He claims that one cannot trust one’s senses without first getting “revelation.” He further claims that this revelation consists of the world we see around us (according to him pointing to some god) and the writings of the bible. There is an obvious problem with this approach. If one does not already trust one’s senses, there is no reason to take that “revelation” as anything but an illusion. I have to trust my senses before I can even begin to decide whether that is a revelation or not. As it turns out, I decide that it is no revelation.
Look, it’s very simple. Either you can use reason to come to a belief in some god, or you can’t. If you can, then logic and reason are valid independent of any god. (But, if your reasoning is good, you might get me to believe.) If you can’t, then you adopt a strictly faith-based position with no evidence. You have no hope of persuading me that your belief is true. Now, as long as your not trying to shove your beliefs down my throat or enshrine them into law, I probably don’t care whether your beliefs are true or not. Unfortunately, fundamentalist christians have this nasty habit of trying to create bad laws.
When dealing with what Dan and other fundamentalist christians say, it helps to remember a simple fact. Fundamentalist christians gotta lie.