'Knowledge' of Existence

[HitchSlap]

Did it change the laws that govern the universe? Did it destroy the universe?

Come again?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Come again?

What is it you don't understand Hitch?

 

[gaara4158]

No, saying the Laws of Logic are true is absolutely true and in no way like saying the rules of poker are true. For any truth to be known about reality, we must use the Laws of Logic as the absolute standard to do so. Statements about reality can be made only by using the standard of truth that the Laws of Logic bind us to.

They are true in the way that definitions are true: tautologically. Things are what they are, aren't what they aren't, and nothing is neither or both. This isn't information about reality, it is a framework for statements about reality. This framework originates within any mind that perceives reality as different categories of things. It need not have originated anywhere else.

That simply is false. It is a better solution that an intelligent rational being created the universe to reflect that intelligence. It is a better solution that this intelligent being provides the uniformity through the Laws that govern it and the Logic that allows our ability to connect reality to mind. The Laws of Logic are true and to say there is no meaning to claiming that is to deny everything you are claiming. You defeat your own position in doing so.

Ah, so you agree that the real issue that points to God's existence is the fact that we can use logical reasoning to make accurate statements about reality, not the fact that we use a framework for such statements. Excellent! Now we can discuss why you think that.

Yes, the Laws of Logic 'work' because they are the foundation that must be a priori before any thought can be determined to be true or false...even before a statement is made. If anything exists, they exist. Any possible world, even if no humans exist would still be bound by the Laws of Logic.

No, and this is the major mistake you're making. Worlds aren't bound by logic. Statements are. There is absolutely no limit to what forms reality can hypothetically take. There are only limits on how we can coherently describe those forms. Incoherent descriptions of reality amount to gibberish that can't represent any possible world not because of some divine imposition of limits, but because they're gibberish. Only logically coherent statements can be true, because only logically coherent statements are meaningful. Of course any possible world would be one that could be described in logically coherent terms. That's the definition of "possible!" You have all your work ahead of you if you're tying to fit God in there somewhere. Right now, your argument boils down to "A=A, that's undeniable, but it can't be justified without assuming it in the first place and that makes me uncomfortable, therefore God."

Truth is only known by mind. The Laws of Logic are true and are of the mind but would exist even if OUR MINDS didn't exist. The Laws of Logic are of the mind, they are immaterial. The Laws of Logic exist in any possible world. So if the Laws of Logic are truth and are of the mind and immaterial they still depend on mind to exist. We know they do not depend on HUMAN MINDS to exist, we are material and the Laws of Logic would still exist if we didn't. It is more reasonable to presuppose God is a necessary being and so these laws (the outflow of God’s necessarily perfect mind) must be necessary as well. It is a cohesive and coherent solution for reality's uniformity and Laws for God to exist.

No, you're confusing the map for the territory again. The laws of logic are a conceptual framework for the formation of coherent statements. Concepts only exist within minds. Without minds, concepts would not exist. Therefore, without minds, the laws of logic would not exist. That doesn't mean that the reality which those concepts represent would be any different, that just means concepts don't exist as entities unto themselves (unless you're a Platonist). Concepts aren't what shape reality, they are the tools with which we describe reality. We can imagine a possible world wherein no minds exist, but things still are what they are, aren't what they aren't, and nothing is neither or both. The fact that this is true for all possible worlds is, again, accounted for by the very definition of "possible." There is no need to invoke some all-encompassing Ubermind to preside over the whole thing. You have yet to justify the need to presuppose God is a "necessary" being.

What you are explaining while not understanding is that mind must exist for the Laws of Logic to exist. Which is true. This brings about what I said before: God is a necessary being and so these laws (the outflow of God’s necessarily perfect mind) must be necessary as well.

What you are failing to recognize is that you have a mind, and that is sufficient to justify the existence of the concepts that constitute the laws of logic. Do not sell yourself short. Your mind counts.

The Laws of Logic are necessarily true, if they were not we could not make rational determinations about reality at all.

Then they are not parts of reality, as I've been saying.

 

[HitchSlap]

What is it you don't understand Hitch?

I asked you a yes or no question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They are true in the way that definitions are true: tautologically. Things are what they are, aren't what they aren't, and nothing is neither or both. This isn't information about reality, it is a framework for statements about reality. This framework originates within any mind that perceives reality as different categories of things. It need not have originated anywhere else.

