When The laws of logic are ontologically dependent upon a mind [i.e God].  Couldn't God just change his mind and hence the laws of logic and make a cat be both a cat and not a cat?

No, because they are reflection of God's character and nature.  God cannot change his own character.

Why can't he change his character? If he can't than there must be something external to him that prevents him from doing so. He does after all, according to you, create the laws of logic, so if it is illogical for him to change his character, then there must be some external law of logic!!

If we are trying to prove the existence of God, you cannot define him as 'necessary' since that is assuming what you are required to prove.

The Laws of Logic are a description of the implications of the coherent nature of the World, such that there are identifiable entities ( => Law of Identity), which can be distinguished from the rest of reality ( A does not overlap that which is not A, the Law of NonContradiction ).

You need to prove (2) - that is really at the core of this 'debate'.

The Laws of Logic do not change in any Universe in which distinct entities can be identified, since that is all they depend on.

The concept of Logic is a mental process - the real-world order it describes is not.

EDIT: Your own wording actually acknowledged this distinction:

Precisely - applying the laws of logic is a mental process, this does not entail that logic itself is purely in the mind. (Thanks to Magus in the commentary thread for pointing this out).

As I said in the other thread, this argument just boils down to asserting that order cannot exist in the Universe without a God.

There is an actual difference between constraint and metaphysical impossibility.  For example, if I wanted to fly, I would be constrained by the fact that I do not have wings and my body is too heavy for me to get into the air by flapping my arms.  However, an expert in the field could begin to tell you what would have to happen in order for me to be able to fly.  By contrast, you would not say that I am constrained from being able to draw a squared circle.  That is not a constraint.  That is a metaphysical impossibility.  You could not even begin to tell me how such a thing would be possible because such a thing is not even conceivable.  To be constrained means that something is theoretically possible but unattainable due to external factors.  This does not apply here.

God is not constrained.  He simply has a nature through which he operates consistently.   He does not choose his nature anymore than you choose to be a human being. 

Just because someone is consistent does not mean that they are constrained.  For example, you could theoretically have a human being who is so ethical that you could know with 100% certainty that he will do what is right.  Is this person constrained by his character or does he merely act in a way that is consistent by virtue of his character?  This isn't a perfect analogy, but I hope it is helpful in understanding how God can be both consistent and unconstrained.

Okay.  What is the nature of the "reality" which you claim they describe? Can you please explain a possible world where a cat could be a non-cat?  If you cannot, then you have to concede that a mind exists in every possible world because by your own admission, the laws of logic are dependent on minds.  Furthermore, you'll have to concede that they cannot be dependent upon human minds because there are possible worlds where human beings, since we are contingent, could not have existed. 

If God changed his nature so as to no longer fit the previous definition, that is NOT illogical or contradictory, unless the definition is restricted to beings that cannot do that.

The laws of logic are 'eternal' because they are essentially pre-requistes for anything to be definable, God or anything else.

Man devised the definition of God - it can only be descriptive of something that would be so intrinsically beyond our comprehension.

An actual knowable definition of God can only be of the form of "a sentient being [assumed to be] responsible for the existence of the Universe and Man".

His 'nature' would only be something to be observed or perhaps experienced, not 'defined', unless you want to distinguish this particular God from other conceivable entities. 

Even if you can show logically that any specific attribute must necessarily follow from the basic definition, that still does not justify including them in the definition. The definition should be restricted to those attributes required to distinguish 'God' from other conceivable entities.

There is no logical requirement that an entity capable of creating our universe, or even the wider reality beyond our Universe, would necessarily have any omni powers, or be what we would understand or mean by the word 'good'. Enormous power, yes, but infinite is not logically necessary.

You seem to be restricting your definition so that it only refers to some particular concept of 'God'.

A God of such ultimately simplicity is utterly inconsistent with everything we know about consciousness, sentience, or physical entities capable of purposive action. It seems that the concept of the 'mind of God' is problematic - it cannot be a mind as we experience it.

Such a God as you refer to actually seems to reduce to a constant 'law' of existence, and as such I would actually be almost comfortable with it. In fact many Philosophers a century or so back seemed to use 'God' as a label for some ultimate abstract principle determining the existence of 'order'. It is the idea of it possessing a mind and some form of consciousness that I have a big problem with - that does not seem to follow logically.

(209 words in previous post - 362 in this one. Sorry, they together exceed your 500 word limit...)

Then 'necessary' should not be part of the definition, even if you are sure that it follows as an inevitable implication of the definition.

