Presuppositionalist xtians cannot rationally know truth from fiction

Con you are still referring to me as "Con" throughout your response. For the benefit of the reader I am Pro. I thank Con for his interaction in this debate. I will try to draw together the main points of this and conclude. The bible is a terrible method of showing truth from reality as witnessed in this debate. Not one piece of evidence from the bible has been offered demonstrating its value in this regard. I agree presuppositionalists can know truth from fiction, but only by adopting my worldview. If they were true to their worldview, they would not know anything for certain, see TANG by Michael Martin. All through this debate Con has failed to recognise that he (like presuppositionalists) commit the fallacy of the stolen concept, by protesting that reason is not the only way to truth, but only to turn round and use reason to form a concept of "mystical revelation" in the first place. Con states (wrongly referring to me as Con): "But reason itself does not tell you if your reasoning is true or valid". 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). I cannot comprehend a situation were unreason is valid, because I cannot comprehend a situation where the law of non-contradiction does not hold. Ergo my reasoning is valid. Contrast that with the Christian view that states that reasoning cannot be valid without an imaginary, tinkering, capricious, invisible being who can change reality at a whim. Con states (wrongly referring to me as Con): "reasonin only helps ppl find truths to paricular circumstances they have participation in, but not to questions like, "how did the universe begin? "". I find it incomprehensible that Con thinks to answer the question of Cosmic origins, we should use a method other than Reason. This statement rather underlines the mistake Con is making in his argumentation and again commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Con states: "reasoning does not tell us if those axioms are true or false". The axioms are undeniable, but one still reasons to them, because of the impossibility of the contrary. No-one need access direct, unmediated revelation from a being to know the truth of the axioms. Con states (wrongly referring to me as Con): "Con confuses the presuppositionalists position. As i said before. The presuppositionalist does not say that revelation replaces reasoning". And neither did I, they claim revelation is foundational to reason. Which is, as ironic a position as anyone can hold. In other words, in order to reason we must have a mystical revelation as a metaphysical primary antecedent to reason. They argue for the primacy of conscious over existence, which is incoherent as I have previously explained. Con states (wrongly referring to me as Con): "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" . Again I did not say that, but the axioms are foundational to truth. Con states: "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". Really? What other methods were deployed to gain these insights into the universe? Last time I looked it was only sense data and reasoning. There was no revelation involved in their discovery. Con claims I borrow from Abrahamic faiths but nowhere shows this. I have very clearly laid out a non-religious foundation to my knowledge. I do not say that clinches it for Atheism, but I do say that it is therefore complete nonsense to accuse me of standing on Abrahamic faith. I do wish we didn't see theists retreat to claiming that atheists are secretly crypto-theists. It amounts to an ad hominem. I think I am honour bound to accept Con at his word in that he believes that God exists, he needs to accept that I do not. Con is indeed the one demonstrating ignorance and a surface level understanding of history, citing the "protestant work ethic" as the reason Capitalism flourished. Con falls into the classical trap laid out for him by Marxist philosophy. He attempts to equate hard work (Muscle) with the growth of wealth and Capitalism. In this view it is the Proletariat that are secretly creating wealth and are entitled to a greater share. This is the Marxist calling card (see the "Ragged trousered philanthropist"). History shows us the exact opposite is true. It is the application of ideas in an economically free environment which promoted and promotes wealth and Capitalism, not Muscle. Muscle is free to trade its value with the Capitalist (Ideas generator) for mutual gain, but is useless in and of itself. There was plenty of Muscle in China and USSR, but neither economy grew as Socialist states, until they dropped Socialism and the wealth creators were free to act and put their ideas into practice. The only tangible contribution of Christianity came from Calvanism, as it made Usury (using wealth to create wealth) more acceptable. Up to that point free exchange of investment was made impossible by Catholicism. But even here Christianity was only removing an obstacle to Capitalism, put in place by Christianity itself. It is hardly something to champion! So it was the rise of individualism and the freedom to act free from institutional (inc. Church) interference which created a culture of Capitalism. We can even see that today in the aforementioned China and to a lesser extent in Russia (which is held back by its continued alliance to collectivism). Christianity up to the age of reason had espoused collectivism and altruism, to its core it is a cult of self-sacrifice, where the individual is held as moral or good for sacrificing for the good of others (the tribe, the church, the society). This is not a culture conducive to Capitalism where trade is premised on mutual exchange of value between independent actors in a free market (not one controlled by, nor tithed by church or government). All that happened historically is that Christians knew the game was up, and some of them (eg Quakers) cloathed themslves in Capitalism (despite being derided by theocrats, busy bodies, do-gooders and socialists in their own ranks). Infact the core of International Socialism was a Christian movement (Fabianism), who saw the self-sacrifice of Jesus, the overturning of money changes, championing of the slaves, the poor and meek etc as a good thing. Finally Con states (wrongly referring to me as Con): "Con explain how these ideas persist? " Con asks a good question. Why does Christianity persist? Well firstly I think the evidence suggests that it is declining, especially in Europe. But I think Nietzsche got close to the truth when he stated that Christianity was the religion of slaves who cannot think or act for themselves, so make virtues out of their own weaknesses. It persists because people want it to, whether there is truth value in it or not. Con accuses me of being myopic, yet sees the world only through Christian coloured glasses. In conclusion, Cons position is incoherent as he stands on my worldview to deny it, making outlandish claims about the success of Christianity in truth, knowledge, economics and society. But is ultimately left holding an empty sack as each claim falls flat on its face. Which after 2000 years of Christian thinking is not very impressive. I have given an account for reason, sense validity, knowledge, truth and answered some of Cons less relevant claims about history.