Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

I believe Pro confuses the idea of presuppositional apologetics when it is deeming "revelation" is necessary for rationality. The Clarkian school of thought is that rationaility itself is endowed by God (ie. The ability to REASON is the "revelation" that God permits and an atheist denies.) The general idea is that any reasoning done by your mind, as a result of your five senses, is the "revelation" you speak of. It's when atheist scientists describe their awe of the universe, yet are unable to give a reason for their awe. They can tell us HOW they think the universe is awe-inspiring, but they cannot tell us WHY they have reasoned so. A presupppositional scientist would say that the reason is "revelation" by God, which is innate in all humans. In short, what you call reason and logical truth, Clark and his presuppositional cronies call "revelation." Any other "reason" is simply not the truth, but rather a subjective description arising from limited sensory perceptions. Pro's confusion on the idea is exemplified in his statement, "If all you have is "revelation", then your argument is fallacious, because revelation relies on your ability to form concepts using your senses and reasoning in the first place". Again, the reasoning you do is the very "revelation" God gives. If that revelation is true and consistent, then presuppositionalists will argue that it will also be consistent with the bible. If you have faulty logic, or logic is lacking consistency, it is argued that it is because the disbeliever is suppressing the "truth," or "revelation", or logical "reason", which would need to be consistent with the bible, they have drawn an illogical conclusion. Also, Pro has confused the purpose of the presuppositional argument. apologetics is not a framework for reality or for proving the existence of God.. It is a framework for rebutting the atheist arguments against dogmatic Christianity. Rather it is a refutation of all worldviews from rationalism to pantheism, that exclude the need for a Christian God, to explain reality. "After demonstrating the internal incoherence of the non-Christian views, the Biblical apologete will argue for truth and the logical consistency of the Scriptures and the Christian worldview revealed therein. He will show how Christianity is self-consistent, how it gives us a coherent understanding of the world. It answers questions and solves problems that other worldviews cannot. This method is not to be considered as a proof for the existence of God or the truth of Scripture, but as proof that the non-Christian view is false. It shows that intelligibility can only be maintained by viewing all things as dependent on the God of Scripture, who is truth itself. This is the proper "presuppositional" approach to apologetics." . - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org... "Clark emphasized the point that there is a wide gap between basic sense experience and the propositional conclusions made by empiricists. 15 Sense data (the facts of experience) do not come with their own built-in interpretation. Rational conclusions cannot come from sense experience alone. Empiricism, therefore, fails as a truth-finding method. Next, Gordon Clark turned his attention to rationalism." -taken from institue of biblical defense website Clark is not saying that reason itself is unnecessary to arrive at truth. However, he is arguing that the Christian Truth is the actual truth and nothing but the truth. Clark is arguing that it is unreasonable to assume your five senses and rationality alone will allow you arrive at the conclusion that the Christian God is the truth. Here he argues you need the bible to know this truth, then continues to assert that the God of the bible is logically consistent with moral and logical worldviews that work, while other worldviews are hopelessly illogical, due to the fact that they are not based on the bible God. To demonstrate, the God of the Bible declares that "there is no understanding of God". This is logically consistent with the current reality of worldviews concerning God. The Bible also states that in the beginning was the Logos. To assume that before any physics or laws of nature can be formed, a logical construct must exist to permit their manifeststion and eventual rollout into physical time and space. These biblical views are consistent with logic, and can therefore become axioms upon which to build a world view. However, these axioms are self evident, but cannot be arrived at using simple senses or rationality.