Or as Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, "debunked by its philosophical arbitrariness"
The video was taken down but here is a link to it, even though I cannot embed it. For more argument in this debate watch this:
If you like to read, here is the transcript of the debate.
Here is the closing statement:
So, we seek in 'Debunking Atheists' by lovingly revealing this post's truth to them.
As Atheists often say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You're right. As Dr. Bahnsen says, here is your evidence: When you talk about a claim which, when rejected, undermines the possibility of making intelligible all other claims. THAT is extraordinary! If I reject the idea of the amount of cereal in the world. That claim does not affect on a whole bunch of other claims. It is rather limited. But when you make the extraordinary claim that the philosophical precondition of intelligibility for anything, is based upon that worldview, that is a rather magnanimous thing which is Christianity. That is why the extraordinary claims of Christianity, about the existence of God and the supernatural, have been met with the extraordinary evidence that when you reject it, you undermine all philosophical possibility of making rationality, science, morality, possible. The supernatural if God is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural. When you appeal to the natural world and say "it's intelligible", you already assuming the worldview that you're rejecting, as an Atheist.