The word of God is a presuppositional logical fallacy using circular reasoning
The attempt to ground metaethics in divine revelation faces a foundational epistemic problem: the authority of God or scripture is often justified by appealing to that same authority. For example, scripture is treated as true because it is the word of God, while God’s authority is established through the testimony of scripture. This structure is circular because the conclusion—that divine revelation is authoritative—is embedded in the premises used to support it.
Moreover, because this justification depends on accepting the revelatory source at the outset, it offers no independently accessible basis for those who do not already share the relevant theological presuppositions. Presuppositionalism therefore does not establish divine authority through non-circular reasoning; rather, it assumes divine authority as a necessary precondition for its moral conclusions.
In other words it's a bunch of hooey.
Moreover, because this justification depends on accepting the revelatory source at the outset, it offers no independently accessible basis for those who do not already share the relevant theological presuppositions. Presuppositionalism therefore does not establish divine authority through non-circular reasoning; rather, it assumes divine authority as a necessary precondition for its moral conclusions.
In other words it's a bunch of hooey.
