Reasoning like this kills me:
“Without God, x wouldn’t exist. x exists, therefore, God exists.”
First, this is called “Affirming The Consequent”. Second, it is “conclusory”. Third, it is “circular”.
Can we fix it up?
“x requires God, x, therefore, God.”
(What is x? Anything, including “cupcakes” … which brings the whole point to bear)
It’s got proper logical grammar now, but is still conclusory. ie:
“A car requires tires; there are tires, therefore, there is a car.” Or, “Tires require a car; there are tires, therefore, there is a car.”
This is the basis of all modern presuppositionalism and why epistemologists scratch their heads at this brand of “thinking”.
Pointed out, such an apologist will then likely commit a “tu quoque”, saying that “Well, science can’t justify itself without being circular or conclusory either!”
Actually, it sure can. The scientific method is not a proposition that asserts itself. It doesn’t lay any claim to how the world is. It lays claim to eliminating as much bias as possible, being as objective as possible in being transparent, tests repeatable, and theories using such a method, empirical, having tangible evidence justifying theory and not merely logic; logic unable to prove anything in reality at all anyway. Therefore, no, science is not “in the same boat as” god-talk because it is not circular nor dependent on leaps of faith or presupposition nor its conclusions dependent on sheer conjecture where there is no link between propositions and conclusions but mere say so, ie is not conclusory.
Be it Stobel, Turek, Hovind, Zachariah, Van Till, or a host of others, you cannot presuppose your way to God, nor would you in any other context presuppose an answer to any question you’d ask since we only ask questions because we do not know the answer in the first place.