Friday, March 14, 2014

My Blog has Changed

I've changed the website address for my blog. I apologise for any inconvenience in terms of broken links. The new address is (The old address was, and if you click on that you should still be taken to the old website.) I've added some features and made some improvements to the new blog, so check it out, and if you have time to leave a comment or message I'd love to hear from you.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Response to Atheist Lee’s Response

After writing a response to a video by “Atheist Lee” (see here), I got a response from her (posted on her "Dirty Atheist" Tumblr blog here). This is my response to her response.

I will put Lee’s words inside // and make them bold. My response will follow underneath. Sentences in italics are my words from the initial post.

//Surfer Brendan decided to write a blog post to my video about god answering one’s faith as long as they take a leap of “real” faith. The blog post is here for those that wish to read it in full. I will quote parts and reply to them to show how ridiculously dishonest and lazy the presuppositional argument is.//

Thanks for taking the time to respond. What basis do you have for calling anything dishonest? Dishonesty presupposes an ultimate standard of honesty / truth. How do you get truth without God? I reject the claim that I’ve been dishonest (or lazy), but in your worldview why is it wrong to be dishonest? In your worldview we are just stardust. Who cares what one bunch of stardust does to another bunch of stardust?
//"I question whether or not you had ever really truly repented"
I said the same thing to others.//

Just because you once said this to other people doesn’t mean that you actually had repented. The Bible clearly warns about false converts, and warns that not all who say “Lord Lord” are truly saved. Just because you once said the ‘sinners prayer’ doesn’t mean you were a Christian. The sinners prayer isn’t in the Bible, and I wonder if you even know what a true Christian is?

// There is something called “learning”. It means you firmly believe something to be true and then you learn that perhaps you are wrong. It’s the same with children who believe in Santa: just because they stop believing in him doesn’t mean their belief wasn’t genuine.//

It’s not the same at all – Santa isn’t real, but God is real. I doubt that you’ve ever been down to the mall at Christmas time protesting against Santa lying to the children, but you spend a lot of time online arguing against God. Why don’t you make videos against Santa? Because you know that Santa is not real. In order to know that something is wrong, you have to know what right is. In order to know that you were wrong to believe in God’s existence, you have to have to know what right and truth is, and you can’t get truth without God. What is truth in your worldview? Most people say that truth is what corresponds to reality. But how do you know what is real? In order to know anything to any degree you need to know that your reasoning is valid. How do you know your reasoning is valid? How do you know your brain has correctly evolved in order to know anything correctly? How do you get truth from evolution? You don’t – you just get brain fizz.

//"Given the fact that you’d never actually read the whole Bible"
Is this a joke? Reading the whole bible is what caused me to leave.//

Reading the Bible isn’t what made you lose your faith. You’d already begun the slide into unbelief before that happened. (Possibly you’d even begun to doubt your faith years before you left Christianity.) If your heart was right before God, when you read the Bible it would only deepen your faith, and any difficult questions would be seen as opportunities to deepen your faith and deepen your understanding of God.

//"So a true Christian trusts in God and when they have things they have difficulty understanding they do not lean on their own understanding, but it seems that you were doing just that - leaning on / relying in your own independent reasoning, rather than trusting in God’s Word."
Is this also a joke? This entire video to which you claim this is a response talks about how I pressed into god for understanding, that I prayed and fasted in order to have better guidance.//

No, it’s not a joke. What makes you think that a few prayers and a few missed meals is going to bring you to repentance? (Although praying and fasting is good it doesn't guarantee anything.) What makes you think that that would renew your mind after years and years of evolutionary indoctrination and anti-God biased teaching? (Assuming you went to a public school - although even if you didn't it's almost impossible to escape exposure to evolutionary ideas these days.) You mentioned in the video that you started asking your non-Christian friends for advice about the Bible. Why would you think you’d find truth from those who are spiritually blind?

//"I assume you mean you think it was immoral for God to let Job suffer so much? This story has been an incredible blessing to millions of people around the world, because it helps us to realise that God is sovereign and that our suffering does have a purpose and a reason."
The “reason” is that god and satan made a bet. I’m not sure how it’s comforting to know that god will let you physically suffer while allowing all your children to be killed just to prove a point to satan when he is supposedly all-knowing in the first place. Yeah, real comforting stuff there.//

What makes you think you are wiser than God and know what God should or shouldn’t do? For all we know the future of humanity could have been adversely affected if God had not allowed Satan to test Job. God in his wisdom chose to do what he did. You need to check out the ‘God wannabe’ cartoon by 'After Eden'.

