Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes.

CP1. 1. If one's to deny that logic is absolute, truth can't be known. How can one affirm that *anything* is true? This would include the claim that "logic is not absolute." We wouldn't even know that a married bachelor is nonsense. Truth *can* be known, and it is therefore more rational to believe that logic is absolute. 2. Take the following scenario: Jesus reveals himself in front of you and your friends and everybody gasps in awe. Then one of your friends points to Jesus and says, "Well it's possible that we are just brains in a vat, and some alien is controlling our brains and giving us the illusion that Jesus is here before us." You would immediately recognize that the person who said this is in denial because he doesn't want Christianity to be true. Saying that it's possible that logic is not absolute is worse than this because being a brain in a vat is *at least logically possible.* A violation of logic is *not logically possible.* Logic is what we use to reason. Are we going to dispose of it just to deny Christianity? 3. The only reason we know that there can be geometry beyond Euclidean geometry is because non-euclidean geometry is *logically coherent.* This is true of all things we have come to understand in science. No matter how inconceivable, they must follow the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded middle. Logic is a philosophical concept. It is not subject to change. While things can be so crazy and inconceivable, they must be logical. Why? Because if this crazy and inconceivable thing (A) violated the law of identity, and was (B), then (A) wouldn't be (A). But (A) *has* to be (A). We couldn't call it (A) if it wasn't (A). CP2. 1. I'm not "equivocating a description of logic through the laws of logic with the actual fundamental logical truths." The laws of logic are *themselves descriptions* of reality. If the laws of logic are not descriptions of reality, then they are metaphysical objects. I have already argued in my opening argument why metaphysical objects do not work. 2. Take this example. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" It does not make a sound unless there is a mind to perceive that sound. Sound waves are different from sound itself. Sound is the perception of the sound waves. Or let's take the example of a girl. Let's say that we look at her, and she has the descriptive property of beauty. But how can she have beauty if there is no mind to see her? There can't be sound or beauty without""mind. My point was that in the same way, there can't be logic without mind. CP3. 1. TANG fails because God doesn't create logic. Logic is a reflection of God's nature (a part of who God is). 2. Contingent means existing only in some possible worlds. It is *not* the same word as dependent. Necessary means existing in all possible worlds. Take a necessarily existent running car. Because it exists in all possible worlds, the car body would exist in all possible worlds. The car body is not contingent, but is still dependent on gasoline in order to run. Both gasoline and the body are needed, and make a necessary running car.