The Argument from Logic

I'd like to say, pop, it's been a lot of fun. I can see why I was referred to you as a strong theistic debater. Now let's wrap this up!Ultimately, I feel the debate comes down to two separate negations of the resolution:1) The Relationship between Thoughts and their ThinkersConsider the following two questions...1. "Do all thoughts require thinkers?"2. "Must all thinkers be physical?"As far as I'm concerned, and my opponent has offered little to no reason to think otherwise, both of the answers to these questions ought to be believed to be the same no matter how those answers are deduced, be them "Yes," "No," or "Indeterminable".My opponent's warrant for asserting the laws of logic (when assumed to be thoughts) must have a thinker was simply this in his second round: "Thoughts always need to be had by something. It would make no sense to say no one is thinking these thoughts."Sure, I guess. But that's more or less an opinion (what does or doesn't make sense to you). I could (and did) just as easily say "It would make no sense to say a non-physical thing can think thoughts".You provide a little more warrant for your position in your last round (round four). You say it is due to the very definition of "thought" that you assert all thoughts require thinkers. Okay, I can agree with that. In fact, it's the way I would defend the first premise of the classic logical argument:1. All humans are mortal.2. Socrates was a human.3. Therefore, Socrates was mortal.How do we know all men are mortal? Sure, every man we know of is mortal, but perhaps one day a man will be born who is immortal. Well, if such a being existed who was hominoid in form, but incapable of dying, I think it would naturally not fit in the definition of "human".So we can say, by definition, all thoughts require thinkers. However, this line of reasoning extends to the question "Must all thinkers be physical?" All life capable of thinking is physical; likewise, nothing non-physical is capable of thinking. If ever we were to somehow encounter something that appeared non-physical, but was capable of thinking, it would naturally not fit in the definition of "non-physical". You've said God is non-physical and as such would be incapable of thinking. 2) The Nature of Thoughts' ExistencesMy opponent defends what he said by saying it was a misunderstanding: "When I say that thoughts are privately accessible I mean that necessarily you can only be the one thinking your thoughts."Fair enough, but you've never actually addressed the main issue here: thoughts have existence in the minds of the ones thinking them, not in reality (unless you're a solipsist). This objection was raised multiple times and was nonchalantly waved off every time.Thinking about fish does not make fish appear. Thinking the building is three stories tall does not make the building three stories tall. And thinking the laws of logic does not make the laws of logic exist.Once again, if something appears to be a thought, but exists outside of the mind of the one thinking it, it naturally would notfall in the definition of a "thought," both biologically and philosophically. This is my reason for asserting the laws of logic are (what I like to call) "concepts"; however, I realize that it is here where linguistics play a vital role in being my semantical downfall, so I must explain more clearly. There were a few other words I tried to decide between: law (but of course, all laws require a law-maker, don't they?), rule (all rules require a referee, or some such nonsense I can already hear from my opponent), and so on and so forth."Concept" just seems to be the nicest term I could use (perhaps I should have gone with "axiom"? do all axioms require an axiom-maker, Pro?). Concepts do not require a conceptualizer to exist in reality, only to be understood and utilized. Thoughts cannot and do not exist in reality, by both the biological and philosophical natures of thought. By not being thoughts, the laws of logic do not require a thinker.ConclusionDue to both of the reasons outlined above, I feel my opponent's argument has been successfully refuted.Thank you very much, pop, for debating with me, and the audience for taking the time to read it! Please carefully consider both of our arguments and vote accordingly.