http://thereforegodexists.com/presuppositionalism-makes-unreasonable-believe-god/

I suppose Richard bushy has long departed from being interesting and settled for a rather obvious shallow criticisms of presuppositionalism.

1. He equates innate knowledge to presuppositionalism. They are related , but not identical. I know for a fact Dr. Vern Poythress (one of the leading presuppositionalist of our time) doesn’t hold to innate knowledge in the way Dr. Bahnsen held to it. Are we to conclude Dr. Poythress (Dr. John Frames best friend) isn’t a presuppositionalist? Seems rather silly.
2. To be fair he is specifically responding to Dr. Scott Oliphint. But he white washes all presuppositionalist as if each are identical men. So, he sets himself up for continuous misrepresentations.
3. He speaks that we must have a justification for our beliefs in order to be rational. But on what grounds has he proven such an assertion? He doesn’t even interact with Alvin Plantinga’s “reformed epistemology”. Is he operating from a classical foundationalism? Is he like Dr. Timothy McGrew ? Evidentialism? He doesn’t even state why we need proof.
4. He concedes there is cases in which innate knowledge can be justified if grounded in proper evidence. What evidence can be provided for innate knowledge? The point of innate knowledge is knowledge independent of sensation. Some argue Romans 2 gives an example of innate knowledge . The “law of conscience” and that would be compatible with the idea of innate knowledge. If that is the correct exegesis, would that not be sufficient for Richard? Would I need an inductive study of many civilizations in order for him to accept the testimony of scripture?
5. I don’t quite understand how he has proven innate knowledge to be absurd. He simply objects to innate knowledge is absurd because it isn’t sense knowledge. But that really just begs the question.
He’s very dogmatic on his positions. Say Genesis teaches just the special creation of man. The individual would then seem warranted that God gave Adam and Eve innate knowledge. I won’t extrapolate that to every man. But it shows that it is possible that God did given individuals innate knowledge.

6. This is the silly quote of the month:

“Believing something that you are hardwired to believe is not reasoning, it is reacting.”

It’s better only if you were conditioned to believe it (via creation) all your life? That’s not reasoning, it’s reacting to social conditioning. You see this objection cuts both ways. Why doesn’t everyone believe in God? Because sin. Does that mean sin makes unbelievers non reasoning robots? I doubt it. You have a causal connection , a sort of hardwired response , they still seem to reason. We know regeneration is what precedes faith and sets the “new hardwiring” in. Does that mean faith isn’t reasonable and is a robotic response? So, since acceptance of God needs “rewiring” of individuals , then belief in God is arational fizz.

“The cause of your belief in God is something like the cause of the fizz in a shaken can of soda. You fizz theistically. You do not believe in God because it is true, but because you were programmed to believe in God.”

They believe that you believe in God, because he gave you innate knowledge of his existence. They would never claim that innate knowledge purposely arose by our genes giving us mistaken metal faculties to believe God existed. That’s a misrepresentation . He also should realize that innate knowledge requires it to be true. That’s the point of the word knowledge.