In The Same Boat or Rocking the Boat?: A snippet from a post-radio debate

After going on Backpack Radio last week I have been involved, on and off, with a debate that occurred on an atheist's Facebook post. The individual who posted, posted a link to the interview, and then tagged me with the phrase "In the Same Boat." He has been laboring, unsuccessfully, to prove that even based on Christian presuppositions, one cannot have certainty or a foundation for knowledge. A lot of the ensuing discussion revolved around the nature of presuppositional debates. As I said in the interview, a presupp debate is effective when one states their worldview, and then critiques the opposing worldview by its internal merits. Most of the debate was me pointing out that their critique of the Christian worldview was not an internal critique, but an insertion of their own faulty categories into the Christian worldview in order to damage it. They kept claiming I was also evaluating their worldview by inserting my own categories into it, yet without being specific as to how I was doing that. At the end of the debate they finally gave me specifics, and it was quite revealing. Apparently, the very categories of coherence and correspondence with an objective reality, they reject as a purely Christian concept, as they openly embrace an ultimate irrationalism. That is a stunning admission to the fact that atheism produces no coherence, correspondence, and has no foundation for knowledge. Below is the last bit of exchange. I decided to post it, while hiding their names, in order to illustrate the effectiveness of the presuppositional argument.

Atheist 1: Colin S, Is having an internally consistent, justified and coherent worldview of value to you? Is it a standard by which you evaluate the worth of your worldview? Yes?

Further, are you obligated to justify your worldview by my worldview's standards? No?

Cool, ya see what I did there? I just exposed your blindspot.

Because, ya see, for the same reasons you're worldview isn't susceptible to evaluation from standards in my wv, mine is impervious to evaluation from standards in yours.

What if, using your internal critique method, I don't care that my worldview is not absolutely consistent, justifies or coherent?

What if i accept philosophical dilemmas and scientific mysteries as items that actually strengthen my worldview, such that it's incompleteness allows for room for growth and awe?

I don't engage in your spitting contest. Atheists haven't dropped the ball, they firmly place it down.

CSmall: Ah. I see what your saying. Thanks for your honestly.

Atheist 2: Colin, I agree, you are operating under a number of double-standards. As Christopher has just pointed out, you are applying your own standards within your worldview to other worldviews, while claiming this is not allowed for other people. I find it rather ironic that you will go to great lengths to argue that atheists are not "incapable of comparing and contrasting comparative worldviews" - well look no further.

We have done just that. And to the point where we have exposed your own double-standards, inconsistencies and absurdities within your own worldview.

//Well, Colin, the SAME THING could be said about your assertions. You assume correspondence between your thoughts and God. You have not demonstrated that such is the case, but merely asserted it... such a claim is not axiomatic.//

"Yes, according to YOUR worldview God is something that just exists in my head."

Another dodge, and another appeal to a definition with NO justification. And I wasn't even talking about your lack of justification in terms of my worldview, I was talking about your own standards - that "assumption of correspondence" which you fail to demonstrate but merely assert (and which you don't "know" according to your own definition of knowledge). Why is it you can say this to other people while being guilty of THE VERY SAME THING?

There are a few simple facts we both share regarding our 'abilities' and the 'conditions' of our epistemologies within our worldviews:

1. we are both 'stuck' on the receiving end of a stream of information, whether that be sensory data from the external world, or a "revelation" directly from a deity.

2. we are both fallible, yet we both rely heavily on our senses and experiences to form our worldviews.

3. we both must assume certain axioms in order to experience and make sense of the external world (the world at the other end of the stream of information), and we both cannot "get behind", or "justify" those axioms.

The problem is, while you are raging war with non-Christians for not being able to justify certain axioms, you yourself are hiding behind a baseless claim of "absolute certain knowledge".... with no ultimate justification of your own, other than a viciously circular argument. Instead of admitting this, you tap dance around the questions and continue to beg the question with every response.

CSmall: "We have done just that. And to the point where we have exposed your own double-standards, inconsistencies and absurdities within your own worldview."

