"And I hate to tell you this, but the burden of proof IS on you to prove why we're not entitled to certain presuppositions."
Actually you are both right/wrong ... you are equally entitled to your epistemological ground-rules, but they are equally open to question.
pnome is expressing the 'nothing is true without material evidence' ground rules. He doesnt realize that materialist philosophic assumptions (nothing is deemed true except through material evidence) will lead to materialist conclusions. He doesnt realize he has axiomatically excluded the human soul as real and thus he is merely stating premises as conclusions.
Ultimately materialism is a dead end, for its denial of the existence of the 'ought'. (the argument is too detailed for this discussion).
OTOH, he has a point. Just because some book or an authority somewhere tells you its so, how do you come to know it?
At some point, you have either a 'leap of logic' or a 'leap of faith' to get to your conclusion.
"Rational minds have logical reasons for holding certain presuppositions. "
Sure, but what are those reasons, and what are those presuppositions? Is God a conclusion of a thought process, or an axiom that one attempts to elaborate on (eg via theology)? If at some point you need 'faith' to glue your conclusions to your axioms, isn't it fair for a use-reason-only skeptic to call 'foul'?
Is it a "leap of faith" to believe that others beside yourself have a mind, and aren't just preprogrammed robots?
What would you call a "skeptic" who questions your sanity for "believing" such a thing?
Sane? Logical? Rational?