Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

Likewise to you pro. Sorry, I am usually Pro side and kept calling Con a Con, because he is trying to Con the audience. ;) Just kiddinng. Kinda. Ha. A presuppositional christian knows truth from fiction the same way anyone else does. Through reason. This is what I keep needing to repeat. Presuppositinalists never advocate circumventing reason, and replacing it with anything else. They only advocate that the Bible is the truth, and nothing but the truth, and that by using your reasoning abilites correctly, One is able to draw similar conclusions. That the bible is a very good method of ascertaining truth about REALITY. There is a temporal and semantical divergence bw saying "truth is known by revelation." And saying "truth is known by reason." The first talks about the objective truth itself. Being literally shown and explained. . The second talks about a process towards objective truth. Without any demonstration from a third party. Reasoning is an internal mechanism for discerning reality. But reason itself does not tell you if your reasoning is true or valid. . Becsuse reason is not an actual "path" to all objective truth, but rather a tool , which when used correctly, that helps ppl find truth. Further, reasonin only helps ppl find truths to paricular circumstances they have participation in, but not to questions like, "how did the universe begin?"'or however, you can hope to reason to understand "WHY the universe began." In such a way, reasoning is limited in its abilities to provide objective form and function to aspects we do not yet understand. Therefore, Reasoning does not necessitate truth. Truth exists in spite of correct of incorrect reasoning. And I hope to make this clear, I am not saying "reasoning is useless." I am only saying it is not a surefire path to the truth about everything. Although it is an extremely important tool in guiding us through life and every day obstacles, and even determining axioms upon which to base our world views, reasoning does not tell us if those axioms are true or false . In other words reason allows us to draw up multiple hypotheses and consider the likelihood of each, however it does not provide us with any valid means or mechanism for testing each of those hypotheses with any empirical scrutiny. Reasoning is a good way for us to find truth. But it does not allow us to verify that truth. Except by its own reasoning. Which would be a circular fallacy to commit. You can not you reason to reason you are right. You also need evidence. one finds the truth. The other verifies it. Basically. Con confuses the presuppositionalists position. As i said before. The presuppositionalist does not say that revelation replaces reasoning. This is a misinterpretation of equivocation. They say by revelation, God revealed the TRUTH about reality to man. Whether man recognizes it as truth is another story. They are only saying, as I am sure any reasonable person would agree, that it is hard to come to the conclusion that "the bible is the truth" By ONLY using reason and rationailty. This does not they do NOT use reason, it means they use it along with the bible and revelation from God. To recognize that "the bible is the truth." In line with such reasoning, it is reasonable to say that we exist. And we need our sense to reason. And reasoning helps us arrive at truth. However it would be a slippery slope , to say that reason leads one to truth absolutely. Reason is also prone to error and human error is inevitable. This is the problem with Con's logic, if he is assuming just because his first two axioms were true, that he could also arrive at the actual "truth" about reality , without additional help, science or revelation , then he would be rashly drawing the conclusion So to answer's Con's question "how does a presuppositional xtian differentiate fact from fiction without using reason?" He cant. No one can. Reason is exactly what allows ppl to differentiate fact from fiction, and a hard line of REaSoning (of the presented evidence.) is what leads ppl to believe some theories that Jesus existed, the world is round, the universe is expanding and in constant motion, etc. these types of truths cannot be arrived at using only senses and only reason. Ppl need methods of studying that truth or to have it revealed to them by a greater authority. Likewise, I have stated mysticism as a PLAUSIBiLiTy of arriving at truth. It does not mean that it is. To say that it is most certainly not a method for arriving at truth, IS to presuppose that one has already arrived at the absolute and certain truth about reality, and how this world really works. Certainly, con has not revealed all of the mysteries of life and the universe, neither has our greatest scientists discovered all of the mysteries of the universe, let alone the mystery of the conscious mind. Therefore, without exactly understanding the mechanisms and processes for mysticism to work, Contin not certain if she can specifically exclude mysticism as an approach to truth. No one said mysticism is feeling a gap that science cannot penetrate. I am just saying that it very well could be, and there's no way to verify it being false or true. And in light of the above , I hope one is logical enough to see, it is not for the presuppositionalis to demonstrate the veracity of the Christian religion, or the Bible. In light of the fact that the "ultimate truth" is unknown, to man, to science, and even to reason, the best explanation always serves as the most rational one. The christian worldview best explains the reality in which we live. From explaining morality, to explaining the mysteries of the conscious mind. Con asserts these are his worldviews , but in fact all he has done is borrowed from the monotheistic, abrahamic philosophies much as anyone else has done. Consciousness is a thing. And existence is a state. To say one comes after another is complete nonsense. Finally Con believes that ideologies such as capitalism and democracy provided progress, and christianity held progress back. Although this is a commonly held notion amongst atheist, it IS a gross misrepresentation of the truth, and a misunderstanding of religion and its role in society. First, religion and political ideologies do not work against each other nor are they mutually exclusive. In fact, it is a common known political science that Christianity is the reason capitalism and democracy was successful while marxist socialism and communism had failed. Without proper incentives, people did not properly work and growth was inhibited from a lack of motivation that followed. in contrast, nations based on the christian religion found that its labor class was more incentivised to work and innovate of their own free will, even when prospects of riches were not in reach. Further, its pretty common knowledge that the US constitution, and the current democratic model we use are based off of the Christian belief that "God as endowed all men with unalienable rights." The very social constructs Con cites as reasons for progress were all founded on christian values. To deny such is a display of ignorance towards historical facts. All one needs to do is google "role of christianity". The Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated mass action that influenced the development of capitalism and the industrial revolution. This idea is also known as the "Protestant ethic thesis."[134] -Wikipedia Can Con explain how these ideas persist? If any of his assertions that christianity inhibits progress is true? Obviously, Con has alot of opinions about the effects of christianity, but they are helplessly myopic only considering news headlines, and not considering historical facts. Has Con understood how presuppositionalists claim to differentiate fact from fiction is through REASON and BELIEvE the bible is revealed truth from God, and that reason and rationality confirm?