As it will be shown, there are several problems with the TAG.

I. The Laws of Logic

Christians often argue for the necessity of God, saying that it's just a fact that he exists and there's no real reason for his existence, he's just always been. I can actually accept this, because if there is a god, then it is possible that his existence is merely a simple fact. However, consider the contrast between this assertion by Christians and what they demand of atheists with the TAG. The entire point of the challenge rests on the assumption that the laws of logic are not a simple fact, they can't just 'be' without a reason for their being. This has not been conclusively proven by believers though, and indeed it seems a bit hypocritical of them to expect us to account for what they themselves cannot provide for their god.

Why would the laws of logic possibly be brute facts? Well, what prevents something from violating the laws of logic? What makes it so that all bachelors are unmarried men? The question seems a little misdirected, doesn't it? There is no mysterious force required to ensure that all bachelors are unmarried men. If you know what bachelors are, then you are instantly capable of knowing that they will all be men and will all be unmarried. So what of the suggestion of a married, female bachelor? There is nothing conspiring to make sure that doesn't happen, but the suggestion is a contradiction and it makes no sense because of how the words 'married' and 'female' are used in connection with 'bachelor'.

How can an atheist justify belief in the laws of logic? Christians love this question because they realize it's implications. To justify something will involve inference, which is a logical tool. Using logic to justify logic would, of course, be circular, and so Christians consider the 'evidential' justification to be God. It just seems evident to them that God exists and gives meaning to logic. This is no better than the God of the gaps argument though, since their inability to imagine another source that could give meaning to logic, does not mean that God is the only possible explanation.

II. Why Your God?

One of the most apparent mistakes of those who proclaim the TAG is that they attach their particular brand of God to an argument that is too vague to support a specific deity. The TAG contains nothing more than a statement on the possibility of a god's existence, and does not address whose god that may be. Of course, the argument is generally made by Christians, and so they tend to assume they've proven the existence of Yahweh/Jesus with the TAG. But how do Christians attempt to justify that their god alone can provide a grounding for logic, and the gods of other religions cannot? Why can't Allah, Brahman, or Zeus similarly account for the laws of logic?

Another problem with the TAG is that it does not even begin to explain how positing a god gives an account for the laws of logic. It is simply assumed that a supreme being could somehow provide a basis for logic. How exactly God does this is unanswered and rarely even speculated over. Is he outside/above the laws of logic, or is he actually susceptible to them? If God created logic, then it would mean there was some point at which contradictions could've been true, prior to the creation of logic. If he didn't create logic, then he is subject to it, which means that God is limited in his power.

If, however, God and logic are inseparable extensions of one another, that is something that really cannot be argued with, since it is an article of faith. Saying the equivalent of "God can do anything" is pointless to debate against, since it's so conveniently all-inclusive that no objection can be raised. This is the lowest form of argumentation believers can use, and once again, it assumes God exists and that he is as powerful as they believe him to be. In any case, unless one has exhaustive knowledge of God's 'plan', they cannot be certain that God will sustain the identity of entities. Since God has been known to perform miracles in the past, a Christian's ability to assert certainties about reality should always be accompanied by the reservation that A can simultaneously become non-A at any moment. According to the bible, God has quite a track record of violating the laws of logic, such as being an all-knowing deity that permits free will, not to mention the doctrine of Jesus being both fully God and fully man.

III. Existence & Consciousness

A big problem with the TAG is that it makes quite a jump from conceptual necessity to necessary existence. You might think about the world in a certain way that allows you to make sense of reality, yet that doesn't mean reality is exactly as your perception holds it to be. Even if the TAG could successfully demonstrate that one must believe in God's existence to make sense of reality and the laws of logic, it does not follow that God actually exists.

Furthermore, it is only by subscribing to a position which asserts the primacy of consciousness that one can escape the idea that our universe has come about through the action of non-rational forces. Logic, according to the TAG's proponents, cannot be grounded in anything that has no consciousness or is not a rational entity (if it could, then they would have to concede that logic could come about naturally, with no divine intervention). But the primacy of consciousness is ultimately trumped by the primacy of existence. Since any consciousness has to exist, we must conclude that existence supercedes consciousness. And so this means that all things, even gods, are contingent on non-rational forces.

The TAG is faulty on so many levels, but it is sadly just obfuscatory enough to give some people a hard time in recognizing its weaknesses and then proceeding to refute it. As it generally goes with anyone attempting to prove the existence of God, no flaws will be confessed to in the argument and no matter how many times you might correct a person and point out the errors, they will talk in circles until you give up and they can have their self-proclaimed victory.

What can account for the laws of logic apart from God? We don't know, and we don't even know that they need any accounting for. Strangely, some Christians will take this admission as a win for their side, while simultaneously feeling no obligation to explain exactly how it is that their god supposedly does account for the laws of logic. In the TAG, Christians are trying to imply that the very methods and tools which atheists use to criticize religion are owed to God. It's pretty amusing how rife with error apologetic arguments are, given that logic is thought to be a gift of their god. This should come as no real surprise though, since (as I've said in numerous other articles) religion and faith are irrational by definition.