Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. This post deals with your response to my post Sye's argument below.
Gosh this is getting all very complicated, what with others challenging you on the objectivity of logic, etc. But let's not lose sight of the original debate. It was about the "proof" you offer on your website for the existence of God.
OK, so to summarize:
My contention is that the argument on your website is not a “proof’ – certainly it does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You insist it is a “proof” and now add that it does establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
We have both previously set out the argument like so:
1. The existence of the laws of logic necessarily requires the existence of the Christian God
2. The laws of logic exist
Therefore: the Christian God exists
I point out that for an argument to provide such a proof, it must be more than just deductively valid. It must not, for example, contain any contentious and unargued-for premises.
Now the first premise is contentious and unargued-for. So this argument fails as a “proof”
Now of course I pointed out that you might supply supporting argument for (1). But no such argument is actually supplied in your presentation of your "proof". You simply assert:
"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."
Thus, as it stands, your argument fails as a proof.
True, you want, it seems, to now try to salvage your original “proof” by saying (1) is established “by the impossibility of the contrary”.
But that is not something you even attempted to establish in your original “proof” – the one I am criticizing. You merely asserted (1) without any supporting argument.
So, it obviously fails as a proof. Right?
[incidentally, I notice you are saying that not only is the argument deductively valid, its premise is also true. But of course even this is not enough to establish the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. You can’t just assert the first premise is true. Nor is it enough that it happen, as a matter of fact, to be true. Given the first premise is highly contentious, you need to demonstrate to your audience, beyond reasonable doubt, that it’s true. And that, in your website’s presentation of the “proof” you fail to do. You simply assert (1.)].
I will deal with your response to God and Logic (II) in a separate post. But, so far as I can see, the issue of whether or not your original argument, as presented on your website, proves beyond reasonable doubt that God exists, has now been resolved. It doesn't.