“Create mechanical and scientific universe . . . Punish those who don’t believe in the supernatural”
“Infinitely loves everyone . . . excruciating torture for eternity if you don’t think I’m real”
and my personal favorite:
“Create Earth . . . everything happens in the Middle East”
Someone asked me why I don’t believe in the J-C God the other day (before I saw this), and I said the concept seems “small.” Why would he build an entire universe and then only reveal himself to one small group of people in one small section of the planet for a very brief period of time? The guy looked shocked and said “wow, I’d never thought of it like that before. That’s a good point.”
I had a philosophy professor who was a presuppositionalist. No joke. And she could not comprehend how anyone could be anything else (and she reflected this in her grading). It was a really painful class, especially if you cared about your gpa.
Well, they’re not arguments against (or criticisms of, or ridicule of) God himself so much as of some people’s notions of God. To take one obvious example, “I hurricane cities because of their gay people” is hardly a mainstream or officially-held Judeo-Christian belief.
Thje Bible is the inerrant word of God. If anything contradicts the Bible, including any kind of science, logic or the evidence of our own eyes and ears, it’s wrong because the Bible is the inerrant and perfect word of God. Nothing can contradict the Bible without being wrong. Not to agree to this presupposition is also wrong because it contradicts the presupposition.
ETA I am not satirizing the position. That’s really what they think.
It astounds me that a philosophy professor would fall for presuppositionalism. I can see the appeal for the lay people, but for someone who studies arguments, the problems with presuppositionalism should be apparent.
True, although there is a lot more to it then that. They also argue that without God there is no basis to reason autonomously - which is one of the many holes in the position.
There are 3 presuppositionalists entrenched at my university. I can provide proof over PM if you’re genuinely interested. The rest of the philosophy department is red in the face about them but can’t do anything about it. I’m not going to bash them by name on a public forum for career-oriented reasons.
Cite? I imagine this would have been the case 50 years ago, but are there really any young-Earth-believing PhDs still walking this planet? I’ve heard some wacky geology stories in my day, but I’ve never come across this.
The thing with presuppositionalism is that, on the surface, it appears all shiny and new. When you scrape a bit, it’s really a bad argument. Not the worst, mind you (IMO, that goes to Pascal’s Wager), but pretty bad. Add to it that the adherents of presuppositionalism are some of the most stubborn and dogmatic (necessarily so?) theists.
I believe you, I just don’t want to believe you, if you know what I mean.
I’ve found that your garden variety presupper can’t really defend his beliefs when you scratch the surface. What they try to do is goad you into defending your views. Then they can ignore any criticisms that were leveled at them.