Scmike update

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.

The Challenge
"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.

There goes my reputation...

...my reputation as a calm, logical debater, that is.

Here's the relevant snippet from the ongoing debate/argument.

Scmike wrote:
"How does the universe account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic and reason when these characteristics do not correspond with the universe??"

Quasar replied:

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!!!

OB! JEC! TIVE!

YOUR CATCHPHRASE VERSION OF LOGIC DOESN'T FREAKING EXIST!

EITHER SHOW THAT IT DOES, OR STOP USING IIIIIIIT!!!!!!

*ahem*

Excuse me.

Wow. Multiple personality disorder, maybe? I went nuts. I didn't think I'd resort to that. Not since last time.

PS: How do you pronounce that guys name? "Smike"? "Shmike"? "Skmike"? "Stupid Cretin Milking Incomphensible Logic Empty"?

Presupposistionalism is retarded.

And yes, even though I will not claim certainty about anything else - ever - I'll claim certainty about this. And state that my proof is in the impossibility of the contrary.

So, arguing with morons espousing the presupposistionalist viewpoint has become a bit of a hobby of mine. Out of all the the 'arguments' for christianity, I think that this is the most arrogant, irrelevant, annoying and anti-intellectual.

I've been debating a guy named SCMike about his beliefs for over a week now. If any of you are interested in presupp and all of its inadaquacies as a philosophy, I encourage you to check it out. Lots of posters have made lots of great points.
I'd like to include my latest post which I think highlights many of the problems with presupposistionalism, but it is quite lengthy so I'll drop it behind this cut.

Seeing as my cut won't work, I've reposted the comment here.