Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

But must say ,i am a bit disappointed because i had sincerely hoped for a good response or in the least an honest one. I did not hope to use my closing statements to point out straw men while disparaging my opponent. However, i guess this how debates go, though ,,I can honestly say his response to christianity being the back bone of capitalistic growth was the best part of his rebuttal. Only pro lacks any credible sources and evidence to back his theories in regards to christianity holding progress back. As for his derogatory descriptions of God, i ignore for the sake of brevity, and only point out the immaturity of context and content , pro clearly providing a demonstration of someone lacking in any actual ",reason" in deploying such adjectives ad hoc, we can see it as a cry for help, rather than any logical conclusions drawn from any axioms. . I said :"But reason itself does not tell you if your reasoning is true or valid". Pro said,,,"This has already been covered twice. Reason is axiomatically valid and any other situation is impossible. If it were possible for reason to be invalid, then unreason would be valid (and the law of non-contradiction would not hold). " First of all pro completely missed the mark in undersranding his opponent's (my) claim. Reasoning does not tell you if ,YOUR reasoning is valid. reasoning is valid because it is called reasoning, by definition it must be valid. But it does not mean that The ideas in pro's head are valid or "reason". It does not mean pro is using valid reasoning . infact. This point demonstrates how Pro seems to unable to understand simple English, and how he cannot reason his own individuAl reasoning as valid. Despite his own axioms. I said: "reasoning does not tell us if those axioms are true or false". Pro says :The axioms are undeniable, but one still reasons to them, because of the impossibility of the contrary. No-one need access direct, unmediated revelation,,," pro must think just thinking something is some form of "reason. " He just proved he arrived at his own axioms without using any real reason, by calling them "undeniable. " Calliing something "undeniable" does not provide any reason, logic, or evidence for such axioms being true. In the past it was "undeniable" the world was flat Pro says: " states (wrongly referring to me as Con): "Con confuses the presuppositionalists position. As i said before. The presuppositionalistdoes not say that revelation replaces reasoning". And neither did I, they claim revelation is foundational to reason". As i repeated so manytimes pro got it wrong. Revelation is seen as foundation to valid reasoning. Not reasoning it self. One can reason all day all night, and never arrive at the truth. Due to a lack of valid reasoning. As you have been doing. Calling something incoherent , doesnt make it so. And calling something reasoning, doesnt make it so. Why do i think pro borrows from abrahamic faith? Simple. He asserts 2 core axioms of the christian faith inorder to assert his own argument. First. A truth exists. If there is no God, truth becomes subjective, and loses any certainty it has. Something cannot be reasoned to be true, if turth itself only exists in the eye of the beholder. This is a whole course on epistomolgy and ontology , which tell us there is no way to certainly know the absolute truth. Yet ,Pro somehow argues that he does to certain truth via his senses and reason. Alas, he doesnt even recognize his own senses and reason decieve him everyday. While his logic fails him as a result. So how can I accept his argument that reason leads to truth. Who's reasoning leads tp truth? Pros reasoning? this i highly doubt. Secondly, Pro argues that humans are able to discern truth. Another axiom of the abrhamic faith. Man being made in God's image. It makes sense that pro would argue his reasoning is By default truth and reality. Since pro does not believe in God, he does not really believe in objective truth, therefore whatever he thinks is the truth for him. Prozone able to see it just because it's true to him it doesn't make it an absolute or objective truth. Since Pro thinks all he needs is reasoning to find truth, Id like to ask him and anyone else who thinks the same one question. So, what is the turth? What is reality about? How did life appear? Oh wait. .. what? Pro doesnt have an answer for these simple questions? Why? !! !! ! According to pro if you can reason you should know the truth . Logic dictates that since pro does not know the truth, if we except his axioms as valid, we can say pro does not know how to reason! !! ! Pro thinks these questions get answered via logic and reasoning. Alas, u cannot use reason to validate itself. U cannot use science to validate the scientific method. u take them on faith, because it is the only method we have. To say the method is flawless, is a big big big stretch. We discovered the world was round, using telescopes. Not only senses, reason, and data. We needed an apparatus , or a tool, to aid in that discovery. Without the telescope can your senses "detect" the so called data? ? No. U need help to arrive at the truth. Reasoning alone is necessary but not sufficient. Further pro would like to disconnect christianity with social progress as much as he likes, but does not have any evidence for his assertions. Go figure. Supposing that capitalism did produce Europe"s own "great leap forward," it remains to be explained why capitalism developed only in Europe. Some writers have found the roots of capitalism in the Protestant Reformation; others have traced it back to various political circumstances. But, if one digs deeper, it becomes clear that the truly fundamental basis not only for capitalism, but for the rise of the West, was an extraordinary faith in reason. - independent. org Further, pro only speaks of the past 200 years as progress. He does not consider the 1800 years before science, or capitalism to be progress? I suppose right up until the 1800s , we were all still living in caves, and worshipping sun Gods. Oh wait. Some of us still were. The native americans and almost any other part of the world that has not yet encountered christianity. Besides them, since Jesus, all european and western states have slowly progresed over time. Much of it with help from the church. We wouldn't have science at all if if werent for the church and its members , eager to find God. To deny christianity as the foundation of all modern progress is to pretty much denythe fact that more than half the world's population is christian and that our progress came from the population. Here, pro does seem to argue that progress was not brought on by the sacrifice of the labor force. That in fact, progress was a result of the elite who controls the labor force. if this were true, id like to see how fast bill gates can fix my car. The proletariat are meaningless without a willing labor force to support them. Pro is simply delusional if he thinks a societ can progress without the backbone of a strong and motivated labor force. Pro is also delusional if he thinks people are inherently happy to recieve minimum wage and spend the rest of their lives toiling. Pro lacks a coherent explanation for why christian countires ALWAYS flourished, and why others did not. Con can call my perspective "christian coloured," but again he fails to provide any logic or reason as to why chrsitanity has played a major role in the success of capitalism, success of democracy and the progress in general. He has no alternative , because he cannot distort facts. And fact is the christian religion is so ubiquitous, if it DID inhibit progress, we would not be where we are today. since at one point the whole western world was christian, its impossible to say christianity inhibited progress. If that were true. .. how did we progress until now? Was everybody secretly an atheist for 2000yrs?