Actually you haven't done that at all. You have failed to critique my worldview from the inside out, and I have taken care to break down how that is so. Never once have you brought a charge against me that I was misrepresenting your worldview in its metaphysic or epistemology. I called you a logical positivist once and you denounced that charge. I wasn't satisfied with your explanation on how you aren't LP, but I dropped the label. However, when you speak like an empiricist, I critique you as one. Most of my answers have been on the defensive of you inserting your own assumptions in my worldview. I have seen a few accusations, but no specifics, of what exactly I was inserting from my worldview into my critique of yours... Until Christopher posted above....

Christopher just stated that he basically doesn't care if his worldview is incoherent and not correspondent with reality. If that is what you are saying as well, and if you are claiming that the general category of correspondence and coherence is something that only exists in my worldview, and thus cannot be applied to yours; then the conversation is over. You have conceded that intelligibility and rationality are only possible if my worldview is true, and that the under currents of such things (ie coherence and correspondence) have no place in your worldview.

"Another dodge, and another appeal to a definition with NO justification. And I wasn't even talking about your lack of justification in terms of my worldview, I was talking about your own standards - that "assumption of correspondence" which you fail to demonstrate but merely assert (and which you don't "know" according to your own definition of knowledge). Why is it you can say this to other people while being guilty of THE VERY SAME THING?"

We've gone over this before. I explained the difference between my axiom, and yours. My axiom (God) is self-sustaining and under girds the axioms and preconditions necessary for human predication, ontologically and not arbitrarily. Your axioms aren't axioms and need outside entities and realities in order to justify themselves, so they aren't a proper starting point for knowledge. Furthermore, you are an inherently mental creature who knows through verbal constructs. Yet you believe that reality is made up of non-mental realities (matter) which cannot engage in verbal communication. The problem there is that one needs to know something about the basic nature of reality, before they can investigate particulars or more specific information about it. We need to know what reality is, before we can know how we can know it. In other words, we need revelation about reality, from an outside source, before we can begin predicating. Your problem is that what you believe reality to be outside of yourself is fundamentally incommunicable and disjointed from what you are as a thinking, human subject. What follows from that is that reality cannot come to you and verbally express it's nature to you so that you can know, or even define it (matter is defined as "stuff"), and thus truly know it or begin predicating about it. So you're two problems are, your axioms aren't axiomatic, they implicate outside realities to justify themselves; and also what you say reality is, is fundamentally different from what you are, causing a fundamental epistemological problem that further estranges you from correspondence.

In contradistinction, the Christian will say that knowledge and reality begins with, and comes from the self-contained Trinity, who is self-existent and not referential to any other reality than Himself, and whose very ontological properties provides a foundation for human reason and sense experience to be justified sources of knowledge in their appropriate spheres. Furthermore we are made in God's image and likeness, and are thus "like him" at a finite level, particularly when it comes to our mental life. So therefore, there can be revelation or communication from His mind to ours pertaining to his own nature, the nature reality which he made, and the nature of ourselves.

Atheist 1: Colin, thanks for your understanding. Would love to chat sometime. PM me if interested.

Atheist 1: //Christopher just stated that he basically doesn't care if his worldview is incoherent and not correspondent with reality.// Mostly yes

//If that is what you are saying as well, and if you are claiming that the general category of correspondence and coherence is something that only exists in my worldview, and thus cannot be applied to yours; then the conversation is over. You have conceded that intelligibility and rationality are only possible if my worldview is true, and that the under currents of such things (ie coherence and correspondence) have no place in your worldview.// No

That is where you are crossing over from internal critique to external critique. Correspondence and coherence exist in atheist worldviews, but a fetishized obsession with absolute correspondence and coherence is not valued. That absolute value may exist in your worldview, whereas it's relative cousin exists in ours.

CSmall: So what does that mean? How does that play out?

CSmall: And to help you clarify your thoughts here, from my perspective that sounds like: "Okay, okay, no we are not totally irrational and we don't reject correspondence and coherence totally. Rather, we believe there is correspondishness and coherenceness out there somewhere along with truthiness." It seems you don't want to loose those category now, but are leaving them open ended and vague so that if someone wants to interact with you about it, it will be like hammering jello to a wall. Not to be derogatory, but that is how it sounds. So what do you mean?

Atheist 1: Oh no, I think we're all irrational. Seriously.

Are Atheists Just Guessing? A follow up on a broken thought.

