I’m currently in a dialogue with a presuppositionalist and despite some progress at this moment I think I feel my mind melting away.
Presuppositionalists, for those who don’t know, say that the laws of logic and the consistency of nature are dependent on god. In fact in order to maintain absolute certainty they appeal to this being who can, in ways proponents can’t explain, ensure them with absolute certainty of the consistency of morality, nature and logic.
However how is this being to make itself known outside of these laws? Through the violation of the laws of nature. In other words they are claiming the best way to prove the absolute consistency of the laws of nature is through the violation of the laws of nature.
Imagine someone refusing to play a sport unless they could be guaranteed with absolute certainty that the referees never made mistakes and weren’t corrupt. Of course no person could ever give them that assurance so they simply appeal to an unknowable, and invisible, head referee who can assure them there will be no mistakes. They can’t explain how this head referee can assure them there will be no cheating, he just does and you have to believe them. After all, they say, it’s only through the existence of the head referee that there can be a game at all.
In truth, of course, some finite limit of certainty is the only game in town. Presuppositionalists just refuse to acknowledge they are playing the same game as everyone else.