The Bible symbolizes the many ways mankind can err - it epitomises error, contradiction, and ancient ignorance.

Excellent! Thank you! Finally, a point we can discuss!

So, in what way is god required to make "yes" mean "yes," and "no" mean "no?"

Here you are very, very wrong. Logic and mathematics are based on exactly the same principles. There is the principle of identity, one of the very few axioms of both logic and mathematics. There is the principle of non-contradiction, which is related to identity. My philosophy 101 instructor summed them up in a single sentence: "A thing is a thing, and not some other thing."

This principle is exactly what is demonstrated in the mathematics identity of "1 + 1 =2". Your failure to grasp this point is the exact same failure in understanding that leads you to believe god is necessary for logic.

Then this is your failure. You forgo logic in place of feelings -- the feeling that the Bible is correct, the feeling that god exists.

Metaphysics is another word for, "The way some people think the world operates." Metaphysics itself does not necessitate any laws or rules whatsoever. Metaphysics is just this side of, "Making stuff up."

You have also provided another bald assertion with no logic or evidence: that there are metaphysical laws that are binding on all men and cannot be justified by only natural properties. Would you care to present even one of these non-natural, universally-binding laws?

My point is, unless you start from the assumption of god, logic does not lead you to god. You must first believe to believe. This is a hallmark of sloppy thinking, of poor rationalization. To consider this a logical support of the transcendent argument for god is ludicrous and circular. To claim it is an indictment of atheism is yet even more ludicrous.

No, you're engaging in a Logical Fallacy called "Begging the Conclusion".  But it's a very popular logical fallacy here, so you're forgiven.

Grrr.  I ask for the "Nice Jewish Lady" badge, and I get "Theist".

But, yeah.  Found the Christians!  Time to play!

Actually it's the perfect disguise...

Hehe. I was going to ask you, as someone who practices judaism, what you thought of christians essentially highjacking your scriptures. But then I got my answer

So I change my question to: why do you think they highjacked your scriptures? Why couldn't they just do what 2nd century christian theologian Marcion suggested and do away with the whole hebrew bible?

@Vastet

"Obviously that's true, but math cannot operate without logic. Thus, 1 + 1 = 2 is simply a demonstration that logic is and that it works."

Math cannot operate properly or be cogent without logic, thus logic is presupposed. Logic cannot operate properly or be cogent without God...

1+1=2 (putting math into practice) is simply a demonstration that logic is and that it works. This conversation putting logic into practice is simply a demonstration that God is and that He works.

@Sinphanius

"Indeed, I am expecting you to be logical..."

That proves that you accept logic as a universal law meaning that it applies to everyone regardless of whether they uphold your subjective conclusions or not. This is fallacious if you do not acknowledge God because the only other conclusion is that we came from primordial goop and if that is true then we could have potentially evolved different mental capacities, logic is not actually a binding standard, and we can agree to disagree on the use thereof... I could have a beneficial mutation that is aiding my understanding and making it better for all we know.

"After all, were logic universal, how could you ever stop being logical?"

You are misunderstanding the word universal... Universal health care would not force all people to get medical care, but would establish a system by which all people are governed by.

"Furthermore, if logic is universal, explain how there can be so many different branches of logic."

The better question may have been: 'Why do logicians not agree about all points of logic?'

My answer would be that this is a great reason not to trust the wisdom of men. Any system of logic is verifiably true, albeit using logic to do so would be begging the question... Their disagreements also presuppose a universal standard of logic which is just laughable.

@nigelTheBold

"So, in what way is god required to make "yes" mean "yes," and "no" mean "no?"

The question is why -must- yes mean yes and no mean no, and the answer as stated, is the nature of God... All other answers beg the question, rendering the Christian perspective the only logically tenable way to view reality.

"Here you are very, very wrong. Logic and mathematics are based on exactly the same principles. There is the principle of identity, one of the very few axioms of both logic and mathematics. There is the principle of non-contradiction, which is related to identity. My philosophy 101 instructor summed them up in a single sentence: "A thing is a thing, and not some other thing…”

C'mon nigel... logic and mathematics either violate the laws they are based on and have one identity or they are separate as I have stated, this is ironic given your zealous defense of identity.

