According to Romans 1:18-21, unbelievers actually know God in their heart of hearts. Indeed, that which is known of God is evident within them so that they are without excuse for their professed unbelief. Since He is not far from any of us, even pagan philosophers cannot escape knowing Him [Acts 17:27-28]. What unbelievers do is "suppress the truth in unrighteousness". They are guilty of self-deception.

Although in one sense they very sincerely deny knowing God or being persuaded by His revelation, they nevertheless are mistaken in this denial. In fact they do know God, they are persuaded by His revelation of Himself, and they now are doing whatever they can to keep that truth from sight and to keep from dealing honestly with their Maker and Judge. Rationalization and any number of intellectual games will be enlisted to convince themselves and others that God's revelation of Himself is not to be believed. In this way unbelievers, who genuinely know God in condemnation, work hard to deceive themselves into believing that they do not believe in God or the revealed truths about Him.

It is the knowledge of God which all believers inescapably have within themselves that makes it possible for them to know what the Bible reveals about themselves or about the world. Because they know God, they have a rationale for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, man's dignity and ethical absolutes.

The unbeliever cannot provide the preconditions for the intelligibility of logic, science or ethics, so he sees no problem in the irrational pursuit of knowledge that denies logic, contradicts science and is without ethics. Every bit of his knowledge is an evidence supporting the truth of God's revelation, and a further indictment against unbelief on the day of judgment.

Differing worldviews can be compared to each other in terms of the important philosophical question about the "preconditions of intelligibility" for such important assumptions as the universality of logical laws, the uniformity of nature, and the reality of moral absolutes. We can examine a worldview and ask whether its portrayal of nature, man and knowledge provide an outlook in terms of which logic, science and ethics can make sense.

For instance, it does not comport with the practices of natural science to believe that all events are random and unpredictable and that the world and what exists in it are the product of such events. It does not comport with the demand for honesty in scientific research, if no moral principle expresses anything but a personal preference or feeling. Moreover, if there are internal contradictions in a person's worldview, it does not provide the preconditions for making sense out of man's experience.

It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview, taken from God's self-revelation in Scripture, demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity.

In Biblical terms, because of the unbelievers rejection of God's revealed truth, they have "become vain in their reasonings" [Romans 1:21]. By means of their foolish perspective they end up "opposing themselves" [2 Tim. 2:25]. They follow a conception of knowledge which does not deserve the name [1 Tim. 6:20]. Their philosophy and presuppositions rob one of knowledge [Col. 2:3, 8], leaving them in ignorance [Eph. 4:17-18; Acts 17:23]. The aim of the Christian is to cast down their reasonings [2 Cor. 10:5] and to challenge them in the spirit of Paul: "Where is the wise? Where is the disputer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" [1 Cor. 1:20].

In various forms, the fundamental argument is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. The proof that Biblical Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything, because there is no explanation for the laws of logic and antithesis outside the Biblical world view.

The justification of belief or rejection of belief will be governed by the underlying presuppositions. These are our most basic commitments or assumptions about reality, knowledge and ethics.

Everybody has a worldview, a perspective in terms of which they see everything and understand their perceptions and feelings. A worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted. This worldview is not completely derived from human experience, nor can it be verified or refuted by the procedures of natural science. Not everybody reflects explicitly upon the content of his worldview or is consistent in maintaining it, but everybody has one nonetheless.

A person's worldview clues him as to the nature, structure and origin of reality. It tells him what are the limits of possibility. It involves a view of the nature, sources and limits of human knowledge. It includes fundamental convictions about right and wrong. One's worldview says something about who man is, his place in the universe, and the meaning of life. Worldviews determine our acceptance and understanding of events in human experience, and thus they play the crucial role in our interpreting of evidence or in disputes over conflicting fundamental beliefs.

