Now the only argument for an absolute God that holds water is a transcendental argument.
The acronym “TAG” refers to what apologists call the “transcendental argument for God’s existence.” So it is intended to denote a specific argument. Broadly speaking, an argument is the attempt to infer a conclusion from a set of premises. But there’s a significant problem here, and it’s insurmountable:
Do the premises of this argument assume the truth of the point in question – namely the assertion that the Christian god exists?
If no, then the argument itself performatively concedes that its premises make sense independently of the presupposition that the Christian god exists, a situation which contradicts the very thrust of presuppositionalism – namely that one cannot make sense of anything without presupposing the Christian god.
So, logically, the whole edifice of presuppositionalism collapses in self-defeat.
Of course, presuppositionalists will cry foul here, accusing me of not understanding the nature of a “transcendental argument,” as if a type of “reasoning” (I use this term quite broadly here) should be considered automatically immune to the types of problems I’ve detected above simply because one slaps the label ‘transcendental’ on it. Such objections only serve to mask the presuppositionalists’ fundamental problem: their lack of an objective starting point. If they had an objective starting point, they would not busy themselves with promoting some “argument” by which their starting point is supposedly inferred. An objective starting point is not something that one needs to infer in the first place. That presuppositionalists would even think that they need to establish their (alleged) starting point by means of argument, is simply an announcement to the world that whatever they think their starting point may be, it is far from objective.
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
by Dawson Bethrick