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

Ok, my opponents largest and most frequently asked question is 'What reason do you have to take the Bible or God for granted?'. I am going to make this as clear as daylight for my opponent. The Bible, the Word of God, is the only source that gives us reason to take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted. Now let me explain why; the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and He exceeds the limits of time, He is not bound by time. In the same way, the laws of logic are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. The Bible says that God created us, and the universe in 6 days. Therefore God created our minds and God created the universe, so it is reasonable to think that our minds can study and understand the universe, in that the laws of logic are reliable sources for knowledge. My opponent has no reason to believe that the laws of logic can restrain knowledge into a box, for that matter, my opponent has no reason to believe that the laws of logic or an other precondition of intelligibility can succeed in being reliable sources for knowledge. Why is this? It is because my opponent does not have the Word of God as his ultimate standard, rather he has the preconditions as his ultimate standard. A precondition simply means that a condition must exist before something can occur or be considered. In this case it is knowledge, but if you believe something without reason, it is an irrational belief. This is exactly what my opponent and those would don't have a biblical world view are doing, believing that the preconditions just exist for no reason. But they believe that they are the key to knowledge, yet it is irrational to believe in something without reason. So what is your reason for believing in these preconditions or intelligibility from a non biblical world view? Intelligibility simply means that something has the capability of being understood. (The Bible is intelligible). "We are a social species, this means that we evolved to work together." This is a contradicting claim, evolution and working together do not go together. If evolution were true then our brains just create chemical reactions, therefore why should we have feelings towards chemical accidents? If evolution were true then we should not be concerned about each other. Why should we get along with each other? The biblical world view has an answer and more importantly has a reason for this. It is the immorality is contrary to God's nature. Although it may seem like we are evolved into a social species to the evolutionist, there is no good reason that an evolutionary process should of unity should occur. Given that, words such as 'should' and 'ought' don't make sense in an evolutionary world view. Since there is no know way to know of a higher authority because everything would be subjective and mind stimulated. What might be moral and good or evil to one person might be contrary to another person, there is no reason for people to have a similar moral code. To say society creates the moral code isn't solving the problem either, all it is doing is moving the problem from an individual to a group of people. So why has society have a moral code? There is no reason why it should in an evolutionary world view. However the biblical world view has a reason, because God owns us and therefore He can set the rules. In an evolutionary world view there is no right or wrong/good or evil. If our brains just create chemicals, then why would one set of chemical reactions care for another? There is no reason why they should, since as I have discussed, the word 'should' makes no sense in an evolutionary world view. If you care for someone else, you are not being beneficial towards your own survival, rather you are being beneficial towards another persons. This does not match with the evolutionary world view of survival, if it was all about you and your own survival and passing on the more successful gene, why would you care about the sick, the unfortunate and the helpless? After all to rid the earth of people who are sick, unfortunate and who are helpless would create and much more prosperous society. So in an evolutionary world view where everything is meant to be about being successful in passing on the successful gene and where our survival is most important there would be no society as we know of today. "I don't want to be killed. Therefore it is in my interest to live with other people who do not want to be killed." This again is a fallacious statement, if evolution were true it wouldn't be in your interest to get along. You are saying evolution is true yet you are being contrary to that very statement. Since our brains create chemical reactions out of time and chance then the chemical reactions would be random, yet evolutionists seem to create order out of randomness, so if someone were to murder someone, it would be reasonable to think that it was the chemical reactions in side that someone's brains that caused him or her to murder, it was not out of choice. This of course ruins all morality for the evolutionist, since they believe in the precondition of intelligibility of morality. Morality should not exist if evolution were true. We don't want to die because it is inconsistent with God's nature. If the evolutionary world view were true then we wouldn't care about whether we die or not. Since there is no purpose to life, just chemical reactions which drive our thoughts and actions. Conclusion: My opponent has given no reason to accept the preconditions of intelligibility for granted. He has only gone by his feelings, which have seemed to play against the evolutionary world view. The evolutionary world view is inconsistent with the preconditions which are necessary to gain knowledge. Although my opponent agrees that the laws of logic, morality, unity of nature, the senses and our memory are reliable sources in gaining knowledge, they are inconsistent with the evolutionary world view, in other words, they wouldn't exist if evolution were true. Why would be care about the laws of logic if they are subjective, for example? To even make an argument against my position is contrary once more to the evolutionary world view. An evolutionist is attempting to provide a reason for taking for granted the preconditions of intelligibility, yet if they he comes up with a reason which supports the evolutionary world view, if it prove the evolutionary world view to be contradicting, thus the evolutionary world view would be inconsistent and therefore incorrect. It is really like for the evolutionist trying to disprove air with an argument, while at the same time they are breathing air to get across their argument that air does not exist. Therefore if the evolutionary world view were true, it would be false and therefore it is false.