All 'possible' worlds which could be described as 'worlds'. A square cannot be a circle in any universe because their definitions cannot logically apply to the same concept.

You are still conflating the Laws with what they refer to, or describe. In your own words, yes the application of the laws to analysing statements and relationships requires a mind. When expressed as principles, they are of the mind. Of course we 'think' them.

Words referring to objects out there in reality are of our mind, we think them. That does not make those objects' actual existence dependent on a mind capable of conceptualizing them.

I have just realized you may be using the word 'application' to refer to 'something' forcing reality to conform to those laws. That is the old concept that sees natural Laws as analogous to the Laws of our society, something decided by an authority and imposed upon society.

Whereas the Laws of Physics, the Law of gravity, indeed the Laws of logic are using the word differently, to refer to a description, or formulation, of some observed aspect of reality that seems properly fundamental, in that it can typically be described by some relatively simple and rigorous mathematical equation or logical expression.

To an extent you are right, they are derived from experience and observation of reality, like virtually any other concepts in formal discourse.

The so-called 'problem of induction' applies to every area of discourse, every formal system, as Göedel showed - no non-trivial formal system can be proved to be complete or fully consistent.

The axioms of logic are as fundamental as we can imagine, and the theorems of logic derived from them necessarily describe anything conforming to those axioms.

If we cannot assume that any identifiable discrete entity will remain identifiably itself for the time it takes to discuss it, we cannot apply logical arguments that depend on that assumption with respect to that object. This also applies to more abstract arguments - if a proposition or definition used in an argument somehow changes during the argument, the logic does not work.

For every physical object (A) that we can distinguish in some way from the rest of reality (not A), the law of non-contradiction demonstrably applies.

For other observations, it merely means that what we have identified as a coherent object is maybe just a transient pattern.

We can apply logical arguments only to propositions that conform with the 'Laws of Logic', ie that refer to objects or relationships or concepts that are 'well-formed', or coherently defined.

Quantum phenomena may require a modified framework. We can still apply the law of non-contradiction there, since two or more (possibly superimposed) states are still distinguishable in themselves, and we cannot actually observe an entity in a superimposed state. Whenever a quantum entity interacts with the macro world, its quantum state collapses. Even if we could somehow observe it in a 'state' of multiple 'states', that state of non-collapse is still itself a 'state', distinguishable itself from the other simpler states, which in themselves are mutually distinguishable.

Introducing 'God' into this discourse is gratuitous and unhelpful.

Sorry.  That is what I am positing God to be.  I'm not going to change the definition. 

There are possible worlds that cannot be described as "worlds"???  So there are possible worlds which are not worlds?

A square cannot be a circle in any case because that is a logical contradiction and logical contradictions are impossible. 

The laws of logic do not describe anything.  They are a priori, not a posteriori.  A priori principles are those which are justified in themselves and not in experience.  A posteriori presupposes a possible universe where objects could be such a way that the law would not apply and you need to demonstrate to me how that is possible.  That codification process is possible only if we have pre-awareness of some sort of contrary, yet we cannot even begin to conceive of what a world of contradictory things would be. 

Once again, the laws of logic are not given to us in sense experience.  You cannot point to one thing in reality which allows a law of logic to be given.  An object conforming to the law of identity is not a physical behavior of the object that we observe and codify into some scientific theory.  Codification requires us to already be able to use logic.  The laws of logic exist IN A MIND.  There is no alternative here.

There are no possible worlds where the laws of logic are simply descriptions of reality as that would merely be redefining their ontological nature and ignoring the fact that truth exists beyond what you are redefining in that world as the "Laws of logic". 

No.  Applying logic is what we are doing right now.  You are making inferences and using reason, that is, deferring to standards and guidelines in order to assess whether or not the person is making any sense.

What's a "non-trivial formal system"? 

You still have not explained how a world could be such that the laws of logic do not apply.  You are either saying that the laws of logic are simply what we have observed to work up until this point but there may be a world where they do not apply... or you are saying that the laws of logic are based on properties of reality that exist in every possible world.  In both cases, you are just making blind assertions.  How could they not apply and what are these properties of reality that give us the laws of logic?  Either way, you have not accounted for logic.  You simply asserted that they "just are".  You are basically going into nothingness to defend your position.

On the contrary, it is the only thing that can account for their application in all places at all times, as well as their conceptual reality. 