Another lesson we can learn from Job is related to tzimtzum - which means the self-restriction of God to achieve a higher purpose. It explains why God sometimes 'sits on his hands'. God isn't like superman. He doesn't have to intervene all the time, but is so powerful he can bring good out of any situation. Sadly many Christians don't understand this concept, and have a self-centered faith that is all about what they can get from God, rather than a biblical faith that is centered on living for God's glory.

//"How do you account for absolute morality without God?"
We evolved morality as social creatures. Humans are not the only social creatures that did this.//

Your answer is woefully inadequate. You’ve not accounted for absolute and objective morality at all. Without God you’ve got no basis for morality and morality just becomes your own personal preference akin to what flavour ice cream you like or dislike. You can say that you don’t like what God did to Job because you find it hard to understand, but you can’t say it was morally wrong. Is murdering people for fun absolutely morally wrong in your worldview? If you say yes, please explain why you think so. You also need to explain why it is ok for animals to kill each other for food, but it's not ok for humans to kill other humans. If we are just evolved animals then why do we send people to jail for murder, but don't send lions to jail for killing antelope? In my worldview I can easily answer that question - we aren't just animals, but are uniquely made in the image of God. But how do you account for this without God?

//"In your research of apologetics, did you encounter Presuppositional Apologetics and the Transcendental Argument for God? Did you watch any of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s videos and go through his website ?”
That’s your evidence? Presupposing something is insanely dishonest,//

You didn’t answer the question. Before you left Christianity, did you study any presuppositional apologetics (PA)? The fact you’ve avoided the question suggests that you didn’t, in which case you missed the most important and most biblical argument for God’s existence and the truth of Scripture. Have you done any significant study of PA at all? You mentioned that a while ago you looked at Sye's website, but from what you said it doesn't seem you spent much time at all there actually thinking about the issues involved. Have you had a look at my website Your response here suggests that you have not really seriously looked at PA and if you have you don’t really understand it at all. As for presupposing things – PA is much more than just that, and the fact is that you are presupposing things too. You presuppose that your reasoning is valid (but can’t account for it being valid without God), and you presuppose that the future will be like the past, and you can’t account for that either without God. Why do you assume that the future will be like the past?

//it’s probably the worst offender of the “god of the gaps”//

Do you believe that 2 and 2 is 4? I’ll assume you do. So you believe in 4 of the gaps then? And “offender” presupposes absolute morality, which you’ve yet to account for.

// reasoning //

How do you account for reasoning and rationality in your worldview?  How does evolution create thinking minds? Evolution can give us brains, but not minds. Are you a materialist atheist? If so, how do you account for immaterial things such as the concept of reasoning, laws of logic, and laws of morality?

//because it’s not just one justification but an entire argument based on an idea you didn’t first show to be true.//

God is the necessary precondition for intelligibility. The proof that God exists is that without him you couldn’t prove anything. But no one needs this proof because everyone, including you Lee, knows that God exists. If you deny God your worldview becomes absurd and you can’t account for anything.

//It’s literally making something up and running with it in order to pretend that you have evidence where evidence is lacking.//

You didn’t reject God because of a lack of evidence, but because it suited you to reject God because you prefer your sin. This isn’t my own idea – I know it by revelation from God in His Word (Romans 1).

//"There is so much evidence for God’s existence that you are without excuse."
Really? What would that be? Oh, you say it in the next sentence!//

Everyone knows that God exists in many ways, such as through creation, innately, and through God’s Word.

//"Even the concept of evidence is proof that God exists because evidence presupposes knowledge and truth, and you can’t get either of those without God."
Ohhhh! I get it! Wow! That’s super convenient to suggest that a god you can’t provide evidence for somehow is shown to be real because we ask for evidence in the first place! See what I mean about the presuppositional argument being so dishonest?//

There is nothing dishonest going on here on my part. I provided evidence – but you’re not convinced because proof and persuasion is not the same thing. But why in your worldview is dishonesty absolutely morally wrong?

