Presuppositional Arguments For God Are Incoherent Fallacious Nonsense!

Thanks Con for your insightful Argument.Though it appears easy to get lost in Philosophical concepts where I will try to frame my arguments for the layperson rather than appeal to those educated in Philosophy.Firstly on presuppositional concept of God considering both: Con's Definition of Knowledge as Justified True Belief and how it reflects on the Presuppositional concept that "Without God There Can Be No Knowledge..Part 1: Knowledge as Justified True Belief, this Begs the Question of Justification?What is Justification?Simply it may mean Justification by experience alone, such as you wake up every morning and providing you are a standard biological person you are reassured that you have two hands and five fingers on each hand as you grasp to turn off your alarm clock, and you have knowledge that your alarm clock exists and by tapping the snooze button you can turn the alarm off for usually 10 minutes.Thus you have knowledge of your anatomy, the existence of your alarm clock and the snooze button.Your own experience of your body and your immediate environment (bedroom) has justified your belief that these all exist.Thus you have Knowledge, regardless of your belief in God or not.This alone demonstrates that without God you can have knowledge.Knowledge is truly your beliefs about your own world that are justified by your sensory perceptions of the world around you and what information from others you trust in.Much of your knowledge comes from trusted sources and has not necessarily been justified to you, though you assume that the knowledge is justified as you consider the sources to be Authoritative or Trusted.Much of our knowledge is false knowledge, because we have not made any effort to check their justification, it is simply knowledge on trust. Some prefer it that way, such as if they really did the research on what is justified, especially in religious knowledge, such as the real story behind the origins of the Bible, they would likely realize that their knowledge is not justified at all.So in reality: Personal Knowledge is not Justified True Belief, it is simply That Which We Trust To Be True, thus knowledge itself can be an illusion of knowledge, this is called the Problem Of Knowledge.______________________________________________________________________________________For those interested, here is a look at the History of the Problem of Knowledge:http://www.informationphilosopher.com..._______________________________________________________________________Part 2: Without God We Can Have No Knowledge.This implies that without God, your could not know that you have two hands and that each hand has five fingers.Without God you would not know that your alarm clock has a snooze button.As even the Garden of Eden Story is Nonsensical, in that Adam had knowledge of Eve and both had knowledge of the tree bearing the fruit of Knowledge and they appear to have knowledge of God and what knowledge entails. They even had Knowledge of what was right and wrong (good and evil) thus they gained absolutely nothing but the taste of the fruit and a quenched appetite by eating the fruit, as they already possessed knowledge.Though the tale is metaphorical, it is extremely childish and actually meaningless.Con looked to Plato, though much of Plato's ideas (forms exist outside of time and the material world) were entirely misled, Plato was wrong about most things. There is no evidence for Plato's Dualist notions, nor will there ever likely to be evidence. Though Apologists love Plato because his duality concepts are malleable into forms that support their Misconceptions of reality. That is why I often referred to Plato as Play-dough for Apologists.Even Aristotle knew this and disagreed with Plato's mythical notions.Plato's concept is that the mind is powerful and can extend beyond the limits of the physical world.Modern neurology and psychology, now demonstrates clearly that Plato's concepts are entirely mythical, in that all consciousness is grounded in our own brains. We are each Conscious/Aware in our own distinct, individual way thus our Knowledge is subjective.So it should be very clear that our Knowledge is simply our Brain's awareness of things that appear to be consistently true, and that which we learn from trusted sources. These all exist, because we have a mind, no external agency such as a God required.Though as Apologists assert that God is the source of all Morality is an argument from Ignorance.Simply because Morality is an evolved trait in humans and other species of social creatures. Humans like other animals that rely on numbers for survival to fend off predators and gather food, all developed group moral codes such as don't kill your fellow members as this reduces your numbers and thus lowers your strength as a group.Don't upset others in your group, otherwise you may be kicked out and you will surely die on your own in a hostile environment such as jungles full of predators or internal fighting within the group will weaken the group's effectiveness in working together to gather food or fend off predators.Such communal living naturally develops codes of ethics or as we call it here Morality.So such Morality evolved for survival and as human languages formed, these moral codes became more complex and abstract along with our language.Though no Objective Morality has ever existed, all the morality humans have has evolved from group dynamics and to enhance our own survival.Thus, Morality developed without need of a God.Why is the Presuppositional Assertion an Argument from Ignorance?> Remember it is an Assertion, thus their Burden Of Proof Commitment which they have failed to provide any Knowledge (justified true belief) or Evidence for. Simply meaning that Apologists like Sye Ten Bruggencate and Con in this debate have never provided any Evidence that Justifies their God. So to assert that God is the Basis for Anything is and Assertion without Evidence.Since as I have demonstrated, that there is existing Evidence for Knowledge and Morality without God.Then Apologists are ignoring this evidence deliberately and going straight to the Assertion of God, which has no Evidence.In Philosophy an Assertion of something without evidence, yet ignoring the existing justified evidence (knowledge) is termed:An Argument From Ignorance!Thus Presuppositionalist Assertion that all knowledge and morality originates from God, is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy!No confounding, empty Philosophical postulates as Con is trying to produce are necessary.This what Apologetics rely on for confusing and obfuscating reality.Empty postulates that seem logical and rational.But like most of Philosophy, they are just subjective mind games.Philosophical mind games have nothing to do with reality.Certainly not those of Plato.____________________________________________________________________Here is a look at Plato's Mystical Nonsense Destroying the Roman Empire:http://www.aupsd.com..._______________________________________________________________________Just as Plato's notions are entirely subjective and mostly Nonsense!Assertions without Evidence as Presuppositional Apologetics Assert, can only be False Claims.Because no evidence exists for them!Since they put God outside of Humans ability to Question this God Assertion.They are making special excuses for belief in their God.In Philosophy this is called a Special Pleading Fallacy.So we have now two Fallacies being applied in Presuppositionalist Apologetics.Thus I have shown their Argument to be Extremely Fallacious!Satisfying most of my Burden Of Proof Commitment!http://www.informationphilosopher.com...On Presuppositionalism:How Presuppositionalism is like solving a headache with a Lobotomy. http://outofthegdwaye.wordpress.com...Back to you Con for some more Philosophical Conjecture: