfectly" your view fits the biblical view. This does not prove either are right. The rest of the paragraph assumes your view is correct to prove your view is correct. Con: "what reason is there to assume the preconditions of intelligibility are true in a evolutionary world view" the only precondition that i know (to near absolute certainty) to be true is the logical absolutes. The explanation is evolution. We succeeded in it because of our superior intelligence, and if that was based on false logic and preconditions we would have died out. I don't understand how these same problems don't apply to you. You are using logic to justify the bible being a reason to believe your logic is correct. Although refuting your arguments would sufficient to win this debate as you have the burden of proof i will also provide some. I assume you take the entire bible to be true. If your God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving, why is their suffering? (also known as the problem of evil) The bible is also not as self-consistent as you believe. for example in chapter 1 of Genesis it says "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:25-26) clearly the order was beast than man. but in chapter to it says, "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." (Genesis 2:18-19) to go directly to the title statement, "To take for granted the preconditions of intelligibility is only consistent with the Bible." Con's entire arguent has only attempted to demonstrate that the current mainstream secular view is not consistent with the preconditions. even if he succeeded in that he would not proof that there is not another that we have not considered, or that the bible is. Also preconditions are easily explained by evolution. We succeeded in evolution because of our intelligence. Part of that intelligence included these preconditions, without them we would have lost to the sub-species that did have them, and that sub-species became us. 1)http://www.unis...