Here’s a thought…
Presupps start off with the presupposition that God exists, and so far when I converse with them and ask how they come to presuppose that, they answer thru Revelation: the Bible being presumed the divine Word of God, inspired to human writers. They may not all agree on the details, but this is the answer we get in general.
—This suggests that presuppositional apologists need to use a multi-fold presupposition to start with.
Presupps should not claim “knowledge”.
Simply put, if you know, you
don’t need to presuppose.
Since I now refuse to debate belief (honestly, it’s not debatable), I try to find common grounds of discussion.
For example, I know empirically that the Bible is a compilation of human writings. I’m even an avid reader and student of the Bible, and that hasn’t changed after my painful conversion to non-theism.
—So although I do not see the Bible as Divinely Inspired by an all-knowing Creator of the universe, we can both agree that the Bible is empirically demonstrable.
I cannot (and will not) debate the “belief” of its inspiration, but I can certainly argue the content of the Bible when it makes empirical claims.
Some presupps like Sye Ten Bruggencate won’t even discuss the Bible using the cop-out that the deniers are unworthy of using scripture. Convenient and obviously disingenuous.
*(Though I do want to add that off-debate, Sye is a rather cool dude and can take a jab with humor.)
So, as I was saying, I do not see the Bible as Divinely Inspired by an all-knowing Creator of the universe.
Because the empirical claims it makes are simply in tune with the beliefs of the time of writing and proven now to be demonstrably erroneous (ie: vegetation created before the sun; planets and stars created after the Earth; the flat-earth covered by a firmament, etc…).
—I can expound on that, but I’m guessing that most of you reading this know what those claims are.
More to the point, my argument is that, IF the Bible was really Divinely inspired, we are warranted to expect at least these two things:
1)— That the claims on Nature discovered later would confirm the expected foreknowledge of the very One that Created all of it.
2)— That an all-knowing and all-loving Creator could inspire a clear message thru His inspired Words to ALL humanity; unambiguous, uninterpretable, and useful to all cultures. He would have that power, and allegedly, the loving inclination to do so.
In both of these cases, the Bible demonstrably fails—albeit offering poetic and metaphoric useful information. Myths do have their usefulness.
Most Christian fundamentalists don’t go as far as Presuppositionalism, but their temptation is to present their beliefs as knowledge.
But you know what?
Conviction is not knowledge.
“I’m committed to a process,
not a conclusion”