"You have also provided another bald assertion with no logic or evidence: that there are metaphysical laws that are binding on all men and cannot be justified by only natural properties. Would you care to present even one of these non-natural, universally-binding laws?"

The law of excluded middle. If it's not metaphysical, tell me where I can find it and hold it in my hands. If it's not binding then retract your statements indicting me for allegedly not being logical.

"My point is, unless you start from the assumption of god, logic does not lead you to god."

I proceed from the Bible and conclude that the Bible is true; you proceed from reason and conclude that reason is true...

@FurryCatHerder

"I don't think that when Jesus supposedly claimed "I am the way, the truth and the light" that he meant "Truth" in the sense of a Boolean logic truth table.  Other than that, I can't imagine where Jesus made any reference to formal logic."

He said something more profound in my opinion, while praying to God the Father:

"Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth." - John 17:17

And then from the Psalmist:

"The sum of your word is truth..." - Psalm 119:160

I will be ignoring all attempts of you to divert my thread to off-topic arguments about Judaism... feel free to do that elsewhere and please stop tracking my posts just to argue with me, it's quite annoying. I would appreciate the efforts of others to do the same, thanks. I would love to talk about her misrepresentations, assumptions, and ignorance of the Christian faith, just someplace else, this thread is tough to keep up with as it is.

Take care,
 

No -- all other answers do not beg the question. "Begging the question" is a method of presenting an argument in which the desired conclusion is assumed in the phrasing of the question, such as, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Answers cannot beg the question, by definition. Also, here you present a false dichotomy. If one were to assume god, this still does not establish that god as the Christian god. It could simply be the deist god.

Then there's the question of special pleading. You declare the nature of reality cannot account for the principle of identity (a proposition you fail to support in any way other than saying the naturalistic answer begs the question, which is nonsense, as answers can't beg the question). Then you declare that god can account for logic, without establishing how god can do that, but nature cannot.

Uhm... I stated they are based on the same axioms. One could argue that mathematics and logic are different languages used to describe the same thing. Therefore, "2 + 2 = 4" is a mathematical formulation of a natural relationship. "You have two apples. John gives you two more. You now have four apples," could the the equivalent logical formulation of a concrete example of the same natural relationship. They are based on exactly the same principle: the principle of identity.

Can you hold any thoughts in your hands? No. Further, the law of the excluded middle is a direct result of identity relationships. It comes back to the naturalistic law of, "That which can be, can be. That which cannot, cannot." This simple tautology is based on the apparent necessity of each item in the universe to be distinct, and the relationships of those items must also be distinct. This is also another restatement of the axiom of identity.

"Metaphysics" is nothing more than a catch-all phrase for our attempts to explain the universe. There is no "metaphysics" distinct from these attempts. We attempt to explain why a thing is a thing, and can't be another thing, and it is the "law of the excluded middle." This law does not exist in itself. There is a naturalistic explanation: the universe has three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, and all things must exist within the confines of those dimensions without overlapping. (This excludes the potential dimensions that are tied up in the realm of the quantum, as those have not been established as fact.)

I believe that's what I've been saying. You assume the Bible is true to begin with. I assume nothing is true to begin with, and establish that which is true. One of these approaches begs the question. One does not.

Please note that you also assume reason to be true. The major difference in our approaches is that you assume another thing to be true (the existence of god). This is multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Earlier, I established the criteria by which you could support your argument. You chose to ignore those logical criteria, and proceed instead by presupposition and rhetoric. This has left your argument suffering from three very serious logical flaws: begging the question, false dichotomy, and special pleading. Until you formulate your argument in a way that avoids begging the question, you have no logical basis. Until you can establish there are only two possible choices (naturalism or the Christian god, rather than deism or Cthulu), you have no rational argument. Until you can demonstrate a contradiction in naturalistic logic, and further demonstrate how god does not suffer from this contradiction, you have no argument.