This past Thursday, I had the privilege of joining Vocab Malone and Pastor Vermon on Backpack Radio. The topic revolved around Facebook debates, epistemology and apologetics. To make a long story short, after having debated a few local atheists on their facebook page, I was asked if I would like to come on the show and speak to above subjects. The show is known for having both well-known scholars on, as well as the "average Joe" (fyi, I fall into the latter category ;). While the show is prerecorded, it is recorded as if it is live. I was not given a list of specific questions to answer, just general themes which we would be dealing with in each segment. Being my first time on the radio, and also being a seminary student who loves to preach right out of his manuscript, one can imagine that there were a few times when I got ahead of myself and felt a little "jumbled" in my answesr. One answer stuck out to me almost immediately after having given it, which I would like to clarify/address with this post.

In the second segment, I believe it was Vermon who asked me what exactly epistemology was. After defining epistemology ("a theory of knowledge"), and opening up the components of having "justified true belief," I made a statement that was somewhat unclear and may sound unfair or inaccurate without some clarification. In describing what it means for true belief to be "justified," I used the analogy of me and someone else taking a quiz. In the scenario the correct answer was (b), which both me and my neighbor got correct. However, in my case I simply guessed, whereas my neighbor studied and "knew" the answer was (b). I simply had a "hunch" or a "guess," juxtaposed to my neighbor who had a reason for his selection. In the analogy, we both got the answer right, but only my neighbor;s answer was justifiably right, in epistemological terms. I then made the claim that atheists who justify their belief in unchanging, universal laws of logic and science, based off of the fact that they "work;" are like the person who guesses on quiz, gets the right answer, and assumes that they were justified in being right. I had indeed jotted down this point in my notes, as I had planned on making it. However, in the context in which I said it, it felt premature and requiring more explanation. Not wanting to go on a deeper rabbit trail from the original question (what is epistemology?), I sort of panicked and gave a broken explanation of the point and tried to move on. So with the background aside, I think I need to clarify my point.

At the very best my thought seemed broken, at the very worst, it seemed as if I was accusing atheists of being purely arbitrary or erratic in their formulations. I know that most atheists value the scientific method, and believe they have reasons for their unbelief, so I want to make it clear that that is not what I was trying to convey. My intended point was this. The atheist claims that reality is fundamentally unguided, unconscious, and irrational (or at least non-rational). Furthermore, they believe that the human mind has arisen through non-rational processes, by means of a mechanism for survival, not a mechanism for arriving at "truth" (namely, natural selection). And yet the entire scientific enterprise rests upon the presumption that the functioning of the human mind corresponds to reality, and that reality operates according to regularities. They are saying that reality is one way (based upon their worldview), but they are talking and acting in it, as if it is another way. When questioned as to what grounds they have for believing in unchanging, universal laws given their worldview; atheists often say something to the effect that it "works to act as if reality is that way" (ie ordered and rational).

However, there are two main problems with this answer. First, that answer does not resolve the tension in their worldview. After all, how can the way reality behaves, or "works" (as if it is rational reflecting order around universals) be reconciled with what they presuppose about it (that it is non-rational and composed of chaotically interacting particulars)? But secondly, and most importantly, it also doesn't answer the question. Do laws of logic, and rational regularities in nature, have some sort of ontological grounding or existence? Or, are these merely human concepts that find some correspondence 'here and there?' If it is the former, then the atheist needs to explain how such structures can exist in their metaphysical worldview. However, if it is the latter, which is the answer I normally get from atheists, then they have a problem of justification. A handful of human observations, in comparison to the vast age of the universe (according to the atheist), does not "justify" belief in universal laws of thought or science. One could only justify such a claim if they had observed every square inch of the universe, for every second, in the life of the universe. But in the big picture, all we have are a few observations, which appear as if they correspond to the concept of rational "laws" and regularities. So if the atheist is right, we are like the person who picked a few answer on a test that happened to be right. But there is no justification there. And if you do not have justification for universal laws of thought or science, then you have no knowledge. Greg Bahnsen elaborates:

