I enjoy Sudoku, but perhaps I’m not especially adept at it. On some of the more difficult puzzles, there comes a point where I have to make a guess as to what number fills a particular slot. Once I make that guess, I can proceed with the rest of the puzzle. If I have guessed incorrectly, eventually I start running into contradictions and I’ll know that my initial assumption was incorrect.
The same can be said for the presuppositional assertion that God is responsible for the laws of logic. While we might temporarily grant this assumption, it is not too difficult to identify several logical arguments against God’s existence, leaving us with a contradiction.
Once we’ve identified this contradiction, we are left with two options: either the initial assumption is incorrect or we have applied the rules (the laws of logic) incorrectly. Given the unlikelihood that an apologist will accept the former, they must resort to the latter. This brings us back to a need, on the part of the apologist, to address the arguments against the existence of God on their own merits.
From this short analysis, it should be clear that the presuppositional argument regarding the laws of logic is essentially worthless. It adds nothing of value to the conversation and only serves as an intentional distraction from an unwillingness to defend the existence of god on any logical grounds.