It perceives reality as different categories due to the Laws of Logic. If the Laws themselves were not the standard of truth, we could not know their were different categories. So you are saying that a rock is a rock, a rock is not a tree and nothing can be neither or both but that isn't information about reality? Where in reality is a rock not a rock? How can you deny that in reality? Please explain.

Ah, so you agree that the real issue that points to God's existence is the fact that we can use logical reasoning to make accurate statements about reality, not the fact that we use a framework for such statements. Excellent! Now we can discuss why you think that.

The real issue is that to make accurate statements about reality we can not not use the Laws of Logic to do so.

No, and this is the major mistake you're making. Worlds aren't bound by logic. Statements are. There is absolutely no limit to what forms reality can hypothetically take. There are only limits on how we can coherently describe those forms. Incoherent descriptions of reality amount to gibberish that can't represent any possible world not because of some divine imposition of limits, but because they're gibberish. Only logically coherent statements can be true, because only logically coherent statements are meaningful.

You are getting there. Reality doesn't make any information coherent, it takes the Laws of Logic to do so. Our reality is uniform and we can make coherent statements about it but only by using the Laws of Logic to do so. They are a priori to thought being rational at all.

Of course any possible world would be one that could be described in logically coherent terms. That's the definition of "possible!" You have all your work ahead of you if you're tying to fit God in there somewhere. Right now, your argument boils down to "A=A, that's undeniable, but it can't be justified without assuming it in the first place and that makes me uncomfortable, therefore God."

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, what a strange thing to say. If we didn't exist, would A = A? Of course it would but how? Only logic tells us that A = A. So where does the logic of A = A come from if we don't exist?

No, you're confusing the map for the territory again. The laws of logic are a conceptual framework for the formation of coherent statements. Concepts only exist within minds. Without minds, concepts would not exist. Therefore, without minds, the laws of logic would not exist. That doesn't mean that the reality which those concepts represent would be any different, that just means concepts don't exist as entities unto themselves (unless you're a Platonist).

You are right and wrong at the same time. Yes, the Laws of Logic are conceptual, Yes, without mind(s) they could not exist, but if our minds did not exist the Laws of Logic still do. A = A is still true, whether or not we are here to conceptualize it or not. Therefore, for the Laws of Logic to exist even if we do not, they require a mind. To even decide that A = A to begin with presupposes the Laws of Logic by deciding on their principles to determine the decision is a good one. What you are supposing is that the Laws of Logic are contingent on human minds and in doing so they could be different but that is not possible.

Concepts aren't what shape reality, they are the tools with which we describe reality. We can imagine a possible world wherein no minds exist, but things still are what they are, aren't what they aren't, and nothing is neither or both. The fact that this is true for all possible worlds is, again, accounted for by the very definition of "possible." There is no need to invoke some all-encompassing Ubermind to preside over the whole thing. You have yet to justify the need to presuppose God is a "necessary" being.

Tell me how we get true things (which the Laws of Logic)from reality which consists of atoms and molecules which are not true or false?

What you are failing to recognize is that you have a mind, and that is sufficient to justify the existence of the concepts that constitute the laws of logic. Do not sell yourself short. Your mind counts.

I'm not discounting minds. I am using it right now, along with the Laws of Logic.

Then they are not parts of reality, as I've been saying.

I didn't claim they were parts of reality, I am claiming they co-exist with reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

According to the laws of logic, should we expect this to happen?


And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Is it not logical that an Intelligent Being who created the universe has the ability to do such a thing and not change the Laws that govern the universe?

 

[HitchSlap]

Is it not logical that an Intelligent Being who created the universe has the ability to do such a thing and not change the Laws that govern the universe?

So, there have been in the past, and may be a time in the future, that the laws of logic may not apply?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, there have been in the past, and may be a time in the future, that the laws of logic may not apply?

How do the laws of logic not apply?

 

[gaara4158]

Hit send too early, disregard this post

 

[HitchSlap]

How do the laws of logic not apply?

Would the laws of logic allow for god preventing the sun from setting tomorrow?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Would the laws of logic allow for god preventing the sun from setting tomorrow?

Why would they not?

 

[gaara4158]

It perceives reality as different categories due to the Laws of Logic. If the Laws themselves were not the standard of truth, we could not know their were different categories. So you are saying that a rock is a rock, a rock is not a tree and nothing can be neither or both but that isn't information about reality? Where in reality is a rock not a rock? How can you deny that in reality? Please explain.