"It should be noted here that by "justified" we mean that the person actually has sound reasons (good evidence), not simply that he thinks his evidence is good or sufficient in light of the pool of information available to him [...] Accordingly, having a warrant for one's belief(s) is essential to knowledge. This explains why the issue of justification has always been a critical one throughout the history of epistemology. E.g., when and how are claims that we make well founded? Or, how do we acquire, or what is the source of, reliable beliefs? On what basis is intellectual authority conferred upon our ideas? By what standard are our judgments to be evaluated? How do we know what we know?" (Bahnsen,"Van Til's Apologetics," 178)

In answer to those questions, Dr. Bahnsen, and all sounds Christians, will say that the answer to all of those questions is God's revelation. The infinite, personal God of Christianity has revealed some things pertaining to Himself, ourselves, and reality; such that we can be certain. Furthermore, he sends the Holy Spirit into our hearts, to "internalize" the Word of God, so that it becomes not just a distant object, or a hypothetical, but immanently apparent to us as subjects made in His image. When God's revelation is presupposed, and the content of it believed, one has a justification for true belief in laws of logic, and laws of science (as well as a whole host of other things). Anything else is just guess work, commonly known as speculation. Furthermore, history itself attests to the fact that science arose out of the worldview of Christendom, not atheism. No one took an unbiased "leap in the dark" about reality and discovered that science "works." No, we have a much more certain ground to stand on than that. And thankfully, so does the atheist, which is exactly how he knows what he knows, because in his heart of hearts, he truly knows God.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom. 1:18-21)

(P.S. More follow up posts pertaining to my interview may be forthcoming :)

Penn Jillete and Rape

I recently came across this "meme" while perusing through Facebook. I've seen this kind of argument made by several of the "new atheists." Not only does it completely miss the point, but it simply is not honest. I've never seen this meme before, but I found it a little ironic in light of recent revelations about skeptic Michael Shermer's behavior towards women, which I covered here. As I said, I do not think these kind of arguments are honest about human nature. For example, multiple times a week I have the unfortunate privilege of hearing men check out women and talk out loud about all the things they would like to do to them. In their external dialogue about their internal desires, there is not one care for the woman's soul, or "romance" or whatever. All one finds is an aggressive considerations of how their bodies could gratify them. Indeed, with most men in the "dating" culture, most of the time, all outward demonstrations of care for a woman's personality, or romantic appreciations of them, is simply a means to get the gratification they think they deserve. THAT is the heart of a rapist. In my experience, most women in the dating culture are keenly aware of this. However, the reason why most of those men will not engage in rape, and will even condemn it consciously/publicly, is because they have been conditioned by a civilization with broadly Christian roots to find rape aesthetically displeasing. The desire's of their hearts say otherwise. So what happens when the worldview that framed rape as bad disintegrates? When we are pictured as mere biological robots, who evolved from pond scum, that then progressed up the evolutionary chain in many species through rape; how can one still call rape "wrong" in the true sense of the word? Can anything be considered "wrong" in such a world? On top of that, Mr. Jillette is a supporter of the prostitution industry in Nevada, which feeds into the very instincts that he apparently denies the majority of men even have. So I do not find that Penn is honest with himself in how he frames this objection.

On top of that, even if he was "sinless" in this regard, never having had a desire to exploit women; in his universe that is absolutely meaningless. Rape and consensual sex are nothing but atoms banging into one another. Nothing is "wrong" or "right," for that matter, in such a world. Saying rape is wrong is just an opinion, like saying that blue is a better color than red. Even if one wants to go the existentialist route and say that it is up to the individual to create morality, one cannot argue that their self-generated moral system extends beyond their 3 pound brain. Much less can they claim that it corroborates with abstract concepts like "truth," "goodness," or "beauty." They certainly cannot congratulate themselves for their tastes above others who go a different route, as Mr. Jillette seemingly does here. "I don't need God, because I know how to live a 'good life' without Him," isn't an argument in the atheist's own world. It is just brain fizz. These kind of arguments only appeal to people in a post-Christian society where they still enjoy some of the fruit left over from the Biblical worldview. You don't have to look very far to see what happens when that foundation is officially abolished.

