For my Lorship paper, I am interacting with two consecutive comments by Calvin in his Institutes. First, he states that it is impossible to have knowledge of God without knowledge of self, and secondly, he reverses it--knowledge of self is impossible without knowledge of God.
My thesis is that knowledge itself is impossible without an a priori assumption of God. Ironically, I will be using Hume, as an honest atheist is the best Christian apologist.
My main points should be seen coming from ten miles away, but in that respect are kind of like trains: it doesn't matter how long you've seen them coming if you can't move.
The first will likely be a reductio ad absurdam, in which I will assume the contrary of what I am trying to prove. Id est, "If, however, evolution is true, then nothing exists outside of complex chemical reactions, simply time and chance happening upon matter. But we never judge chemical reactions to be right or wrong, they simply are. The paper is not wrong to catch fire, it simply does. That is the way that it behaves in our purely material universe. Our minds are not wrong to assume that there is or isn't a God, that is simply what they do. To consistently hold this materialistic position removes the possibility of any intelligent metaphysical discussion, let alone intelligent disagreement, as our opinions on the matter are irrelevant and have the truth content of a bowl of mushroom soup." Something like that.
The next will be where Hume comes in handy, particularly his arguments on induction. You cannot assume tomorrow based upon today. You do, but you can't. A Christian, even a theist can, but an atheist can't. He has to assume that tomorrow won't be like today, otherwise he would still be inanimate and irrational goo, much like his logical processes. But I won't mention that.
Beyond that I have my refutation of common objections followed by my conclusion.
It should be interesting.