You can’t deny a tautology in reality. That doesn’t make logic a magic reality-bender, that means your tautology is coherent. A=A, for the umpteenth time, is an expression of how we label things, not how reality is obligated to behave.

The real issue is that to make accurate statements about reality we can not not use the Laws of Logic to do so.

That’s not an issue. It can’t be otherwise, by definition. Explain how it could.

You are getting there. Reality doesn't make any information coherent, it takes the Laws of Logic to do so. Our reality is uniform and we can make coherent statements about it but only by using the Laws of Logic to do so. They are a priori to thought being rational at all.

They are a priori to the concept of a priori. They are a priori to all concepts. It’s just the way our brains work.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, what a strange thing to say. If we didn't exist, would A = A? Of course it would but how? Only logic tells us that A = A. So where does the logic of A = A come from if we don't exist?

It makes you so uncomfortable you refuse to acknowledge it at all. I say again, it can't be justified without assuming it in the first place. This is a property of axioms, which the laws of logic are. They are self-evident to rational beings. If there are no rational beings, these axioms don't exist. There is no logic in such a world, but it is possible to describe such a world coherently from our world over here. There's nothing left to explain. No mystery. Your god just isn't necessary.

You are right and wrong at the same time. Yes, the Laws of Logic are conceptual, Yes, without mind(s) they could not exist, but if our minds did not exist the Laws of Logic still do. A = A is still true, whether or not we are here to conceptualize it or not. Therefore, for the Laws of Logic to exist even if we do not, they require a mind. To even decide that A = A to begin with presupposes the Laws of Logic by deciding on their principles to determine the decision is a good one. What you are supposing is that the Laws of Logic are contingent on human minds and in doing so they could be different but that is not possible.

No. You're just not understanding what the laws of logic actually are. You recognize that labels can't exist without anyone to apply them, but you're having trouble accepting that things would still be what they are without anyone to label them as such. The former is what the laws of logic refers to, and the latter is just a fact of this reality. In some possible world, reality really is shaped by the minds conceptualizing its elements. Some people believe that's this world. We call them solipsists. Technically we can't prove them wrong.

Tell me how we get true things (which the Laws of Logic)from reality which consists of atoms and molecules which are not true or false?

By running statements about them through an epistemology.

I'm not discounting minds. I am using it right now, along with the Laws of Logic.

So why invoke another mind?

 

[HitchSlap]

Why would they not?

Well, they wouldn't be "laws," then. We would have to call them the "most things are this way most of the time until they're not" guidelines.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can’t deny a tautology in reality. That doesn’t make logic a magic reality-bender, that means your tautology is coherent. A=A, for the umpteenth time, is an expression of how we label things, not how reality is obligated to behave.

First of all, I've never claimed that reality is obligated to behave. Logic is just a label that we have put on the existence of the objective truths that co-exist with reality. All existence is bound by it. You are mistaking the concepts or labels of things for those things. They are laws but you can't follow them, you can't can't follow them. They are not an option.

That’s not an issue. It can’t be otherwise, by definition. Explain how it could.

It can't be otherwise whether we define it or not. That is what you are missing.

They are a priori to the concept of a priori. They are a priori to all concepts. It’s just the way our brains work.

Our brains make no difference to the Laws of Logic. It still exists if there is existence of anything. They only cease to exist if existence itself does.

It makes you so uncomfortable you refuse to acknowledge it at all.

You are mistaken.

I say again, it can't be justified without assuming it in the first place. This is a property of axioms, which the laws of logic are. They are self-evident to rational beings. If there are no rational beings, these axioms don't exist. There is no logic in such a world, but it is possible to describe such a world coherently from our world over here. There's nothing left to explain. No mystery. Your god just isn't necessary.

The labels don't exist, but the Laws of Logic (a label we have attached to them)would still exist if any world exists. If a world exists then it doesn't not exist at the same time. That world is x and if x exists, then x doesn't not exist at the same time. It doesn't matter if we are here for the Laws of Logic to exist and to be true. You are thinking that if we are not in the world, the Laws of Logic are not and this is simply untrue. It doesn't matter if we could describe it from here or not. It would still be the way it is and can only be the way it is if there is existence. It is reasonable then to claim that If God exists, He can't can't not exist at the same time. As long as God is an eternal, immaterial, rational intelligent mind, the Laws of Logic exist.