The thing is, the Christian worldview can account for why even an atheist knows that rape is wrong. The Christian will claim that even the rapist knows that rape is wrong. That is because the law is written on everyone's heart, as they are made in the image of God (See Romans 2:1-16). Even apart from the influence of the Christian church, one sees a recognition of deity, accountability, and the law of God in all cultures. However, time and time again, when a culture consciously rejects the light of biblical religion, they condescend to depths worse than pre-Christian pagans. So not only can the Christian worldview give a better account of Mr. Jilette's claims here, it can also give a better account of why man is prone to such evil. Scripture informs us that simple lust of the heart is directly related to sins such as adultery, rape, and much worse things as well. Apart from God's restraining grace we would all descend into such debauchery. But even further, Scripture ends up giving us not just a better picture of the moral law, and man's sin, but it also gives us the solution as well. Christ crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended.

Dr. Richard Pratt on the Claim that the Bible Contradicts Itself

1) "The unbeliever has not examined the Bible and other resource materials enough to know that he has not simply misunderstood a passage which he thinks is contradictory. It is often the case that non-Christians call passages contradictory when just a little reflection shows them to be quite harmonious.

2) The unbeliever cannot examine the Bible and other resource materials enough to know that he has exhausted all the possible explanations of his so-called contradiction.

3) Until he can say with absolute certainty that there are contradictions in the Bible he cannot reject biblical authority on this basis." (Richard Pratt, Every Thought Captive, pg. 113

The thing I like about this response is that it is simple, honest, and addresses the skeptic right where he is at. Rather than allowing them to dictate terms out of their relative ignorance, points 1 & 2 demonstrate that according to their own standard of knowledge, they are overreaching. And indeed, some of the "Bible contradictions" I have been confronted with before, betray that very ignorance.

A Problem for Atheists and Agnostics

Greg Bahnsen, in discussions of epistemology, would often refer to his well-known "apple sorting machine" analogy. The analogy was between epistemology (how we know what we know) and the construction of a hypothetical machine designed to sort apples. It is very common to hear people claim that they do not have beliefs, or a worldview, but simply use method 'x' to sort out the facts and then come to conclusions. In Bahnsen's analogy, people's "neutral" epistemological methods would be compared to the apple sorting machine. Bahnsen would point out that in order to construct an apple sorting machine, one would first have to know something of what a good and bad apple consisted of, and then they would have to know how to tell them apart. Then the apple sorting machine could be designed. In the same way, in order for anyone to know true facts from false facts, they first have to know some general truths about what constitutes truth and a true fact. One would also need to know how to discern true facts from false facts. Then an epistemological methodology can be constructed to sort them. We have to know something general about what we know, before we can know how we know. We need an ontology (understanding of existence) before we can have an epistemology (an understanding of how/what particulars we can know about existence). The point being, that when people say they just use method "x" to know truth, they are not being honest. A worldview, which was ascertained by some means other than method "x," had to be in place first. This is an insightful analogy and it has many implications for discussions in apologetics. When it comes to method "x" as being the scientific method, Christians have been quick to point out that biblical presuppositions provide the worldview through which science is justified and the universe rendered intelligible. However I think this illustrates a much broader point, namely a problem that atheists and agnostics have in even speaking to the realm of theology. What do I mean?

Well, it isn't uncommon to hear self-identified atheists and agnostics make broad statements about the whole field of theology such as:

"If there was a God he would be *blank* and therefore we couldn't even know for certain"

or,

"If God existed the world would be like *this*, and it isn't, therefore there is no God."

But given their worldview, how can they know this? These are not naturalistic arguments, coming from a naturalistic worldview, they are actually theological arguments (and poor ones at that!). The problem here for the atheist/agnostic is one of epistemology. When they argue against theological knowledge, or the existence of God, they themselves are using theological arguments, or claiming to know about something they say is an impossibility. In other words, keeping in mind that ontology (knowledge of existence) precedes epistemology (how/what we can know); how can atheists/agnostics make knowledge claims, like those given above, about something that doesn't exist? They must either concede that they do have some knowledge of God, or the things of God, or they must admit that they simply can't say anything meaningful about a subject that "doesn't exist."

Some atheists are consistent here and will not make these kind of arguments. They will simply stick to their naturalistic presuppositions and try to argue that there is "no evidence" for a supernatural realm. However, it is not uncommon to hear atheists or agnostics go on the offensive by attacking the character of God, or by using the kind of sound bites listed above. If that is the case, the above criticism is valid.

I think therefore, I think?

