I referred to TAG as a form of “proof by verbosity.”
I guess I won't surprise anyone when I say I disagree. :-)
The concept is new to many, but it's not that complicated. Matt Slick lays it out in a fairly full form here, as you mentioned, but the main points are only 10 or so in number.
Besides, I'd be surprised if you reject modern accepted scientific theorems just b/c they're verbose.
If you want to go to a more populist version, check out proofthatgodexists.org.
And I have to admit, I'd like to see your answer to these, not just tendentious labeling.
Overall, I doubt many people are swayed from disbelief to belief by this argument.
As Matt Slick is fond of saying, proof is not the same as persuasion. What we're after is the glorification of the Lord Jesus and the evident refutation of the unbeliever. Until you offer something better than "hey, that argument uses a lot of words; ergo it is false" or "laws of logic are similar to laws of etiquette" in response, we've accomplished both.
"Matt Slick states that a god cannot make ‘A’ into ‘not A’”...admit, state, assert, whatever word works best, the point was about God being subject, or not, to the laws of logic.
Yes, and I explained that already.
It's not that He's subject to them. They are part of His attributes, like love, justice, holiness. All of His actions are loving, all are just, all are holy, all are logical. It makes no sense to say that God is "subject to holiness". It's just how He is.
I am saying that if God is subject to the laws of logic, then he cannot be their author.
And what I'm reminding you is that we don't claim God is the "author" of laws of logic.
Fall of Man
The point is that this demonstrates that God can create something that is inconsistent with his nature
Yes, He can create things that do not share all of His attributes. You know, some of His attributes are communicable and others are incommunicable. Still others of the communicable attributes are rejected by some of His creatures.
But the point here is that you're confusing categories, again. I've been telling you that He doesn't act in a way that's not commensurate with His nature, and creating stuff is completely commensurate. But those creations are not identical to God. They're not interchangeable.
This is something that Slick argues God cannot do.
No, he doesn't. I'd appreciate a direct quote from Slick to that effect.
Have I heard of sin? Your responses have been amicable and fair thus far, I’m not sure why you felt the need for condescension at this juncture.
I have to admit, it is difficult to take seriously someone who whiffs on one of the most foundational doctrines of Christianity while critiquing Christianity.
OK, now on to your defense of AthExp's statement that logic doesn't require a mind.
There are facts to be known about the universe. These facts can be described through reason and logic.
This is an assumption, which you have not shown to be true.
It's also quite telling that you yourself are a mind, and are trying to inform this issue through the expressions of a mind. Part of my refutation of your point is to remind you that you actually have no idea what a mind-less universe is like. You've never experienced it, never peeked into one. And of course, if you were to do so, then you'd remove the mind-less part of the equation. In this sense, it reflects Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Also, mind-less universes have to deal with the absurdities such as how it got to be there, the impossibility of an eternal universe vis-à-vis the impossibility of spontaneous self-creation. I don't envy you your task.
The laws of logic are “laws” for us, not for existence.
1) So they are both laws for existence and not laws for existence. Right?
2) What if I have a different idea of the laws of logic? Which of our ideas is right, and how can we know, how can we judge between them?
things in existence do not need a prescription to behave...they will behave as they behave whether or not the minds are present to observe them.
1) I'd call the laws of logic normative, actually.
2) Again, you've never observed anything like that. What is your argument for this statement? How do you know?
In this context, while the statement “a is a” is conceptual, what the statement applies to is not conceptual.
It sure sounds conceptual - it's an idea, isn't it?
How a thing behaves, or its features, requires no “other thing” (eg, a mind) for it to behave or to have those features.
How do you know?
The property of “roundness” does not need a mind to conceive it before things can be round, for example.
You just conceived of roundness and then told me that no mind is necessary to conceive of it. Convenient, isn't it?
Slick only “had him” in the sense that he got Dillahunty to accept the category error.
Actually, I don't think Dillahunty did accept it, if I recall correctly (but I might not be recalling it correctly).
My contention was that Dillahunty's "it's abstract, not conceptual" didn't hold water, for reasons I've been laying out here.