So I've been studying Presupp. apologetics recently and only just beginning to understand how transcendental arguments work. Bahnsen challenges the unbeliever to provide the preconditions necessary for things such as the uniformity of nature. An inability to provide this indicates that upholding the uniformity of nature is merely arbitrary since there is no valid reason to suppose that the future is like the past etc. In Bahnsen's debates, I've not seen any good responses to this from the non-believer. The only way I can think of is that they must necessarily appeal to an absolute, but would attempt to ensure that what they are describing is not God... Besides this, I would guess that the other alternative for the unbeliever is to simply state that preconditions are unnecessary and from there their worldview is shown to be relativistic (but inconsistent with how they think and behave). Are these two directions generally the outcomes of such questions? How might an unbeliever try to justify their assumptions about uniformity, logic and morality? This is certainly in-depth stuff for me but I see its usefulness in practise. There are so many who simply "trust in science" and it's useful to be able to challenge their own presuppositions. I look forward to your responses!