Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

Thanks again to Con for his response. I think Con wants to call me Pro (and not Con) :-). Con, I accept fully that you are not a presuppositionalist. Let me address my response in 3 parts 1) the rebuttal of your rebuttal, 2) the claims you make which I think are mistaken and why and 3) your direct challenges to me. The purpose of this debate was to establish whether presuppositionalists could know truth from fiction if they are consistent with their worldview. I have set out the Axioms I adhere to, built arguments on their foundation, showed why that means presuppositionalism is false and demonstrated further inductive reasons as to why presuppositionalism cannot account for features of the natural world. In short: 1) the presuppositionalist has to stand on my worldview to make his claims, to deny my worldview, and therefore commits the fallacy of the stolen concept 2) the presuppositionalists own position is incoherent, because inserting a god as an interlocutor between himself and existence renders his own perception of existence as open to abuse 3) they fail the test of parsimony as no justifications of the so called pre-conditions of intelligibility are required, if the Axioms are true Con believes I have not addressed his rebuttal and/or made fallacious arguments. I think Con is just confused here. I believe I have given a rather full explanation of my position and rebuttals of his defence of presuppositionalism. Con has failed to point out where my arguments do not succeed, but merely asserted he finds some problems with them. In Cons last response there are 2 claims that I would like to tackle head on: A) God=Truth B) Mysticism is plausibly a path to truth God=Truth I freely admit phrases like this leave me cold. I find it an utterly unimpressive and meaningless tautology. However, to add insult to injury it even appears to defeat itself. For truth to be true, it cannot be contingent. Resting it within a god makes truth contingent on a god. Contrast this with my view that truth pertains to facts about objective Existence, is independent of consciousness and immutable. Mysticism is plausibly a path to truth Con claims that a vast amount of knowledge was gained before the age of science, that mysticism somehow fills a gap where science cannot reach and that notwithstanding any of this there is an emotional need (a yearning) to discover god anyway. Lets break this down. I think Con makes the mistake of assuming I am espousing a scientistic perspective (a view inspired by science). I am not, although of course I respect science for its own end, I do not say it is the only potential way to truth. But I do specifically exclude Mysticism as a potential way to truth. I wonder what knowledge is referred to here by Con? Conceding that some mathematics and philosophical advances were made in the pre-science era by Reason (and not by Mysticism). So lets say the pre-science era is before the time of Copernicus (for the sake of argument), what Mystical beliefs did humans hold?: the earth was flat, the sun orbited the earth, life came from spontaneous generation or was specially created, rainbows were miracles, the night sky was a solid metal dome, the moon was a light source, mental health was demon possession, astrology worked, there were Platonic idealised forms, slavery was OK...etc. Through the strenuous and earnest application of Reason, we have jettisoned these false beliefs which once passed for knowledge. As for Mysticism filling a gap where science cannot penetrate. Lets try the thought experiment! Science cannot penetrate back before planck time at the instance of the big bang. So is our next step to wait for some mysterious handshake with the universe, or to reason it out? And back to a point I have already made. If you say reason is limited and at some point mysticism takes over, then what method would you use to establish where that point was? Or whether that was even possible? These arguments you want to use are always bound to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. As for yearnings".If you start your epistemological quest from an emotion instead of a foundation, it may lead you to conclusions you want".but not a lot else. So to the specific things Con has asked me to address: "Simply. That given much of what we know about this reality, taking a sincere look at the bible as well as the history surrounding it, one can get a clearer grasp of "truth" (atheist and theist alike), than any scientific theory could ever possibly do on its own.... then it it could very well be a wealth of mystic esoteric supernatural knowledge that science isnignorant to. Finally..science has yet to disprove Jesus or God or the bible as divine revelation and people have been living as christians for 2000 years." And in 2000 years Christianity has failed to demonstrate the truth of itself despite (apparently) having a god on its side. Science has been around at most 200 years and has advanced civilisation beyond the imagination of anyone living in the bronze age. You are fallaciously asserting that there are mystical insights which get us a clearer grasp of reality...Name one thing that is clearer as a result of accessing mystical knowledge. To this point you have not provided any examples and thus there is nothing for me to rebut. "For the past 2000 years christianity has brought tremendous success and profress to all different creeds and races all around the world"...the bible says the "governments will be upon his shoulders." Most nations today are majority christians with christians in government...." For the past 2000 years Christianity has sought to control people, and only events like the enlightenment, the industrial revolution, the advent of capitalism and free trade, parliamentary democracy, has set people free from being slaves to dogma. Christianity has been forced to concede ground and control, it has been dragged into the modern world kicking, screaming and bemoaning secularism. The birth accident of government leaders is NOT indicative of Christian success, correlation is NOT causation. There is no case for your position, it is founded on bare assertions, which fail the most basic tests. "Please argue how christianity and The teaching is Jesus Christ are not revealed words from God. Please tell me how if Godn existed,!how you would reason his existence as well as the coming of Jesus Christ. One can not reason such things. Yet they appear to be very true. Throughout history and time, christianity has proven to be a reliable source of truth again and again".." I don"t think I have to argue "how christians teachings are not the revealed words of a god". Why would this be my burden in the context of this debate? Christianity has no track record of being a reliable source of anything, please state just one example to counter it. I think you are only applying wish thinking here. Let me turn to your complaints about existence. Existence is simply "what is". This is not the important point however, the axioms of existence and consciousness have further implications which are deadly to your worldview. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exist). We can therefore say that existence then is primary, and that consciousness requires existence. There can be no consciousness without something existing to be conscious of. A consciousness cannot be conscious only of its own consciousness (this is a contradiction in terms). Thus there is no consciousness without existence. However, this is exactly the opposite of the Christian claim and the model it proposes. Namely that Consciousness is metaphysically prime over Existence. Literally an imagined disembodied mind, floating in an imagined realm, aware only of itself but still antecedent to Existence. Literally meaning that Christianity is a contradiction in terms, and therefore impossible