Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes.

Argument I - Logical Absolutes My opponent's statement is completely incorrect. While the facts of logic are fundamental, the laws of logic are man-made. The laws of logic are descriptions of the facts of logic. And there's the fallacy of equivocation again - my opponent is equating the description of X with X. However, the two are most certainly next equal. Therefore, it is not the laws of logic are not what is universal and invariant. It is only the actual truth that is. It is the laws that are conceptual " not what these descriptions refer to, however. And again, facts are only dependent on the existence of reality, and not on a mind. When human thought came along, that is when the laws of logic were formulated because, again, it is the laws of logic that are conceptual. I've made this argument a number of times, and my opponent has not made a convincing argument against it. In conclusion to this, the facts of logic are only dependent on some sort of reality and the evolution of humans and philosophical intellect is what created the laws of logic to describe those facts. So yes, my examples of non-Euclidian geometry and geocentric universe are relevant because they are examples of how the laws of logic are relative, whereas fundamental truths, which, again, are only dependent on the existence of reality (however you define it), are the only things that are absolute. Argument II and III - Equivocation I've been over this a number of times, so I just have this to present: "It is true that the conceptual statement that 'A=A' cannot be photographed, frozen weighed or measured. It is an abstract. However the semantic statement refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and are material and are absolutely contingent on physical existence... The logical absolutes are not arbitrary prescriptive conceptual statements about what logic can and can't do. They are descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, on which the laws of formal logic are then based... If the universe did not exist, neither would the three logical absolutes as they would have nothing to apply to. If nothing existed there would be no A to equal A. The underpinning of the logical absolute statements are dependent on something existing. The logical absolutes themselves are simply a fundamental property of material existence."[1] So again, truths are only dependent on reality. Counter-Argument - TANG "A critical problem is that it is absolutely irrelevant to the materialist argument. The Christian is not addressing the fact that logic becomes subjective if God creates it, he is only specifying the nature of that subjectivity. So instead of presenting a rebuttal, he is in fact supporting it! Whether logic is part of God"s nature or not does not change the fact that it originates from a will, not from exterior reality - which is the very definition of subjective." Conclusion It is interesting to see my opponent ignore my very relevant conundrum. If he cannot account for God, why should I have to account for logical absolutes? Sources [1]: http://wiki.ironchariots.org... [2]: http://www.strongatheism.net...