//I can literally make up *any* being and make up any claims about him and using the presuppositional argument I can “prove” I’m right. Ready? There’s an invisible [censored] mind-reading monster on Neptune. Oh, you can’t see him? That’s proof he exists because I already said he is invisible!//

Is this invisible monster on Neptune your justification for knowledge? I’m pretty sure it isn’t, in which case your hypothetical monster is only proof of the inadequacy of your worldview to provide a basis for knowledge, because in order to defend your atheism you’re having to abandon it. So are you admitting that your beliefs are woefully inadequate and can’t account for knowledge?

//In this case, you’re claiming that god is the creator of knowledge and reason, and you show this by saying that we want evidence so tada! That proves evidence exists because I just said that god created the concept of evidence!//

You’ve misrepresented my position somewhat. God is the necessary precondition for knowledge and rationality. Evidence presupposes knowledge and truth right? How do you account for knowledge and truth in your worldview? Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? 

//That is the worst argument to make, and it can be made by anyone of any religion or even people of no religion who just look to make this up. It’s dishonest and it’s incredibly lazy.//

If you held to a different religion I’d be happy to refute it and show why it cannot account for knowledge or truth and leads to absurdity. But as you are an atheist there isn’t much point. Also, the fact is that there are no other gods. I know that God is the only God by revelation from him.
Psalm 96:5 says, “All the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens.”

//"Lee, I pray that you’d stop running from the God you know exists, but for some reason have chosen to rebel against"
Ah, you’re presupposing I know a god now? Oh, that’s nice. That really convenient to write off everything I’m saying and assume you can read minds from across the internet. Awesome.//

No, I know that you know the only God there is. I know this not because I can read minds but because I have revelation from God that all people know God exists but that many “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” as you are doing.

//Your entire blog post is dishonest, lazy and without thought. I was actually reading this aloud to a Christian buddy of mine on Skype and even he felt you’re doing Christians a disservice by side-stepping the evidence issue by conveniently claiming your presupposition argument.//

Is he a Christian like you once were? Because if so, I also question whether he is really a true Christian. The fact that he’s siding with an atheist and against God’s Word is not a good sign. Perhaps though he just doesn’t know his Bible. If he did he’d know that God, Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles used presuppositional apologetical approaches too. Jesus in particular was a master at posing difficult presuppositional style questions that stumped the Pharisees, and atheists and Pharisees have a lot in common in terms of their denial of Jesus and God and twisting of Scriptures to suit their own agenda.
//It’s always amazing how theists will conveniently ignore things and distort facts (such as claiming I never read the bible when the video he’s replying to says the exact opposite) in order to try to make a point. As I always say: if you have to lie to support your position, your position isn’t worth supporting.//

Using the fallacy of poisoning the well is a pretty low tactic. You are the only one conveniently ignoring things and distorting the facts. I never said that you never read the Bible. As for lying, I reject that accusation as groundless. But did you hear about the lie detector test done on atheists? It confirmed that atheists are the ones that are lying when they pretend that they don’t know God exists.

I’ve asked a number of questions here that you need to answer in order to refute me. Key questions are – Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? How do you get truth in your worldview? How do you know what is real? How do you know your reasoning is valid? How do you account for absolute moral laws? Why will the future be like the past?

These are all questions that can be easily answered by the Christian worldview, but cannot be adequately answered in your worldview. It turns out that the very things you take for granted, such as your ability to reason, and assuming that the future will be like the past, are the very things that you cannot account for without God – and this exposes one thing – the fact that you know very well that God exists. Every time you use your reasoning, make moral accusations, and assume the uniformity of nature you are showing that you do know God.

I’m assuming that you will respond to this post, and when you do so you will assume that the internet will work the same tomorrow as it did in the past, but why? You will assume that the words you used in the past will mean the same things, and that the computer you’ve used in the past will function in the same way. What basis do you have for these things?

Well, I’ll leave it there for now. I continue to pray that you will repent and stop denying the God you know exists. I hope too that in the future you’ll stop poisoning the well and drop the empty insults falsely accusing me of lying and being dishonest. 

P.S. Comments can be posted below but all comments are moderated and unfortunately there is a limit to the number of characters one can post each time.
(4,096 characters - which is approx. 900 words). 

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Response to Atheist Lee video "God will answer your faith."