Until then, you are simply avoiding the apparently fatal flaws in your argument, and you have no argument. In fact, the longer you take to address these flaws, the more insurmountable they seem, and the less-likely your proposition appears. You are, in effect, supporting the naturalistic origin of logic by your inability to address these flaws.

Unique precodition = logical antecedant. You are arguing that a god is a logical necessity for logic. This is using logic to get logic, AKA question begging a logical no no.

Which is a false dichotomy. Why can't Allah provide the same things? Or the deist god? You have not ruled out other options; instead, you baldly assert that only the Christian god can provide logic and rationalism.

Aha! Here we have the crux of the problem. You appear to suffer the misapprehension that "natural" is only that which you can hold in your hand, or has mass or energy. It's a common mistake, and completely understandable.

Bring my 5cm. Bring me 5kg. (Not something that masses 5kg, but 5kg.) Bring me a 2, or a 1. (Here is a part of math that you cannot touch, unlike the apples.)

These things are relationships. They are properties. Nature is not just that which physically exists -- it is also the relationships between those things that exist, and the properties of those things. We assign an arbitrary measurement, something like 5cm. 5 centimeters doesn't exist in nature by itself. We have arbitrarily defined a unit length. However, you cannot deny that distance (and therefore length) exists as a property of the universe. You may say that distance cannot be natural, but you'd have to provide some logical argument. The three spatial dimensions, and the one dimension of time, seem to be inherent in the universe, and perfectly natural.

These relationships and properties are also natural. They are as much a part of nature as the quarks and leptons that make up the matter you can hold in your hand. Two particles exist independently of each other, yet also contain relationships: the relationship of distance, possibly of electromagnetic charge, or spin. Can you provide a reason these relationships are not natural?

I was wrong. Answers can be phrased such that they beg the question. That still doesn't let you off the hook for begging the question within the question itself.

Yes I can. I program computers. I interact with logic in a material sense every single day. So do you, sitting behind your computer and typing. What do you think drives it? Digital logic. So you can interact with logic in a material way, in exactly the same way you can interact with math. That's the entire point: logic and math represent real things. They both represent relationships between entities.

Intrinsic in your answer is the acknowledgment that math represents natural things. The declaration that logic does not represent real things in exactly the same way as math is demonstrably false (computers), and ignores the fact that both math and logic are merely abstracted languages we use to describe these real things.

Not really. Thoughts are relationships as well, in a way analogous to a computer program. (There are differences, to be sure, but there are also significant similarities.) A computer program requires a specific configuration of logic gates that change over time. If you could take a snapshot of the computer at any given moment (you can, actually), you could analyze the configuration of the logic gates and potentially predict what the next state will be. However, if the program relies on external input, you are limited in what you can predict, based solely on the snapshot of the logic gates. There are even programs that modify their programming based on input, and can "learn" new behaviors not specifically programmed into them. And all of this is predicated by the relationships between millions of logic gates.

Similarly, your thoughts are based entirely on the relationships between neuron activity. A neuron might be analogous to a logic gate (though far more complicated). However, a single neuron cannot hold an effective thought, just as a single logic gate cannot hold an effective program. If you could take a snapshot of the state of all the neurons in your head (we cannot do that at this time, of course), you might likely be able to predict the next state. Like the computer program, though, any external input will alter the next possible state, so it becomes essentially impossible to predict state for any length of time.

Now, don't believe the relationships between your neurons affects your thoughts? Let's try an experiment. Please volunteer to have the two hemispheres of your brain surgically separated (a procedure that is sometimes used to combat severe epilepsy, and was once used on the violently insane). Then we'll monitor you for changed behavior.

Don't like invasive surgery? Then let's try a less-severe test. Let's drop some acid together. Hell, let's just get drunk together, if you don't feel like breaking the law. We'll write down our thoughts during the experiment, and review those thoughts after we're done.

This is where you lose me. How is this a "law?" At least, how is it a law any more than the dimensionality of the universe is a law?

