>>510937712
>reee presuppositionalism
i'm more channeling plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.
it's not really related to bahnsen/van til's stuff.

basically:
if both naturalism (the belief that there is no God or supernatural realm) and evolution are true, then our cognitive faculties are the result of unguided processes aimed at survival (fight flight feed fuck), not truth.
therefore, the probability that our beliefs are reliably true is either low or inscrutable.
if we can't trust our cognitive faculties, then we have a defeater for all our beliefs, including belief in naturalism and evolution themselves.

knowledge requires warrant, which involves cognitive faculties functioning properly in an environment they were designed for.
under naturalism, there is no designer, so the idea of "proper function" becomes incoherent.
under theism, God is the designer, and our faculties are aimed at truth, making knowledge possible.