I found this video today by "Atheist Lee" and decided to write a blog post letter response. To the Christians reading this post - people like Lee are one of the big reasons why Apologetics is so important, and why it needs to be done well and in a biblical way.

Dear Lee,

Thank you for having the openness and courage to honestly talk about your loss of faith in this video. You claim that you were once a Christian, and that you gradually lost your faith after starting to actually read the Bible. It is possible that you were indeed a Christian in the past, however I question whether or not you had ever really truly repented. Given the fact that you'd never actually read the whole Bible it raises questions about the depth of any faith that you had. The Bible says,

1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.”

Proverbs 3:5-7 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and shun evil.”

So a true Christian trusts in God and when they have things they have difficulty understanding they do not lean on their own understanding, but it seems that you were doing just that - leaning on / relying in your own independent reasoning, rather than trusting in God's Word. Who is the authority of your reasoning now? God or yourself? And who was the authority of your reasoning when you claim to have been a Christian? It would seem that God was never the authority of your reasoning, and therefore it's possible you never really were a true Christian.

You say that when you read the Bible you had trouble with some of the moral issues in the Bible such as with the story of Job. I assume you mean you think it was immoral for God to let Job suffer so much? This story has been an incredible blessing to millions of people around the world, because it helps us to realise that God is sovereign and that our suffering does have a purpose and a reason. At the end of all of Job's questions God revealed himself in power, and Job put his hand over his mouth and acknowledged that he had spoken of things he knew nothing about.

Job 38:1-2

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

Job 40:1-8

The Lord said to Job:
“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
Then Job answered the Lord:
“I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more.”
Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm:
“Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
“Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

In questioning the morality of God and becoming an atheist you've abandoned the only source of objective morality. How do you account for absolute morality without God? Without God as a foundation for morality all you are left with is your own mere opinion based on what you personally happen to not like. 

The next issue you raised is related to apologetics. You said that you read a lot of books on apologetics but that the arguments were weak and didn't hold water. I agree with you that sadly much that has been written on apologetics is weak, because it departs from the authority of the Bible and argues for the probability of God based on evidence. 

In your research of apologetics, did you encounter Presuppositional Apologetics and the Transcendental Argument for God? Did you watch any of Sye Ten Bruggencate's videos and go through his website ? Did you watch the famous debate between Bahnsen and Stein? 

Another issue raised in the video was that you didn't see any evidence for God. There is so much evidence for God's existence that you are without excuse. Even the concept of evidence is proof that God exists because evidence presupposes knowledge and truth, and you can't get either of those without God. (See my website )

Faith is a further issue that you brought up. It's sad that many Christians misunderstand faith, and think that people just have to believe in God by blind faith, and that we can't prove that God exists in a rational way. Those who think this have a wrong understanding of faith. Biblical faith in God is confident trust based on reason - in fact faith is the foundation for all reasoning and rationality. I've written more about that in my blog post Faith - Is Christianity based on blind faith?.

Lee, I pray that you'd stop running from the God you know exists, but for some reason have chosen to rebel against. If you'd like to contact me I'd be happy to discuss these issues with you. (The best way to contact me is via the Contact form on my 'God or Absurdity' website.)

Kind regards,


Update - After posting this video, Atheist Lee, responded. I've posted her response and my reply on another post here

Monday, March 10, 2014

Alien Intrusion - Book Review

I've just finished reading Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, by Gary Bates. It's a great book and I highly recommend it, especially if you enjoy sci fi (as I do) and wonder how much influence this is having on peoples thinking, or if you have ever wondered about things like UFOs, ET life, crop circles, Nazca lines, Roswell, alien abductions etc - this book will give you answers.

Despite thinking I already knew a lot about the topic of Aliens and UFOs I was still surprised by how much I learned. Gary has spent years researching the topic and exposes the Alien and UFO phenomenon for what it is - a massive deception.

The fact that I thought I knew the topic well and had already made up my mind on it before really researching it carefully highlights a problem - that people, even Christians, have often made up their minds about this topic, without really taking the time to look into it. Christians might think it's all demonic, whereas at the other extreme many atheists might think it can all be explained through naturalistic explanations.  

Approximately 95% of UFO reports can be written off as natural phenomenon - weather balloons, aircraft, planets, meteors etc. The remaining 5% is where it gets really interesting. Many of the reports can be written off as frauds by those who are out to get money or fame out of their claims. The author of 'Chariots of the Gods' (Erich von Daniken) is one such person who has actually been convicted of fraud and whose UFO / alien claims have been debunked as lies.

