J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic. When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Because even if you went with the fundamental assumptions that:
a. there is a God
b. the Bible is 100% God's revelation
you would be extremely restricted in what you could achieve. There is so much knowledge outside of what the Bible covers.
But the point I was getting at is that is when your opinion rests upon the unverifiable, there is no way to debate it. If you start with the belief that x is 100% true and everything else is wrong, there's no room for discussion, especially when x is something that, fundamentally, is unverifiable through scientific, historical, etc. means.
I mean, I'm sure I could produce a long-winded argument why we shouldn't rely on the Bible for investigating geologic history, but I doubt that would shake your beliefs one iota.