“This is not correct. God has revealed Himself to everyone.”
Do you have any actual evidence for this, besides a book of superstition insisting that it’s so?
I mean, it’d be cool if Russian scientists, say, could stimulate a part of an atheist’s brain and he suddenly starts quoting the Bible in Elizabethan English. But lacking that, it’s just you guys insisting you’re right…
"So unbelievers can indeed have knowledge.”
Generous of you to say that on Turing’s computer.
“And their knowledge is justified in exactly the same way as the believer’s knowledge – by revelation from God.”
I’d say by results, frankly.
We’re back to ‘what evidence do you have that I believe in gods.’
"The problem with the unbeliever is not that he cannot justify any of his beliefs. Rather, the problem is that he cannot justify any of his beliefs within his professed worldview.”
HAHAHAHA! Sure. Every textbook shows what we know and how we know it, but without ‘because God,’ it’s meaningless. Uh huh.
"If evolution were true, then knowledge would be impossible.”
Saying so doesn’t make it so. HOW does evolution preclude knowing?
"But evolution is not true.”
Swing and a miss. Nothing in evolution requires rejecting any of the gods. Nice try but total self-serving bullshit.
“Since the Bible is true, evolutionists are able to have knowledge. Their beliefs in sensory experience and rationality are ultimately justified because the Bible is true.”
You keep stating your premise, but never actually support it.
“Consequently, the fact that unbelievers do have knowledge demonstrates the truth of Christian worldview.”
Not even slightly. We know genetics, we do not know that goats looking at straked sticks have straked babies.
“Furthermore, it shows that they do know God. Apart from the biblical God, it would make no sense to trust in sensory experience or the rationality of the mind.”
Except, again, they can be used to produce results. WIth or without Zeus.
“When unbelievers accept these truths, it exposes their suppressed knowledge of God in a spectacular confirmation of Romans 1:18-25.”
Got any examples?
"Rather, the proof is that the Bible says it is God’s Word and makes knowledge possible.”
That’s not even a circle, that’s just an appeal to presupposition.
"The proof of the Bible is the impossibility of the contrary. If the Bible were not true, we couldn’t prove that anything is true.”
Bible says Tyre will never be reoccupied.
Atlas says it’s pretty fucking occupied.
We need the bible to be right in order to know that the bible is wrong, which proves that the bible is right…?
Did you take your meds today?