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

I won't waste time, but thank you for accepting this discussion. Although it won't, I feel, get a lot of response, not many people will vote in other words. Memory is not a reliable source for knowledge: How can it be? As my opponent pointed out we can have false memories at any time. Given that, what if all of our memories are false? And how could you know that they aren't, rather you can only believe they aren't all false. Well you could confirm your memories to be true with other people, and they could say, 'oh yeah that happened.' so you would then take their word for it? This goes onto empiricism which I will get to in a short while. Firstly though let me give you an example of why memory cannot be relied upon for a source of knowledge. Say I asked, "How do you know your memory is reliable?" You then reply, "Well I took a memory test just last week, the results showed that I have a good memory." This is a fallacious argument which the person is making. The person who took the memory test had to use his memory to remember that his memory was up to scratch. The fact that he took the memory test should prove anyway that our memory is not a reliable source for knowledge and therefore should not be an ultimate standard. Now moving onto the other preconditions of intelligibility: The senses. The senses are used to examine the universe around us. However people a lot of the time tend to misjudge with their senses, they can think they saw something for example, when really they misinterpreted what they really might have saw. Further more we have hallucinations, although we can seemingly pick out hallucinations from what might seem to be real by the use of witnesses, that does not solve anything. It has just moves the problem of hallucination to more people rather than just one. If you have ever studied epistemology you will discover that empiricist philosophers believe the external world is not as it seems. Indirect realists will say that we don't experience the external world directly, but indirectly. Therefore we experience our sensations, not the external world. Due to this it is said that our sensations resemble the external world, just not exactly. Because of hallucinations and illusions, this conclusion is drawn. Despite all of that, it still does not deal with the real issue, are our senses a reliable source for gaining knowledge? No they cannot be. If no one has experienced the external world directly, we cannot know it's appearance and therefore we cannot gain knowledge through that method either. Plus you have to assume that all knowledge is gained via empiricism, you have to assume because it is impossible to know. And that creates yet another fallacious problem. There is no reason to suggest that all knowledge is gained through the senses. In fact the statement I just said, proves that some knowledge is thought to be gained through laws of logic. Memory and the senses together? Could that work if both worked together? Well as I has discussed we know that memory is no a reliable source for knowledge, and neither is empiricism. But simply putting the two together wouldn't create a reliable source for knowledge. First of all they are two different things, your memory is just data of what you did or of past experiences. And empiricism isn't a reliable source of knowledge so why would our memories be? Laws of logic, are they a reliable source? My opponent pointed out 3 logical absolutes, the laws of logic. This precondition of intelligibility is particularly circular when taken for granted without reason. The fact that you use logic to reason about the universe seems at first, reasonable. But no one seems to reason why logic is a source to gain knowledge. Rather people tend you assume that logic is the key to knowledge at face value. It would be absurd to reason why logic is logical, therefore laws of logic must be assumed first to exist before reasoning about anything, even reasoning about laws of logic. So the fact that we have to assume that they exist means we do not know that laws of logic exist, assuming is not knowing. So perhaps the evolutionist would say, "We know that the laws of logic exist because we use them." Well if they know that the laws of logic exist, they would have a reason to take them for granted. Which they do not because they discourage the biblical world view. So they believe they know the laws of logic. The fact that the evolutionist agrees that laws of logic exist means that the biblical world view must be correct. I will explain why later. My opponent's evidence for us being able to know anything about the universe is that we have evolved to become more intelligent than other creatures. However again this a fallacy. Evolutionists only believe we are more intelligent than any other creature via the senses. Yet as I have discussed, they cannot be a reliable source for gaining knowledge. These problems don't apply to the biblical world view because the Word of God is the ultimate standard, not laws of logic or any other preconditions of intelligibility. We take them for granted but for a reason, however a secular or even just a non biblical world view does not have reason to take them for granted. What is the reason why we take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted? Well if God created the world in 6 days, as the Bible says, we then were created by God from His image directly. Therefore we are god-like because we are created from God's image. God thought about creating the universe and then He spoke it into existence. Therefore there is a correct way to think logically, this is why the biblical world view has a reason to reject that contradictions are logical. Whereas the non biblical world view just takes it for granted that contradictions or illogical. God designed us and therefore He created our brain and our senses. Thus we can trust them and gain knowledge through them. However only because God designed us, if God didn't we could not know that our memory or our sense are reliable. God allowed Adam to reign over all the creatures. So Adam was permitted to name them. My opponent claims that the preconditions of intelligibility are easily explained through evolution. Yet they cannot be, if evolution were true, then there would be none of these preconditions available. Morality, laws of logic, senses and memory and so on. Since the evolutionist has no reason to take them for granted, then they could just as easily not take them for granted. But they don't. Therefore evolution must be incorrect. Not only that, only the biblical world view can be logically correct. Given that, because evolutionists take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, they must believe that they can gain knowledge through them for anything. Why is there evil if God exists? God is just, loving, holy, good and righteous. If you disobey God, all these characteristics will work against you, but if you are obedient then all these characteristics will work for you. Unfortunately we have all sinned and disobeyed God. Therefore it is righteously correct that there is evil in the world. We don't deserve heaven but hell, however it is the grace of God that keep us breathing through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If God does not exist, then how do you know what just and unjust is? You can only make subjective distinctions of what is good and evil. However if evolution is true, then there should be no reason to accept evil as evil and good as good. Why can't good be evil and evil be good? Because you take for granted that evil is evil and good is good without reason. Then you only assume, not knowing that there are certain laws which create distinctions between good and evil, evolution must be false. Morality must only be chemical reactions, so who can say one chemical reaction is good or evil? It is illogical to say a action is good or evil.