If my answer seems like a non-answer, it's because you seem to be asking a non-question. I honestly don't understand what you are suggesting here.

I think I see what you are saying. It seems to me that presupposing an active agent has far more altitude than presupposing consistency and coherency. What you are presupposing may give you the illusion of security, but the presupposition is massive. Far more massive than just assuming the universe exists, because we seem to be in a universe that exists.

All I have to assume is that something we both observe (the universe) provides the basis of rationality via its consistency and coherency. I have at least provided a referent, and a plausible source of logic. You have provided something that can't be observed, for which no other evidence exists, and still haven't explained how god can provide rationality and logic. If you claim that the nature of the universe (including the relationships between entities within the universe) can't fully explain logic, how can you possibly hope to explain how god explains logic? How does god explain logic? For that matter, why doesn't the universe, which we both presuppose, explain logic?

Hardly. The false dichotomy still exists. The special pleading still exists. The begging the question still exists. You have not provided a reason why logic isn't inherent in the universe in the same way that matter and energy and the relationships between them all is inherent in the universe.

The most obvious is your blithe assertion that the Christian god is the correct god and the only god that can explain logic. Yet the deist god seems more sensible, more parsimonious. Especially since the Christian god is often illogical, as described in the Bible.

Which of these properties are necessary and sufficient to account for logic? Most of what you attribute to the Christian god has nothing at all to do with logic, and presents a non sequitur. Which of these attributes explains how the Christian god accounts for logic?

What are these "laws" to which you keep referring? You speak as if the relationships and interactions of natural entities are somehow distinct from the relationships and processes themselves. It appears as if you are claiming that god is necessary for a thrown ball to describe a parabola, or for the north pole of one magnet to be attracted to the south pole of another magnet, or to maintain the stars in their courses.

How can you physically handle math? The thrown ball describes a parabola, but you can't hold that parabola. It is no more "physical" than the ideas you and I are discussing right now. By the same token, logic gates are physical embodiments of logic, and are very physical. Why did you clip that bit of my response? It fully illustrates how logic is every bit as physical as mathematics, and mathematics is every bit as conceptual as logic.

Ah! I see. You are fully a dualist. I almost asked, just to clarify. Just to clarify, do you think that "you" exist somewhere else, and your brain is simply a receiver for that "you?" What is the logical justification for this?

Are you suggesting a Platonic ideal of logic? Now that you explain it like that, I fully see that might be the case, and I should've picked up on it sooner. If not, I'm even more confused than before.

Further, you believe that gravity is somehow supernatural? Or that there is a Platonic ideal of gravity?

I am also responsible for the miscommunication. Platonic idealism is... quaint. I didn't realize it was the lynchpin of your argument. Perhaps if you call it out explicitly when presenting your argument, you might avoid this issue in the future. Explaining your philosophic bent does help.

An omnipotent god is directly contradictory to a cohesive epistemology. How can you know the nature of anything, if any mystery can be answered with, "God did it?"

If Christians had a seamless epistemology, there would not be so many schisms, and dunking vs. sprinkling would not have formed so many splinter churches. Christians can't even agree on such simple matters as the factual basis of evolution or the morality of same-sex marriage. How can you claim logicians grant Christianity a seamless epistemology, when the evidence quite plainly demonstrates Christians can't agree on any matter of truth?

And you enter into special pleading when you claim that god is somehow outside that infinite regress.

We started out our conversation with a discussion of induction. Popper effectively destroyed the problems of induction by showing that we never use induction, at least not in the form dismantled by Hume. (Hume was very close to discovering Popper's insight, as demonstrated by his admission that induction was necessary, and effective.) All Popper demonstrated was that we assign probabilities to truth values based on observation. The only way to attain certainty is to demonstrate that something is logically impossible. Scientists don't test hypotheses by setting out to prove them; they test them by setting out to disprove them, and failing. (The testing process uses deduction to discern the nature of the test, of course.)

