When taken to the analytical end, what a Presuppositional Apologist is saying is that they suppose a god exists and those supposing otherwise are wrong merely because they say so; based on further supposing reason and logic are exactly what they are not. For to have objectively justified beliefs entails exactly objectively justified beliefs independent of other beliefs. So to say that if we begin by having objectively justified beliefs upon which more beliefs will emerge is not to say we presuppose belief rather than infer and build from justified beliefs. It is precisely to say “I suppose given all I do know, from all I am justified in thinking true, this new idea comes from it but is yet to likewise be justified.” And so, the Presuppositionalist merely fiats their case without justification at all in a very cavalier whimsy of what they would call “good reasoning” which no rational thinker could accept as reasoning at all, were they to think it all through. What is presupposed is that one wants to believe what is true, which is to not presume a single thing to start with so that inquiry is free from all other bias but the one. Presuppositionalism is then tantamount to saying that we simply take what we believe as true and the justification is that we want to believe it.