Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[The Grand Nudger]

Attempting to prove the existence of anything by positing an argument is "arguing x into existence" by definition (unless you have evidence?). You have a theory of X, great. Evidence?

I listed the fallacies in the CARM version of TAG (a common version of the argument, which we see often). You've studied this for five years, good, you must have a more refined TAG. Post it.

Regarding P (shortened a long word to avoid typing a billion times):

If I used the wording you began with in our conversation and simply changed God to L. Ron Hubbard you would be similarly unable to pick apart the argument.

"And how do we know that "The Bridge of Fire" is a credible source of information?"- Irrelevant question (your own tactics)

"And when his writings conflict with observed reality?"-Do they? You have misunderstood (your own tactics)

Rinse and repeat for absolutely any faith whatsoever....I could even make a faith up on the spot and leverage such a hefty P.

If you wish to use this argument you must also allow Scientologists to use this argument (and hilariously they do, see they have the internet too). Can both Scientology and Christianity be true? Your premise is in effect "God exists", it is therefore unsurprising that your conclusion is "God exists" It doesn't matter what steps you take in between Ryft, you don't really need any steps in between to be honest. That is the point of my comment about invalidating logic. If we allow arguments to contain fallacy, and if we allow such massive P (pregnant as you would say) any false statement can be proven true (such as a faith that a magical garden gnome just gave me on a magical notebook that I hold in my hands right now). Even worse, I'm sure you would lose your shit if materialists used your exact P and replaced God with Metaphysical Naturalism.

Back to TAG: The explanation of numbers assumes nothing. It merely states that these things are observations that would exist even if there were no transcendent minds. There may be such a mind, but using logical absolutes as proof of such a mind is bad practice for exactly those reasons stated. They do not REQUIRE such a mind. This invalidates the assumption that such a mind is the only explanation for the "preconditions of knowledge". Before you even ask, it isn't incumbent upon me to explain the preconditions of knowledge, I need only show that there is no requirement of God for this premise to be false.

But here I am arguing in the hypothetical, post your TAG. (Like I told you, interested observer..lol)

(Would probably make it's own epic thread if you wanted to start one.)