I think my biggest problem is simply this: you claim that logic is universal, but provide special exception to god. This short-circuiting of logic allows you to make any claim you desire, even those that are indefensible, simply by claiming "god did it." This is not the basis of a seamless epistemology, as near as I can tell by the rules of logic as I understand them.

For instance, the claim that we have been made in the "image of god" is an interesting claim, one which makes no rational sense. The knowledge that we are created in the image of god is even less rational, as you have to start assuming attributes of god that are impossible to discern using logic. For instance, logic dictates that if a god is necessary for logic, the only discernible trait this god must possess is to be the source of logic. Assuming it created the universe, the deistic god is the simplest and most parsimonious god.

It seems very much that you are not using logic to come to the conclusion of god; at the very least, I do not see the logic of the conclusion of your specific god.

Here is one more presupposition: that these "laws" are distinct from the relationships.

I suspect most naturalist monists (like me) assume the "laws" are a result of the nature of the relationships. For instance, the fact that light diminishes in intensity in relation to the square of the distance from the source is easily derived by the nature of three-dimensional space. (Same goes for gravity.) The fact that each object is distinct (the identity principle, the most important axiom in logic) is derived from the fact that two objects can't occupy the same space (which is itself a property of the universe).

With that supposition (which is based on the reality we can observe), your presuppositions become meaningless. The 'laws' are nothing but relationships, which are (as you stated above) perfectly natural.

and you can see that eXni's logical bedrock is god. No matter what he says, as long as it is in support of god, he overwhelms logic without becoming the sort of entertaining person

who doesn't agree that logic is binding. The lesson here, my friends, is that eXni is quite mad - a contention validated by the last sentence in his second riposte.

eX - you need a hot chocolate and a nice long sleep.

May god bless you with a single stream of independent thought generated by your own brain.

Your logical loops are driving me in circles.

You said, "the Christian God is the unique precondition for the laws of logic" yet here you said "We both start from logic. I get to God"

In one, you start with logic conclude a god, in the other, you presume a god and conclude logic. If it is one argument, then you are question begging. But if you start with a god, you cannot conclude logic without invoking logic. That's also question begging.

How does the Christian deity pass a logical internal critique? Read literally, the Bible does not reflect reality (the 7-day creation, for instance). Read as allegory, the Bible has as many meanings as the number of people interpreting the allegory. This does not include the internal inconsistencies, which require much mental gymnastics by Christian apologists to explain. Metaphysically, the Bible presents a muddle, rather than a clear picture.

Second, how does the deist god not pass a logical internal critique? The concept of universe-as-god is at least internally consistent.

Finally, you did not answer my question. I asked which attributes of the Christian god account for logic. The Bible says that god is reasonable. This claim seems to indicate that god follows reason, rather than accounting for reason. "God is logical" does not indicate how god accounts for logic; rather, it simply states that god follows logic, which indicates logic exists a priori, and does not rely on god. Quite the opposite. It seems that god relies on logic.

I'm sorry. I reckon I'm kinda dense when it comes to dualism, as it's never made sense to me. For instance, this analogy doesn't make the relationships clear.

The event of winning the lottery does not rely on the concept of winning the lottery. One might conceivably purchase a lottery ticket without once imagining actually winning the lottery. (Say, the ticket is purchased by an autistic person who is mimicking their friends, but is incapable of understanding what it is they are doing.)

The same seems to be true of natural relationships. The exist independently of any conception of them. And this is where my understanding of dualism stalls. Dualism seems to be an answer to a problem that simply doesn't exist.

It seems dualism is the lynchpin to your argument. For a monist like me, your arguments make no sense because they are based on what I consider a faulty foundation.

I don't want to equate math and logic. I want to relate math and logic. They both work because they are based on the same very simple axioms. One thing and another thing make two things for the exact same reason that one thing is not another thing.

In any case, your insistence that math is somehow physical, and logic is somehow not physical, is a non sequitur. It does not disprove my proposition that math and logic are based on the same axioms, in the same way that a hydrogen atom and a carbon atom are built from the same subatomic particles. Math and logic "work" because they represent the way reality "works."

