Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

Thank you Illegalcombatant for that lovely website and the explanations. I would also like to thank Meatros for the advice. Now without further to do I will respond to this case. First I will look at my opponent's strong yet not backed up conjecture: "....if God isn't subject to logic then logic is not absolute." I would like to ask opponent to prove this to me for I do not believe it to be so. As I will explain later on in my argument, God is the creator of logic, and the creator is not subject to its creation, but the other way around. It seems like my opponent thinks that logic created God, but that is not true. I will explain this later in my argument as well. Next I will state my opponent's argument and analyze it. Then I will go ahead and state my argument. My opponent's argument: "..logic laws exist because they exist, yet according to the first premise of the TAG they are dependent on God for their existence." I would like to ask my opponent that if he does not think that logic depends on God for their existence to show valid proof for this. "logic laws exist because they exist" is not a valid argument. As I stated above this is circular reasoning. If my opponent insists on saying this, then I can also say God exist because He exists, and that would be a valid argument as well. "If logic is so absolute as stated in this argument, then God is subject to it, if God is not subject to it, then its not so absolute after all," Again I would like to ask for proof to this argument. If he cannot provide proof, then this argument is invalid. " if logic is different than God, then we have another uncaused eternal something that exists along side God, poly theism anyone ? if logic is the same as God, then God has been redefined." Not necessarily. My opponent is forgetting that the "classic theism" God created everything including time. There are at least 10 dimensions out in the universe (source:http://www.pbs.org...) and time is only 4th dimension. It takes more than just eternity to something a "god". If that was the case then the Universe could be a "god" since it existed since the beginning of time. Eternity is only one of the things needed in order to be a god. Judges, I ask you to look at my opponent's definition of God: "God = God of classical theism, All knowing, All powerful, All Good, Eternal, Un-created, Non-contingent, etc" As you can see my opponent himself laid out the definition of God saying eternity is only one requirement of being a god not the only one. And I do not see a contradiction that if God created logic that logic become a thing like god for God created time itself and all the other nine dimensions. "...if logic did not apply to God that means God could exist and not exist, and God could be God while at the same time not being God." While this is true, opponent still uses logic to try to reason why logic could has to apply to God. If logic does not apply to God that means that indeed God could exist and not exist as well as being God and not being God, this does not mean God is still not God and does not exist for "and" means both. Without logic it is fine to contradict each other. In other words the Law of Contradiction does not apply when something is not subject to logic. It is hard to understand because we are now getting away from using logic, and our brain cannot handle illogical things. Anyway my point is that we cannot explain God with logic for He is above logic and is not subjected to it, but we can prove his existence by looking at his work. That is all that the TAG is doing: looking at God's work, which is obviously logic. With all that said now I will provide my argument as well as reasons why it is true. First in order to prove the existence of God we look at the properties of logic. Keep in mind though, that this does not apply to God for he is above logic as I have proved above. 1. Logic is Absolute Law of Identity Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. This does not prove logic's existence as my opponent has used it because it is a property of logic not a proof of it, but it states that a rock is a rock. Law of Non-contradiction Something cannot both be true and false in the realms of logic. Law of Excluded middle Something is either true or false, there is no between. 2. Logical absolutes are true statements That which exist has attributes and a nature. Something cannot bring itself into existence. Truth is not self-contradictory. Therefore logical absolutes are absolutely true. 3.Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. Logical Absolutes are transcendent. 4. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space. They do not stop being true dependent on location. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time. They do not stop being true dependent on time. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be b/c of the previous point. 5.Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist. If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world. 6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature. 1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature. Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence. If they are conceptual by nature, then they depend on mind for their existence. 7.Thoughts reflect the mind A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind that created them. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God. Unless my opponent can have a better explanation for logical absolute, this argument remains valid. (Source: http://carm.org...) Thanks for reading.