Where it starts to get more sinister though is with those who claim to have been abducted by aliens. The book clearly exposes the demonic and deceptive nature of these encounters. The fact that practicing Bible believing Christians are never abducted, and the many reports of abductions being halted by the name of Jesus are evidence of the spiritual nature of what is going on.

Demonic deception is as old as the garden of Eden, but can also be seen in occult practices throughout history, and it was interesting to make the connection between some demonic alien encounters and the ancient worship of the stars.

In these end times as we come closer to the return of Jesus, we are seeing an increased level of deception, and the belief in ETs has become very common. Jesus himself warned that in the end times their would be an increased number of false teachers and false prophets, and warned us not to be deceived by these false revelations.

The belief in UFOs and aliens is not just some innocent story. For those who get deep into the alien deception the results can lead to terrible bondage, fear, and in some cases even suicide. Alien cult groups have even been known to lead to mass suicides.

The book also shows that there is a direct link between belief in ETs and belief in evolution. The thinking goes that if we evolved and the universe is billions of years old then it makes sense that intelligent life will have also evolved elsewhere in the universe. However, the idea that all life evolved over billions of years is an unproven hypothesis, and one that clearly contradicts the teaching of the Bible.

I give the book 4.5 stars out of 5. (There were references in the book to quite a few sci fi movies such as 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' but it would have been good to have some reviews of more recent sci fi movies. However, I was reading the first version of the book (© 2004), so no doubt the new and updated version has included more up to date information.)

For more on the topic of Aliens and UFOs see my other blog post here.

Aliens, UFOs, and the Bible
(This video is a good summary of the book, but the book goes into much more detail)

Thursday, March 6, 2014

The Deceptive God Argument Refuted

Note - due to the high number of comments I'm getting on this blog post, any comments that avoid any of my questions, use insults, or merely make arbitrary statements will not be posted. (All comments are moderated.) 

Lately a common argument of professed unbelievers I've been hearing has been the argument that God cannot be trusted because he could be deceiving, misleading, or blatantly lying to us. However, this argument is nothing new and is as old as Satan himself who in the garden of Eden asked Eve if God had really said what she thought he'd said. ("Did God really say...?" Gen 3:1). Satan was implying that God wasn't really telling them the truth but was lying to them. As Ken Ham has said, "What greater lie can there be than 'God's word is not true'?

When people put forward the 'deceptive God argument' they are not talking about the God of the Bible which clearly says that God cannot lie. (Hebrews 6:18). There are other less clear verses in the Bible that are challenging to interpret properly, but usually atheists aren't interested in understanding verses properly, but are more interested in twisting the Scriptures to advance their own agenda to misrepresent the true character of God.

For a really good article that deals with the difficult verses in the Bible used by skeptics to support their deceptive God argument see here -

The biggest issue though is that the deceptive God argument is self-refuting. If God could lie then there would be no way we could trust any rationality, as everything could just be part of a deceptive illusion made up by God. So the deceptive God argument cannot be true, because if it were true nothing could be true - the argument is self-refuting and destroys itself, along with the possibility of knowing anything.

Another reason why the deceptive God argument is self-refuting is that God is the only true foundation for the absolute law of non-contradiction (LNC). If you wish to discuss any supposed Bible contradictions (such as the alleged contradiction between verses which say God cannot lie, and other verses which the skeptic alleges are saying God can lie) then first you'll have to account for the absolute LNC - but without God it's not possible to account for this law of logic. (Many professed atheists will deny that the LNC is absolute, because an absolute law brings them too close to the God of the Bible from whom laws of logic flow.)

Furthermore, in order to complain that God could be deceiving us and this would be bad, you have to first provide an objective basis for morality by which you can call lying morally wrong. The fact that everyone knows that it's wrong to lie and deceive people is because everyone knows God, through whom we have a basis for objectively calling lies morally wrong.  

Being aware of the fact that one cannot get certain knowledge without the biblical God, some have argued for absurd parodies that you don't believe in such as 'Thunderfoot' who in a debate with Sye Ten Bruggencate said again and again, "I know things for certain by revelation from 'the ghost that never lies.'"

