As an example, take this recent interaction that I had with another user on this subreddit:

Me:

Could you please address the specifics of what I am saying, rather than diverting into vague philosophical passages?

Christianity makes very bold claims.

Regardless of the basis on which I've grounded my current worldview, Christian claims need to be specifically proven before I can believe them, because they are completely disconnected from my lived experience.

Your line of reasoning sounds like "because you cannot infallibly demonstrate that your empirical experience of the world is accurate, surely you must accept that Jesus is the son of God and has died to repay your debt of sin."

That does not make sense, and I really need you to speak to it directly if you're interested in continuing this conversation.

Them:

No, it's more than that.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem basically says that every single Worldview, in order to be true, relies on certain truths that can't be proven. The most basic truth of mathematics, which he as a mathematician used as an example, is the axiom of identity, so 1=1. It's impossible to prove that 1 as we conceive it actually =1, but its required for maths to actually work and so must be presupposed.

Now how does this relate to God?

For a worldview to work, it must presuppose not just the axiom of identity, but many different unprovable things. It needs to presuppose that we are an autonomous free will agent with a self experiencing a consistent true reality that can be understood through logic and reasoning. For a worldview to be rational, however, these presuppositions need some kind of grounding or foundation, otherwise they can't be justified and the worldview collapses, and without these presuppositions knowledge is impossible.

Because of what they are this grounding would be God, as God is the ultimate presupposition, more specifically the God of Orthodox Christianity. For a variety of reasons, but mainly because the Orthodox God affirms all of the foundational presuppositions, so they can be justified. Orthodox God is beyond time and space, and is immaterial. Because of this, cannot be proven in themselves. But they are necessary for the other presuppositions to be justified, and affirms themselves to be a faith based entity.

So either you have a single unprovable and unfalsifiable presupposition that justifies all of the other presuppositions, or you have a lot of presuppositions about the world you have no justification for, and then can't have knowledge.

Atheistic worldviews can't work because of their naturalistic presuppositions:

Premise 1: One effect of physics, for example a tornado or a volcanic eruption, cannot be more true or false than another Premise 2: Thoughts, and therefore beliefs, worldviews and ideas are effects of physics Conclusion: Therefore no thought, and therefore no belief, Worldview or idea can be more true or false than another, making knowledge impossible

I don't understand why anyone would view this as an effective conversational approach.

Full thread