Just to be clear, is your logical justification simply the Bible? That is, every statement in the Bible is true, and provides the logic upon which you base all your conclusions?

Thanks for the clarification. That helps, I think.

This still leaves unanswered the question of the natural or supernatural foundation of logic. Why does logic require a supernatural origin, but the mathematics of a parabola does not? I still fail to see why the foundations of logic cannot be strictly natural. From my naturalistic point of view, the answer seems to be, "Logic must be supernatural to rationalize god."

But the exact same thing can be said of Buddhists, or of Muslims, or of Hindus! You are arguing on one hand that all the other religions do not present a cohesive epistemology, and then on the other hand that Christianity does; but your only defense of that is simply that Christians all agree on the nature of god (which you don't) and who Jesus Christ is (which you do). By that rationale, all religions present a seamless epistemology.

In any case, it appears that Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all have different ideas of the nature of god.

How is Christianity falsifiable? Provide one falsifiable proposition from the Bible.

As an historic document, the Bible fails. Although the Bible describes some historical events, in many cases it incorrectly describes those events. Also, it describes events for which we should have historic documentation, but do not. Further, it describes some events that are historically impossible.

Wherever did I claim logic is not universal? I don't believe I did. I have asked you to defend the universality of logic, but that doesn't mean I believe logic isn't universal. I simply thought your answer would be illuminating.

I believe logic is universal, as it is derived from the nature of the universe. I'm just trying to understand your belief that logic requires god, rather than being derived from the natural properties of the universe.

As I (and others) have well-demonstrated, Christians do not have a seamless epistemology. Your belief that you have, while declaring other religious beliefs as illogical, is discordant with both logic and epistemology itself. It is a rather blatant case of special pleading.

As I have stated before, if Christians had a seamless epistemology, there would not be so many different and conflicting beliefs among Christians. That's what an epistemology is: the description of how you know things. If the only thing you can "know" from Christianity is that god exists and Jesus Christ can pay for your sins, you don't have an epistemology, as those two "known" things are necessary to be a Christian.

A seamless epistemology would result in agreement.

Precisely. And as I have demonstrated, logic can be derived from the nature of the universe. Logic is based on axioms that are simple manifestations of reality, such as "things that exist can exist," and, "things that cannot exist don't exist." Your arguments against this have amounted to an assertion that the Bible is true, with no supporting logic or evidence.

You are the one with a positive claim (logic requires god). It is up to you to establish this claim. So far, I have not seen a logical argument for this, let alone a convincing argument. If there was a logical reason that logic itself wasn't derived from the nature of the universe, you should be able to establish that without resorting to an assertion of the nature of god (which begs the question). You should be able to establish that independently of the assertion of god. Can you do this?

Here is the naturalistic explanation: rational sense (logic) is a conceptual representation of existing entities, and the relationships between those entities. It's really just that simple.

How is that ironic? We have evidence that light and gravity function the same way several billion light years away. (Nothing is 500 billion light years away. The universe seems to be only about 14 billion years old.) There is no reason to assume it doesn't operate the same way, and much evidence that it does. We can see billions of light years, which means we are peering into the past; and all our observations point to a consistent, coherent universe.

It's not at all a stretch to assume the nature of the universe is consistent. As we explore the quantum, pretty much every quantum hypothesis would necessitate universal consistency. So I account for the universality of logic by referring to the necessity of the consistent and coherent nature of reality.

My assumptions are well-founded, and based on modern observations and understanding. Yours are based on a book written by men quite a while ago, which has been demonstrated to be inconsistent with reality.

Given all this, I think your claim of philosophical superiority is a bit incorrect.

And thanks in return. I really do enjoy these discussions, even if we won't be able to come to accord. I find it productive to understand other people.

Looks like I get to declare not one, but two, victories in this topic.

"I have to use discretion with how I use my time, and you seem to have no intention on having a rational conversation."

Quite the contrary. We've been having as rational a conversation as you will allow, and my biblical knowledge can sustain.

