The Atheist Perspective
Evidence and logic.
That which does not follow by any logically valid inference from all the evidence available, is not to be believed. Everything else is to be believed in proportion to the weight of the available evidence.
This means you cannot leave evidence out; no valid conclusion can be reached from a biased sample of the evidence. And you can't rely on fallacies to reach conclusions from the evidence.
I discuss how to do this in greater detail in my books Sense and Goodness without God, Part II, and Part IV.1, and Proving History. I also recommend Bo Bennett's book Logically Fallacious and Baggini and Fosl's Philosopher's Toolkit. I give many examples of applying this method on my blog at RichardCarrier.info.
If I may weigh in, it seems to me to be possible that the reason that the Christian presuppositionalists (CP) have not answered this question is that it is not possible, or at the very least not coherent, for them to check that what they believe is true or not.
According to the presuppositionalist Mr McCabe, it is not possible to "know" anything apart from what god has revealed to us or programmed us to believe (cont.)
This of course is completely circular.
I'm not "condemning" anyone or anything. I'm simply pointing out that it seems to me that CPs cannot answer the question as it was put because they do not, and cannot possibly, in the context of their worldview, have any means or method of checking whether what they believe is true.
It is likewise peculiar to me that CPs claim that the non-theist worldview is incoherent because it is circular (the example often given is that non-theists use logic to justify their use of logic) and yet do not acknowledge the circularity of their own worldview, particularly in the context of this question.
"Every worldview, when reduced to its most basic fundamentals, requires self-attestation, or, in other words, a circular argument." - McCabe
"All arguments of this type are circular in a way. If a rationalist, for example, tries to prove that human reason is the ultimate rational authority, he can do nothing else than appeal to a rational argument, using reason to prove reason. He cannot appeal to anything higher than reason, because he believes reason is the highest authority." - John Frame
Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Jason Lisle:
What gave you your beliefs? God, who knows everything, or the big bang, which knows nothing? The former view allows for justified beliefs. The latter view simply can't.
I'm grateful to you for clarifying my faulty understanding of your position. I take it then that you have no issue with circular worldviews?
Presumably you would then have no issue with me using logic to justify my use of logic? Is that correct?
Thank you for the excellent polemic. It's just a shame that it completely avoided the questions that I asked.
In the immortal words of Dragon's Den...I'm out.
May I point out that you and Mr McCabe appear to have radically different views on what constitutes a "circular argument"
As you pointed out earlier, Mr McCabe stated that "Every worldview, when reduced to its...fundamentals, requires self-attestation, or, in other words, a circular argument. For example a rationalist...can only attempt to justify his reliance on reason by...using reason"
I feel that it would lead to a less pointless discussion if you could decide amongst yourselves one way or the other.