Presuppositionalism

1. Premise 1: Logic, science, and morality require absolute, unchanging foundations.
2. Premise 2: Only God can provide absolute, unchanging foundations.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, we must presuppose God exists to make sense of logic, science, and morality.

1. Premise 1: Logic, science, and morality require absolute, unchanging foundations.
2. Premise 2: Only the cosmos can provide absolute, unchanging foundations.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, we must presuppose the cosmos exists to make sense of logic, science, and morality.

1. Premise 1: Logic, science, and morality require absolute, unchanging foundations.
2. Premise 2: Only Brahman can provide absolute, unchanging foundations.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, we must presuppose Brahman exists to make sense of logic, science, and morality.

1. Premise 1: Logic, science, and morality require absolute, unchanging foundations.
2. Premise 2: Only the Dharma can provide absolute, unchanging foundations.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, we must presuppose the Dharma exists to make sense of logic, science, and morality.

Each version starts by assuming that their preferred foundation (God, cosmos, Brahman, etc.) is the only possible source for logic and morality. Then they conclude that their foundation must exist.

This is like saying:

• "Only my car can get me to work"
• "I need to get to work"
• "Therefore, my car exists"

The problem is obvious: you haven't proven that only your car can get you to work. You've just asserted it.

Summary: This version of TAG, popularized by Matt Slick, claims logic, morality, and knowledge require God, so God must exist. That makes it tautological: it presupposes the very conclusion it attempts to prove by asserting only God could ground those things, without independent evidence ruling out other explanations.

The form:

Let P = "God accounts for the laws of logic"

1. Either [P] or [not P].
2. Not [not P].
3. Therefore [P].

This version of TAG is a tautology because it necessarily assumes the conclusion (P) in the 2nd premise. Not to mention, it fails to show that only God is the only thing that can account for the laws of logic.

Presuppositionalism doesn't actually solve any philosophical problems - it just pushes them back one step:

Instead of asking: "How do we justify logic?"

We now ask: "How do we justify our belief that God grounds logic?"

The presuppositionalist's answer is always: "We just assume it." But if we can "just assume" that God grounds logic, why can't we "just assume" that logic is basic? Both are equally circular.

Instead of circular reasoning, we can compare worldviews based on:

Public evidence: What can be observed and tested by anyone?

Predictive power: Which worldview successfully predicts what we observe?

Simplicity: Which requires fewer unsupported assumptions?

Consistency: Which has fewer internal contradictions?

These criteria help us move beyond "I'm right because I say I'm right" and toward genuine inquiry.

Presuppositionalism is just assertion dressed up as argument. Since any worldview can use this method to "prove" itself, the method proves nothing.

The fact that we can replace "God" with "the cosmos," "Brahman," "unicorns," or anything else and get equally "valid" arguments shows that presuppositionalism is intellectually bankrupt.

Real philosophical progress happens through evidence, testing, and reasoning - not through circular assumptions that immunize beliefs from criticism.