"You are a self-proclaiming debate tactician... not that you've actually demonstrated that by any means, but you make it painfully obvious that you have no interest in meaningful conversation."

See above. Me telling Furry to butt out has nothing to do with our conversation. Regardless of my use of tactics, you have the capacity to breach them easily if you are right about god. But you haven't. And now you're just going to dodge my last posts entirely, only to go on and be defeated by others, until you realise that no matter what you say, you have to provide evidence that you're telling the truth before anyone here that isn't already a christian is going to believe you. And even most of them would argue against you.

I never said that.

Vastet: present your argument or stop talking.

True - I distilled it from your obfuscations.

Just as you define circular bat squeeze as "objective rational arguments".

You claim "When people talk about God violating logic, they are conceding He exists because God is a necessary precondition for logic"

When you are asked "How can an omnipotent being be necessary for logic?" you say "God is not omnipotent as he can only do what is logically possible."

When told that the logic had to come first because God couldn't be constrained by something that didn't exist, you return to "God is a necessary preconditon for logic".

So I was right. You can't respond and therefore you can't justify your belief.

1. From post 7 - this is you

"God is a necessary precondition for logic to function." You can't have a being that has logic as a part of its nature that doesn't act logically.

2. Ok, you say he so omnipotent that he willingly limited his omnipotence - so he's so omnipotent he violates omnipotence and renders it nonexistent?

Logic functions in a rational way by definition. It's not so much begging the question as simply agreeing on terminology. Okay, that's a little bit of sophistry, of course.

It seems you are agreeing with me. When you say "the laws that govern" are abstract, you are saying exactly what I said: they are our conception. Abstractions exist only in our minds, and are not separate entities. As such, these "laws that govern" are not properties of anything, but are rather our conception of entities and relationships that do exist.

Note that I am not saying these entities and relationships are natural, or supernatural. I'm just pointing out that we seem to agree that logic is a result of the properties of something, and is not itself a property. At that point, I claim that logic is a result of the properties of the universe. You claim it is a result of the properties of god.

The structure of the universe at the quantum level is consistent and coherent. Whether constructed of superstrings, quantum foam, causal dynamical simplexes, or loop quantum gravity spin networks, the universe is "made" entirely of quantum stuff. (Folks like Lee Smolin are trying to figure out exactly what that stuff is.) The entire universe is an expression of the properties of this quantum stuff. The finite possible states of the universe are constrained by those properties. This uniform composition of reality results in a universe that necessarily behaves consistently and coherently.

Now consider the prospect of an omnipotent god. As god would be outside the bounds of logic, there would be infinite potential states of the universe. God could, at any time, alter reality in any way. As an example, take any of the claimed miracles of the Bible. Those are all examples of the potential incoherencies and inconsistencies intrinsic to an omnipotent deity. This is a universe in which everything exists at the whim of a deity. The resulting epistemology is contingent not only upon our understanding of the universe, but upon the future actions of a god who, according to the Bible, does very unnatural things such as turning water into wine, parting seas, raining frogs, flooding the world with more water than exists on the world, impregnating virgins like Zues was so fond of doing, and so on. This is a universe in which absolute knowledge is impossible, and logic works only until the next miracle.

Given the option between attributing logic to the entities and relationships of a consistent and coherent natural universe, or to an omnipotent god that has demonstrated a lack of respect for consistency or coherency, I'll go with the natural universe.

ex,

From post #36

"I would be willing to say that God has willingly limited Himself to operating within the attribute He has that we reflect as logic"

As for God's nature precluding his sinning. perhaps.

It didn't preclude him from getting others to sin (Garden of Eden), lying and getting people to act on those lies (the death of Ahab) or allowing a person's life to be wrecked to win a bet (Job).

Don't take things too far out of context.  You can't validate logic directly with logic.  You can with observation, however.  Observation leads to reasoning.  Reasoning developed through evolution and the observation of logic in nature.  So of course, to you, I am wrong because evolution is wrong.  I've never observed god nor jesus, or most anything from the bible.  So I can criticize your faith claims, which you admit to being blind.