>>22513548>how did he even conceive that his 'X god' is the right one to use as the axiom for the transcendental argument?They just presuppose it.
Which means that their entire argument is circular. Assuming god exists, to then us it to prove that god exists.
They'll just say that it's virtuously circular, and then say that any circularity in your argument is viciously circular. They'll never give a good reason for this, it's just special pleading.
TAG is just a bullying technique, and not an actual serious attempt at proving their god's existence. It's just designed to get you to admit that you senses can be doubted, and then they just do the same circular argument that Descartes did 400 years ago.
It's the stupidest shit, but it's effective on people who don't know better, and are taking them as serious interlocutors. Which TAG presupposition arguments are, ironically, bad faith.
The way to deal with people who run TAG is to make them prove transcendentals exist, which they can't, so they'll dodge it. If they try to start with "Christianity is the only worldview that can account for knowledge(or morality, etc)", then just make them prove that all other worldviews can't, which they can't do either, so they'll dodge it. Which is why they're so hell bent on trying to get you to admit to anything, so they can dodge and get you to slowly admit that your senses can be mistaken. Just make them prove their burdens, and never let them advance their nonsense.
They'll eventually give up, because TAG isn't a serious engagement in philosophy.