No. You're just not understanding what the laws of logic actually are. You recognize that labels can't exist without anyone to apply them, but you're having trouble accepting that things would still be what they are without anyone to label them as such. The former is what the laws of logic refers to, and the latter is just a fact of this reality. In some possible world, reality really is shaped by the minds conceptualizing its elements. Some people believe that's this world. We call them solipsists. Technically we can't prove them wrong.

Well if this isn't ironic. We are somewhat saying the same thing. The Laws of Logic are not a fact(fact is probably not the word we need here) of this reality, they are a
fact of any reality. They co-exist. If something exists it can't by the nature of existence be anything but what it is. Existence is a world of rational mind, that mind is not the world itself but what co-exists its existence.

By running statements about them through an epistemology.

They are true whether or not we exist to do so.

So why invoke another mind?

Due to the fact that existence itself reflects that mind. We are not necessary for the truth of existence to be true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, they wouldn't be "laws," then. We would have to call them the "most things are this way most of the time until they're not" guidelines.

You haven't shown how this would defy logic?

 

[gaara4158]

First of all, I've never claimed that reality is obligated to behave. Logic is just a label that we have put on the existence of the objective truths that co-exist with reality. All existence is bound by it. You are mistaking the concepts or labels of things for those things. They are laws but you can't follow them, you can't can't follow them. They are not an option.

You're the one who's mixing the concepts or labels for the things that they refer to. Existence is not bound by logic. Descriptions are bound by logic. Yes, all meaningful descriptions of any possible world will be coherent. That's the same as saying all possible worlds are possible. Great. So?

It can't be otherwise whether we define it or not. That is what you are missing.

It can’t be otherwise because “it” is literally defined as “what is” so saying “it is what it is” is an absolute truism. You can’t have that without definitions. You can’t have any statement without definitions. And you can’t have definitions without logic. It’s circular. This is what an axiom looks like.

Our brains make no difference to the Laws of Logic. It still exists if there is existence of anything. They only cease to exist if existence itself does.

No they don’t. The laws of logic are conceptual, concepts only exist in minds, and so without minds there are no laws of logic. It is true that things would still be themselves in worlds without minds. That’s not because of the laws of logic existing in that world, it’s because of the laws of logic applying to my description in this one. There cannot be a world in which things aren’t themselves because that’s an incoherent concept. It’s the same reason there can’t be a world full of fushbdbf disosisjs didkueb. It’s nonsense. It doesn't mean anything.

Well if this isn't ironic. We are somewhat saying the same thing. The Laws of Logic are not a fact(fact is probably not the word we need here) of this reality, they are a
fact of any reality. They co-exist. If something exists it can't by the nature of existence be anything but what it is. Existence is a world of rational mind, that mind is not the world itself but what co-exists its existence.

You’re so close. The laws of logic aren’t facts about this reality, all realities, or any reality. They are facts about how realities are to be described. This isn't the same thing as the nature of existence. Your statement that existence is a world of rational mind makes very little sense here, it is a bare assertion and requires justification.

They are true whether or not we exist to do so.

Propositions are either true or not true. Objects are neither, because objects are not propositions. Propositions about an object's nature can be true without anyone to make the proposition, sure. It's not the proposition that exists, it's the object.

Due to the fact that existence itself reflects that mind. We are not necessary for the truth of existence to be true.

The fact of existence reflects only the mind of the one experiencing existence. That's you. This doesn't get you past Descarte's cogito ergo sum.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're the one who's mixing the concepts or labels for the things that they refer to. Existence is not bound by logic. Descriptions are bound by logic. Yes, all meaningful descriptions of any possible world will be coherent. That's the same as saying all possible worlds are possible. Great. So?

Everything that exists is bound by logic. Existence itself can't be separated from the Laws of Logic. Humankind's descriptions included. However, it is not because we are necessary for them but that they are necessary for us to describe anything at all.

It can’t be otherwise because “it” is literally defined as “what is” so saying “it is what it is” is an absolute truism. You can’t have that without definitions. You can’t have any statement without definitions. And you can’t have definitions without logic. It’s circular. This is what an axiom looks like.

Yes, we agree that what is is what is and it is an absolute truism. Things are what they are whether they are defined or not. What was true of this universe was true before we existed and would be if we didn't exist. This absolute truth can not be separated from existence. They can't be separated but they are not one in the same.

No they don’t.

