I have issued Mr Mike a challenge. He has responded a number of times (each time he dodges, I respond and then just ask again), but... well...
To everyone unfamilar with scmike the presuppositionalist, his argument basically consists of "You can't be certain that your senses and reasoning are accurate without using your senses or reasoning. I can though, because God is the source of senses and reasoning, and He says they are accurate through his revelations." [paraphrased slightly].
My responce was to see whether his position stands up to his own argument.
"If you can point to a SINGLE REVELATION (natural or special) that you didn't a) perceive with your senses and b) interpret with your reason, then I WILL (and I mean this) admit that your logic DOES NOT disprove your argument."
Scmike first response:
I have asked you (to no avail) if all knowledge must be gathered through the senses. If yes, which of your senses told you this??Could an omnipotent God reveal things to us directly in a way that we can be certain of them??
Scmikes second response:
I will be happy to discuss natural and special revelation with you in great detail, as soon as you tell me what absolute standard of logic you plan to use to evaluate my response, and why that standard must NECESSARILY apply to my argument, as these characteristics are not consistent with the objective standard you claim to be using.
Scmikes third response:
Quasar, please tell me what absolute standard of logic you intend to apply to my logic, how you account for that standard, and why that standard NECESSARILY applies to my logic. Thanks.
I told him after the second responce that I do not believe in an absolute standard of logic. The rules of logic are objective, not absolute, and they apply to all human arguments by virtue of being objective.
The third time, I responded with this: Give me one good reason to answer your three questions (again) if you refuse to answer mine.
He has also commented that I'm starting to sound like Maragon. I took that as a compliment.