I've cut out most of everything else you've written because I think this gets to the crux of your argument.  You are arguing that external reality, the reality that exists outside of us, has certain properties which are themselves essential.  These properties exist in ALL possible worlds and they account for the fact that the laws of logic apply in any given situation.  Although they may begin with the observation, they are thus justified in the essential attributes of reality, making them into synthetic a priori judgments (see Kant).

Here are my objections:

(A) You give absolutely no account of what these properties are.  You merely posit that reality has some thing from which we derive non-contradiction.  We cannot point to it, articulate it, say anything about it-- but it is there.  If you cannot give me at least a partial account of their ontological nature, then how can you tell me that they exist or that we can even apply them?  Until you can, it is just a non-explanation.  It is not much different than saying, "There are worlds where contradictions are possible.  I cannot tell you how, but they are possible.  Science may one day discover a contradiction", which is how many atheists object to TAG.  This is not a response.

(B) It is really saying nothing more than that the laws of logic are invented by people, because we are the ones codifying those essential properties of reality into a formal system.  Yet if you are not going to give an account of the ontological nature of such properties, then how can you possibly argue that all humans are going to codify it in the same way?  Human minds are different and what one person believes is logical may differ from what someone else believes is logical.  Since you've given no account of the ontological nature of the external frame of reference, we have no real basis for saying that one person is right and another person is wrong.

You are applying the application of a priori principles (i.e. Bayes Theorem, LNC, modus ponens, etc.) to those of a posteriori principles (i.e. the speed of light, gravitational pull, etc.)  This is a mistake.

Nothingness does not exist as a putative state of affairs and therefore is not a proper candidate of a "possible world".

Okay.  We are not getting anywhere here, so I think we can wrap up this debate.  This will be my closing post.  Our final posts have no word limit.

I think it is pretty clear that Bob Spence cannot account logic.  He cannot account for its universal application and he is thus unable to adequately account for the very reason that he champions himself on applying.

Bob accounts for the universal applicability of logic by saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of the essential properties of reality.  When I asked him to articulate what these properties were, he stated that they are the distinctions between objects.  Bob then claimed that ~A is an ATTRIBUTE of everything that is not A. 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-dog in a cat? 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-God in a human?

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-Bob Spence in Fortunate Son?

I certainly have not.  If you ever find out where my "not Bob Spence-ness" is located, please let me know. 

Aside from making the assertion that we somehow have NEGATIVE PROPERTIES within us, he also asserts that these magically observable negative properties are FUNDAMENTAL and thus a priori.  His basis for this?  We have yet to invent an alternative.  Interesting.  I've read lots of philosophy and I've never encountered any epistemologist who states that we justify a priori claims in that manner.  Then Bob literally goes on to contradict this by saying the following: "If we somehow did find a part of the Universe that doesn't display such characteristics, then it means we would need different tools to analyse such a region."  So Bob ADMITS right here that he is asserting the a posteriority of the laws of logic, insofar that they are contingent upon empirical observation and potentially falsifiable, though he cannot even begin to say how they can be falsified much like he cannot explain the nature of these fundamental properties within the universe. 

But then he really shoots himself in the foot by stating that the laws of logic are a product of EVOLUTION.  If we are simply evolved to think logically, then there is absolutely NO reason to trust logic.  Logic would simply be a product of external physical factors which necessitated that we think a certain way.  Moreover, all minds are different.  How can we trust that what one person thinks is logical as opposed to someone who thinks differently?  Bob basically trivializes the fundamental basis for all of discourse by reducing it to a product of physical events.  So not only do we have fundamental properties that we cannot even point to or articulate, we are also necessitated to think a certain way due to the wiring of our brains over time.  Perhaps we are necessitated by our brains to believe that what is illogical is really logical, and the "fundamental properties" of the universe are irrelevant.

Notice that Bob's fundamental properties only apply to the law of non-contradiction.  Let me ask you, Bob:  From where in the universe do we derive modus ponens, DeMorgan's theorem, universal instantiation, or any other axioms of logic which have the same nature as the law of non-contradiction?  How do the distinctions between objects account for the law of excluded middle?  Or are you going to make some other bizarre interpolation into the universe in order to say that we can somehow derive it? 

I don't expect any atheists here to declare me the winner.  That's okay.  I'm not here to win the hearts of atheists.  At the very least, I'm the winner by default over Cpt_Pineapple (or whatever his name is) since he did not even show up.  And since Bob defends his position with nothingness, I do not need reinforcement from onlookers. 