We must not think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence. A person may be so misled by the prejudiced and hostile voices about religion all around him (from the school classroom to the popular media) that he has the unstudied impression that absolutely "no thinking person" sees any credibility to the historical or textural accuracy of the Bible. He may be amazed to find that very competent scientists, historians and other scholars can present thoughtful evidence in favor of Christian claims in science or history. However, in some cases, the resistance of unbelievers to the evidence is more principled and tenacious.

Simple appeals to observational evidence need not be decisive at all. The reason is that a person's presuppositions determine what he will accept as evidence and determine how that evidence will be interpreted.

Naturalism and supernaturalism are conflicting outlooks regarding the world in which we live and man's knowledge of it. The naturalist claims that what is studied by empirical science is all that there is to reality, and that every event can be explained without resorting to forces outside the scope of man's experience as from the supernatural.

"Empiricism" as a school of thought claims that all of man's knowledge is dependent upon experience, observation, or sense perception. This is what we call neo-science. It rejects the dominion mandate given to man at creation in Genesis 1:26. This is what gives legitimate science its theological basis for investigation and discovery.

Christian supernaturalism, on the other hand, believes that there is a transcendent and all-powerful God who can intervene in the universe and perform miracles which cannot be explained by the ordinary principles of man's natural experience. Now then, having well-accredited reports of a "miraculous" event is not in itself sufficient to change the mind of the naturalist - and for good reason. The naturalist's presuppositions will require him to dispute the claim that such an event really occurred, or alternatively, will lead him to say that the event is subject to a natural explanation once we learn more about it. Simple evidence need not dislodge his naturalistic approach to all things. Our presuppositions about the nature of reality and knowledge will control what we accept as evidence and how we view it.

This is evident from the historical narratives recorded in the Bible. The Israelites saw miracles first-hand in the wilderness, but still disbelieved and disobeyed God. The Jewish leaders saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, and responded by plotting to kill Jesus! They paid the soldiers to lie about the Christ’s own resurrection! The Lord has provided plenty of empirical evidence of His veracity, but the way evidence is treated is determined by a person’s more fundamental beliefs. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead” [Luke 16:31].

The Bible teaches us that the mental and spiritual perspectives of believers and unbelievers differ radically from each other. In principle, and according to what they profess, the basic worldviews of the Christian and non-Christian conflict with each other at every point. The all-pervading sinful depravity of the unregenerate man touches his intellect as much as anything else. "The mind of the sinful nature is at enmity with God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be" [Romans 8:7]. Paul's description of the unbelieving mind in Ephesians 4:17-19 is graphic. Unbelievers walk in vanity of mind, with darkened understanding, ignorance and a hardened heart. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" [Rom. 1:22].

On the other hand, believers are said to be transformed by the renewing of their minds [Rom. 12:2; cf. Eph. 4:23-24]. They now have the mind of Christ [1 Cor. 2:16] and bring every thought captive to Him [2 Cor. 10:5]. It is not surprising that believers and unbelievers, with their conflicting worldviews and heart conditions, do not really share a common view of knowledge, logic, evidence, language, or truth. Pilate arrogantly asked, "what is truth?" [John 18:38]. Agrippa differed with Paul over what is "believable" [Acts 26:8]. What unbelievers call "knowledge”, believers shun as "pseudo-knowledge" [1 Tim. 6:20]. What believers call wisdom, unbelievers call foolishness [1 Cor. 1:18-2:5].

[credits to Greg Bahnsen]

Did Christ not say, “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh...’ Was He not referring to Adam and Eve and quoting from Genesis?

And again, “As it was in the days of Noah so it shall be at the coming of the Son of Man…” Was He not comparing the flood to the conditions of His coming? If we deny the flood will we also deny his coming again?

And again, do we believe the testimony of His eye witnesses, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If we deny that death entered by Adam’s sin, then will we deny the gospel that in Christ men are freed from sin and death?

We must hold fast to the testimony of Genesis because Christ and His Apostles confirmed the Genesis account of creation, the entrance of sin and death, and the flood and warned against the assumptions of uniformitarianism [2 Peter 3]. We do greatly err in accommodating these assumptions to the violation of Biblical Theology.