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

This debate was to be originally between me and JCMT. But I decided that anyone can take this debate. I have a lot to type. So I will waste no time. What are the preconditions of intelligibility? Preconditions of intelligibility are things that we take for granted without thinking why we take them for granted, in that we perceive them to be absolutely true. So in other words we must see preconditions of intelligibility as true before we can know anything about the universe. The list follows: .The basic reliability of memory and senses. .Laws of logic. .Uniformity of nature. .Morality. .Personal dignity. .Freedom. There maybe more, but we take all these things for granted, we think about things in understanding that these things already exist, but we never really question if they exist? I am defending (although the Bible does not need defending) the Bible to be the Word of God. And that evolution cannot be true if we take for granted these preconditions. In other words; if biblical creationism is false we cannot know anything. Setting the 'evidence' arguments: Imagine that I said, "For my argument I am going to use fossils, DNA and rock layers for proof of creationism." And the evolutionists says, "Oh that's funny, I was going to use the same things to support evolution." This clearly shows that facts are interpreted to suit our world view. When a creationist looks at a fossil then see that it must be thousands of years old, but with the evolutionist, he or she will see it at millions of years old. It is like we have a pare of mental glasses on, I see the world through the biblical glasses and the evolutionist see the world through the evolutionary glasses. When really the world is not one sided. "This evidence says that evolution is true" Says the evolutionists, "I said no such thing" The fossil metaphorically replies. The same goes for the creationist. Fossils do not speak for themselves, same goes for any other 'evidence' creationists or evolutionists seem to have. It is not the question who can gather the most evidence to support their claims, it is that we are fighting over the same evidence to support our own world view. This is why both evolutionists are creationists get frustrated at each other. Because we both seem to think it is unreasonable for the creationist or the evolutionist to reject our evidence. "Rescuing device": This is where either the evolutionist or the creationist will invent a way to escape a problem by believing that there is some kind of evidence that will contradict the contrary evidence given either by the evolutionist or the creationist. For example: Both evolutionist and creationist know that comets do not last for more that 100,000 years, as they get close to the sun, the ice and dirt that they are built up of breaks apart from the comet. So why are there still comets about if the solar system is billions of years old? It seems that I have given evidence for creationism, but I haven't. The evolutionist will now think up of a 'rescuing device'. In this case it is an Oort cloud, the cloud contains particles too small to be seen by any telescope of today. It is far past any planet, so the evolutionist will believe there must be an Oort cloud which fires out new comets. However it has never been observed, that though, does not mean it does not exist. So where do I go now? All we do is interpret evidence to match our world view. To resolve this, we must realize that world views have consequences. We all have an ultimate standard which leads to us believing in certain things, which then leads us to believe other things and so on. However some beliefs do not match up reasonably, and a good world view has to be logically consistent. A contradicting world view cannot be true because contradictions are logically inconsistent. Unfortunately for the secularist, if their world view were to be true it would be false and therefore it would be false. Let me explain further. The Bible or as Christians tend to call it, the Word of God is the ultimate standard, not empiricism, evolution or the claim that there is no God. 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. Take relativism for instance. Relativism says that truth differs for people. In other words, there are no absolutes. However I have just contradicted myself because relativism says there are not absolutes, yet I just said that is absolute. Just because a world view is self-consistent, doesn't mean it is true, this is were the preconditions of intelligibility come in. If evolution is true then creationism isn't true and therefore God didn't create the universe in 6 days. Evermore if evolution is true then it would be logically incorrect to have the Bible as our ultimate standard, let alone just as a standard. So in that case we must have other ultimate standards. Preconditions of intelligibility must be true if we are to know anything about the universe. As I mentioned earlier that memory was one of these preconditions, yet it is insufficient to be used as a ultimate standard. Consider someone says, "My memory is perfectly fine, I took a memory test a week ago and I did very well." It would seem, by the test that his memory is totally reliable, however is it? It begs the question 'how do you know you took a memory test a week ago?' Just because he remembers taking a memory test, it does not mean it happened unless he already knows his memory is reliable. And he does not know he memory is reliable. The same goes for the senses. Laws of logic are no different, we assume laws of logic exist to decide correct reasoning. To prove that laws of logic exist we would have to assume that laws of logic already exist to logically reason that they do exist. Or for that matter, reason about anything. 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, since our senses and our memory were designed by God to reasonably experience the universe which He created. And the laws of logic reflect the way God thinks because He created the universe and therefore the universe suits the existence of the laws of logic. Since God thought about creating the universe. If biblical creation is incorrect, thus making the Word of God incorrect, what reason is there to assume the preconditions of intelligibility are true in a evolutionary world view? The only reasonable response would be that, if anyone is to make sense of the universe, biblical creationism has to be true. And in light of that, non-believers of the Bible take biblical principles to make a secular world view make sense. When really that would be contradicting. Although non-Christians assume preconditions of intelligibility are true, they do not know that they are true. Unless they believe in biblical creation. Again that word, self-consistent comes into play. The biblical world view says that precondition of intelligibility are true, and therefore those who believe in the biblical world view have reason to take these preconditions for granted. Secular world views take these preconditions for granted, but they reject the biblical view, this causes the secularist to have no reason to accept these precondition in the first place, yet they do anyway. This is because they take from the biblical world view. So if my opponent tried to argue against this (which he or she will) they have already proved the biblical world view to be correct. Since they are assuming that the preconditions of intelligibility can be taken for granted without reason. It is really like trying to disprove the existence of air, while at the same time using air to get across the argument that air does not exist.