For good measure, Bob contradictions himself at the end by saying that "Not space" has no real meaning even though he conceded earlier that all objects contain what they are not as an attribute, which would mean that whatever empty space was not would be included as an attribute.

Have a nice day.

Okay.  We are not getting anywhere here, so I think we can wrap up this debate.  This will be my closing post.  Our final posts have no word limit.

I think it is pretty clear that Bob Spence cannot account logic.  He cannot account for its universal application and he is thus unable to adequately account for the very reason that he champions himself on applying.

Bob accounts for the universal applicability of logic by saying that the laws of logic are descriptions of the essential properties of reality.  When I asked him to articulate what these properties were, he stated that they are the distinctions between objects.  Bob then claimed that ~A is an ATTRIBUTE of everything that is not A. 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-dog in a cat? 

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-God in a human?

Has anyone actually observed the property of non-Bob Spence in Fortunate Son?

I certainly have not.  If you ever find out where my "not Bob Spence-ness" is located, please let me know. 

Aside from making the assertion that we somehow have NEGATIVE PROPERTIES within us, he also asserts that these magically observable negative properties are FUNDAMENTAL and thus a priori.  His basis for this?  We have yet to invent an alternative.  Interesting.  I've read lots of philosophy and I've never encountered any epistemologist who states that we justify a priori claims in that manner.  Then Bob literally goes on to contradict this by saying the following: "If we somehow did find a part of the Universe that doesn't display such characteristics, then it means we would need different tools to analyse such a region."  So Bob ADMITS right here that he is asserting the a posteriority of the laws of logic, insofar that they are contingent upon empirical observation and potentially falsifiable, though he cannot even begin to say how they can be falsified much like he cannot explain the nature of these fundamental properties within the universe. 

But then he really shoots himself in the foot by stating that the laws of logic are a product of EVOLUTION.  If we are simply evolved to think logically, then there is absolutely NO reason to trust logic.  Logic would simply be a product of external physical factors which necessitated that we think a certain way.  Moreover, all minds are different.  How can we trust that what one person thinks is logical as opposed to someone who thinks differently?  Bob basically trivializes the fundamental basis for all of discourse by reducing it to a product of physical events.  So not only do we have fundamental properties that we cannot even point to or articulate, we are also necessitated to think a certain way due to the wiring of our brains over time.  Perhaps we are necessitated by our brains to believe that what is illogical is really logical, and the "fundamental properties" of the universe are irrelevant.

Notice that Bob's fundamental properties only apply to the law of non-contradiction.  Let me ask you, Bob:  From where in the universe do we derive modus ponens, DeMorgan's theorem, universal instantiation, or any other axioms of logic which have the same nature as the law of non-contradiction?  How do the distinctions between objects account for the law of excluded middle?  Or are you going to make some other bizarre interpolation into the universe in order to say that we can somehow derive it? 

I don't expect any atheists here to declare me the winner.  That's okay.  I'm not here to win the hearts of atheists.  At the very least, I'm the winner by default over Cpt_Pineapple (or whatever his name is) since he did not even show up.  And since Bob defends his position with nothingness, I do not need reinforcement from onlookers. 

For good measure, Bob contradictions himself at the end by saying that "Not space" has no real meaning even though he conceded earlier that all objects contain what they are not as an attribute, which would mean that whatever empty space was not would be included as an attribute.

Have a nice day.

When I go outside on a sunny day, I can SEE that it is not raining.

"Not possessing property A" IS an attribute of an object which does not have that attribute. The very fact that you cannot locate the missing attribute on or in the object proves that the object does not possess the attribute. D'uh...

Just like shortness is lack of height...

I did not say the Laws of Logic are a product of Evolution. I said our particular codification of them is.

You do not understand deductive systems, like logic. All those other theorems are logical deductions from the primary axioms, which are

the Law of Identity: ( A = A ),

and the Law of non-contradiction: not (A and not A), ie A and its contradiction cannot both be true.

The law of excluded middle is frequently also included as an axiom, that a proposition has to be either TRUE or FALSE, but this is the subject of dispute whether this should be given the status of a Law, in that it is really a given if we are restricting ourselves to binary logic.

"Modus ponens" etc are derived from those axioms. That's how deductive systems such as Logic and Math work.

I did not concede that objects "contain" the negation of attributes they do not possess. They simply lack that attribute. We can usually observe directly, or detect in some way, that they do in fact lack some attribute. That is all that is required. In general, it may be more difficult, depending on the nature of the object and the particular property.

I'm outta the debate

adios