Both sides agree that our world can have only one explanation.
Both sides agree that worldview realities transcend our physical world; they cannot be seen with the eyes.
Both sides agree that truth—any accurate description of reality—is objective; the “big truths” of our world do not change in response to feeling, opinion, or intuition.
Both sides agree that any true explanation about our world will be internally consistent, coherent, and will account for the realities we perceive in our world/cosmos.
Both sides agree that the body of evidence in a worldview investigation encompasses the full scope of human experience and observation, including facets such as suffering, aging, sleep, laughter, philosophy, and religion.
Both sides agree that a spiritual dimension and divine revelation are logically possible—that a transcendent God can reach into our world with revelation.
Both sides agree that a claim of divine revelation can be evaluated—like eyewitness testimony in a court of law—on its internal consistency, coherency, external correspondence, and explanatory power and that authentic revelation will demonstrate “insider” knowledge of the cosmos.
Both sides agree that everyone operates according to a particular worldview and that all worldviews are either theistic or non-theistic. (There are only two conceivable foundations of reality: personal forces or impersonal forces. These categories are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. It is impossible to form moral or political values without coming down on one side or the other.)
Both sides agree on the following definitions:
Fact-information that is indisputable and based on direct sensory input
Testimony-written or spoken statements recounting personal experience or observations
Inference-attempted explanations that move beyond what can be directly observed
Interpretation-inferences that are influenced by a person’s fore-drawn conclusions
Theory-an idea or system of ideas that is intended to explain a set of facts as they relate to one another.
Both sides agree that it would be impossible for scientific insight into the natural world to trump a deity’s first-hand knowledge of the cosmos.
Both sides agree that a Creator God who engineered language is capable of revealing truth and preserving its transmission in copies and translations in a manner that is sufficient for our understanding.
Both sides agree that, in a search for transcendent truths, divine revelation is the only sufficient remedy for our limited perception/fallibility. And diligent, objective scrutiny of the full breadth of evidence, using valid criteria, is our only means of confirming the authenticity of that revelation, thereby safeguarding us from counterfeits.