In conclusion, the proof that God exists (and cannot lie) is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. This is because the concept of proof presupposes knowledge, logic, and truth - and you can't get those without  Him. (See my website

 Atheists Stupid Statements #6 

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Einstein - We Know Nothing

"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." - Albert Einstein

Do you know that we know nothing, Einstein? To be fair though here Einstein is clearly using a hyperbole.

Einstein was on the right track in terms of the limitations of knowledge without God. Without revelation from God we can't know anything because we have no way of knowing for sure if we are right. However, when we accept that God's Word is true we have a guide to begin to understand the true nature of reality.

Here's another Einstein quote that shows the absurd but logical consequences of rejecting the biblical God...

Monday, February 24, 2014

Refutation of the NoPE Argument (Negation of Presuppositional Enlightenment)

This is my refutation to 'the NoPE Argument' by 'Negation of P' found in the video above.

The NoPE argument attempts to refute Presuppositional Apologetics, and in doing so is attacking the authority of the Bible.

(Negation of P also gets to #3 on the charts of the video "Top 10 ATHEISTS of 2013")

I've summarised negation of P's argument and put it in bold inside // marks. My responses are below those statements.

//This is a stand-alone argument – so please address the argument and not the person presenting it.//

Unless the argument is being claimed to be divine revelation then it can’t stand alone. In order to know that it is true, and in order to even formulate the argument you’ve had to use your reasoning. So the question ‘How do you know your reasoning is valid?’ is still very much a massive and insurmountable problem for you and anyone else who would reject God. The argument was devised by you and thus cannot be separated from you in terms of the validity of the argument and the validity of your reasoning.

//God’s plan could include erasing individuals from existence without us knowing it.//

No it could not. This would be equivalent to lying and God cannot lie. God can destroy people, but he has never and will never do this in a deceptive way where this happens and no one knows about it.

//Until someone demonstrates why God could not or would not erase individuals without us knowing it, the NoPE argument in my opinion is both sound and valid//Well I'm doing just that by refuting your argument which is neither sound nor valid. It is indeed merely your "opinion" and an incorrect one at that. In contrast, I know some things for certain by revelation from God, such as God's existence and the truth of the Bible.

//The NOPE argument in a nutshell – if the universe exists as a presuppositionalist would have us believe, there are no fundamental properties governing the universe rendering everything subjective and unknowable. Absolute knowledge is therefore not possible.//

God cannot change and does not lie. He upholds the universe in a logical and consistent way because this is His nature, and he has promised to do so. Therefore the NoPE argument is a strawman.

//Naturalism enables us to have knowledge via scientific testing and data gathering.//

However science does not give us truth. Science is based on the fallacy of hasty generalisation, and it’s also based on the uniformity of nature – which can be accounted for with God, but not without Him.

//Science doesn’t give certain knowledge, but if correct the theories themselves would be true.//

But this is begging the question. If you can’t be sure that any theories or knowledge is absolutely true then how can you be sure to ANY degree? Guesswork does not bring us truth.

//Absolute knowledge is attainable.//

If you have no way of knowing if it’s true – then no it’s not. Absolute knowledge presupposes the biblical God.

//Miracles mean that God is suspending the laws of the universe, therefore there is no absolute knowledge of the universe.//

This is the black or white fallacy. God performing miracles in no way hinders us from knowing absolute truth. God has revealed things to us with certainty – such as His existence.

//Presuppositionalism Implodes - Another video presents this argument with Matthew4nineteen, BibleThumpingWingnut, and Colin Pearson.//

According to your presuppositions you’re declaring yourself the ‘winner’ but how can you know that? I’ve watched the video ‘Presuppositionalism Implodes’ and it was painful because you kept bringing up irrelevant issues and things that in your worldview you can’t know, and then claiming that because they interrupted you that this meant they were avoiding the issues. They weren’t avoiding the issues – you were playing the martyr.

So what do I say to the NoPE argument by way of summary? Am I impressed? Nope. Is the NoPE argument valid? Nope.

The NoPE argument is the kind of absurdity that people resort to in order to deny the God they know exists but are in rebellion against. If you are not a follower of Christ I pray that you would stop denying God and that you'd repent and trust in Jesus.

Atheists Stupid Statements #6 (Exposing the self-refuting nature of the NoPE argument)