In several discussions I've had with atheists, when the issue of epistemology comes up (I try to start with that subject), I have often heard them respond by parroting Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Supposedly Descartes' formula gives them a basis for knowledge apart from God or divine revelation. When pressed to give an account of what they know, or how they know, the answer is often, "well, I think therefore, I am, that's where I begin." This is convenient for the atheist, and for all unregenerate men, because it supposedly give sufficiency to the autonomous human intellect. Indeed, many have even argued that with Descartes' famous formula, the modern world, or at least modern thought, began. But is it really sufficient, and does it really provide the unbeliever with a basis for knowledge claims?

Well, actually. No.

I used to get stumped by this one, and would try to go the route that "I think therefore I am" is not sufficient to give us a basis for knowledge of the outside world, or the assumption that our cognitive abilities reflect or "image" the world around us accurately. Only the assumption of the image of God could get us there. That is still a valid argument, and useful in certain contexts, but it gives the unbeliever too much. What do I mean? Well, "I think therefore I am" is simply a deductive argument with the assumption that "I" exists, hidden in its premise. Christian philosophers like Soren Kierkegaard, and atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russel, pointed this out long ago. When Descartes said "I think," he already assumed 1) that he exists and 2) that he was the one doing the thinking. So to say "I think, therefore, I am" is similar to saying "all bachelors are unmarried." It tells us nothing new, and it certainly doesn't establish any basis for knowledge or knowledge of what exists through autonomous human reason. It merely assumes "I exist" and then smuggles that assumption into the premise and then the conclusion. If Descartes truly doubted everything he thought he knew in his meditations, he would have ended up simply with, "thoughts are occurring." That gets us nowhere, and it certainly establishes nothing about ontology (existence) or epistemology (knowledge). The title of this post is "I think therefore, I think?," but in reality it is more like, "there are thoughts, and so... yea?" Autonomous human reason fails here.

However, unbelievers know that they exist, they know that the world around them exists, and they know that their cognitive abilities can image the world around them, because ultimately they know God exists. But they know this in spite of their philosophy. In fact, their unbelief and commitment to independence from God distorts their thinking. This is why all lines of pagan thought and culture end in radical skepticism. That is why it is the Christian apologist's job to "push the antithesis," or to demonstrate that based upon their own premises, unbelievers can't know anything and they certainly cannot account for human experience. And actually, the more consistent unbelieving thought becomes, the easier it is to demonstrate the absurdity of it. Radical Skepticism's claims that "we can't know anything" is a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. Do they know that they can't know anything?

Man was not created to reason autonomously, but analogically. We were created to "think God's thoughts after him." The quest for intellectual autonomy began not with Descartes but with the Serpent when he invited Eve to reason autonomously apart from God and His revelation. As I mentioned above, unbelievers know that God exists because He is actively revealing Himself to them, both in the depths of their own consciousness, as well as in the world around them. Paul says in Romans 1:18-20, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifestin them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." As Paul says, their problem is not intellectual but moral. They are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. And when he says suppress, he means suppress. They are not willing to admit to themselves or to others that they know God, because they are committed to independence from Him and do not want to face up to their cosmic treason. Yet their thinking about the world will continue to exhibit features that demonstrate they know God's existence. You can only hold a beach ball under water for so long. With Descartes it was the sense of "I" or personal existence, that he smuggled in. With the atheists it is often their strong sense of morality or "logic" which contradicts, and certainly doesn't flow from, their self-identified worldview.

Apologetics is done effectively then, when we demonstrate the insufficiency and impossibility of autonomous human thinking, while also pointing out the evidences in the unbeliever's own experience that demonstrates that they know God exists. Furthermore, and most importantly, they have no certainty, which undermines all of their knowledge claims. Only God's spoken Word and Spirit provides certainty about God, the world, and human experience as well as a context through which they are to be understood. We begin with the self-contained Trinity's spoken Word, not man's word spoken to himself, which gets him nowhere.

So the best way to begin with a transcendental argument from epistemology, is to simply ask an unbeliever if they could be wrong about everything they claim to know. If they are honest they will answer yes. If that is true they have no certainty, and thus no knowledge, according to their worldview. Contrast that with the Christian worldview, which says there are certain things that we cannot be wrong about, because God has revealed them, such that we can be certain. To see a practical example of this check out this.