Via Twitter I happened upon one @JPLaughlin and we got to talking when I visited his blog.
He refers there to a couple of phone calls Matt Slick of CARM made to the Atheist Experience live call-in show a few years ago, which I reviewed here. I think these dialogues, while a bit redundant because of atheist Matt Dillahunty's refusal to advance the conversation and obtuse insistence on his mistaken naked assertion, are some of the best atheist-versus-presuppositionalist material out there in the .mp3-osphere, up there with the first Wilson-Barker debate, the Bahnsen-Stein debate, and the Manata-Barker debate.
Anyway, JP Laughlin is unsurprisingly sympathetic to the AthExp, but he gets some things wrong. You may read my question and his reply there, in which he invited me to post something more substantial on his blog.
It is a kind offer, but I think it's probably best that he post on his blog and I on mine, and we can inform each other of new posts and comments as the dialogue progresses.
Thanks for the answer.
It's interesting - Slick dominated that exchange with the AthExp b/c it became clear after the, I don't know, 8th repetition of Dillahunty's naked assertion about logical absolutes. Slick had him, and I'm not sure if Dillahunty knew it, but it's painfully obvious.
What's perhaps funnier is how the AthExp is so out of line with other atheism apologists. Who's right, and how can we know?
Now, a few other lines to respond to here:
Dillahunty gets Slick to admit that a god cannot make “A” into “not A” because it would be a logic contradiction he demonstrates that Slick’s god is subject to the laws of logic and, therefore, cannot be the author of them
That's not an admission that God can't make A into non-A. It's our position. This is kind of like saying "I got Slick to admit that Jesus died on a cross. LOL!!!"
Well, yes, quite so. Well done.
God is not, however, in submission to the laws of logic, and Slick never said that; it's your telescoping of what you want Slick to be saying. Rather, God always acts in accord with His nature and character, and He is logical. The universe operates in accord with the logical way He created it. So that's the answer.
Contrast that with the atheistic position, where the laws of logic somehow...arose...spontaneously...whereas nothing existed before. That's a little bit, ah, dubious.
The problem with this is that, if this god exists, while he cannot make something inconsistent with his nature, he can make humans who can lie.
Again, yes, so what?
You know, you're just one more in a long line of atheists who can't bring themselves to remember that the Bible teaches about the Fall of Man.
These humans that can lie, therefore, are inconsistent with this god’s nature.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, honestly. It's a pretty large category error.
Yes, God's creation is currently in some disarray; have you heard of something called "sin"?
If this were to be logically consistent, it would mean that Slick’s god could also make a square circle. This line of reasoning is self-refuting.
Sorry, but this is silly.
Now for your comment:
The short (and unsatisfying) answer to your question is…it depends. It depends on what you mean by both “concept” and “mind.”
It's not difficult. Concepts are ideas, subjects of thought.
Minds are intelligent entities capable of thought and reflection. So...your answer, please?
In brief, if there were no minds in the universe, for example, and the only thing existing was one thing we now signify “asteroid,” then the “logical absolutes” apply to it even in the absence of any minds to conceive the absolutes or perceive the “asteroid.”
W/o the ability to apply a logical statement to it, how do you know this is true?
We don't live in that universe.
Thanks for any reply whenever you may have time. I'm not big on time limits, as I understand what it's like to have a life outside the blogosphere.