So you believe that the absolute truth that existence exists and does not not exist would not be true if we were not here to define that statement?

The laws of logic are conceptual, concepts only exist in minds, and so without minds there are no laws of logic. It is true that things would still be themselves in worlds without minds. That’s not because of the laws of logic existing in that world, it’s because of the laws of logic applying to my description in this one. There cannot be a world in which things aren’t themselves because that’s an incoherent concept. It’s the same reason there can’t be a world full of fushbdbf disosisjs didkueb. It’s nonsense. It doesn't mean anything.

Yet, we still have the Laws of Logic that are absolute truths whether or not human minds exist. The Laws of Logic are necessary to existence, if anything exists they are necessary truths of that existence. If our minds didn't conceptualize the statement, "existence exists and does not not exist" does that mean that isn't absolutely true?

You’re so close. The laws of logic aren’t facts about this reality, all realities, or any reality. They are facts about how realities are to be described. This isn't the same thing as the nature of existence. Your statement that existence is a world of rational mind makes very little sense here, it is a bare assertion and requires justification.

The Laws of Logic are woven into existence. The Laws of Logic exist where ever something exists, logic is of the mind, the human mind didn't invent the absolute necessary truths of existence; yet mind is what the Laws of Logic need to exist. What is needed for existence as well as the absolute truth about truths (Laws of Logic)is a necessary rational, perfect mind and a Creator of a rational, law governed universe to make sense of reality at all.

Propositions are either true or not true. Objects are neither, because objects are not propositions. Propositions about an object's nature can be true without anyone to make the proposition, sure. It's not the proposition that exists, it's the object.

Our minds recognize that in any world, whether or not we as rational agents exist or not, that the Laws of Logic would exist. If OUR minds are not necessary, but mind is necessary, the best explanation is the Mind of God. God as the necessary piece to existence and mind itself.

The fact of existence reflects only the mind of the one experiencing existence. That's you. This doesn't get you past Descarte's cogito ergo sum.

See above. What Descartes had hoped was a grounding for scientific methodology and in his thinking, God was the reason behind reasoning due to God's perfection. Which in turn, if the universe is uniform and rational and we as humans are created to understand it, then science methodology can be utilized.

 

[gaara4158]

Everything that exists is bound by logic. Existence itself can't be separated from the Laws of Logic. Humankind's descriptions included. However, it is not because we are necessary for them but that they are necessary for us to describe anything at all.


Yes, we agree that what is is what is and it is an absolute truism. Things are what they are whether they are defined or not. What was true of this universe was true before we existed and would be if we didn't exist. This absolute truth can not be separated from existence. They can't be separated but they are not one in the same.


So you believe that the absolute truth that existence exists and does not not exist would not be true if we were not here to define that statement?

Yet, we still have the Laws of Logic that are absolute truths whether or not human minds exist. The Laws of Logic are necessary to existence, if anything exists they are necessary truths of that existence. If our minds didn't conceptualize the statement, "existence exists and does not not exist" does that mean that isn't absolutely true?


The Laws of Logic are woven into existence. The Laws of Logic exist where ever something exists, logic is of the mind, the human mind didn't invent the absolute necessary truths of existence; yet mind is what the Laws of Logic need to exist. What is needed for existence as well as the absolute truth about truths (Laws of Logic)is a necessary rational, perfect mind and a Creator of a rational, law governed universe to make sense of reality at all.


Our minds recognize that in any world, whether or not we as rational agents exist or not, that the Laws of Logic would exist. If OUR minds are not necessary, but mind is necessary, the best explanation is the Mind of God. God as the necessary piece to existence and mind itself.


See above. What Descartes had hoped was a grounding for scientific methodology and in his thinking, God was the reason behind reasoning due to God's perfection. Which in turn, if the universe is uniform and rational and we as humans are created to understand it, then science methodology can be utilized.

Ok, at this point we're just contradicting each other without establishing any new points of agreement. Instead of going back and forth in this way forever, as we've probably lost our entire audience and we certainly won't be convincing each other, I'm going to lay out what it is you need to demonstrate in order to get your "Logic exists, therefore God exists" argument off the ground.

So, we agree about what the laws of logic are and that they are real. What we disagree on is their grounding and their scope of influence. I believe they are fundamentally axiomatic and that they apply specifically to statements in terms of their coherence. You believe they are derived from the mind of God and are universally applicable not only to statements about reality but to reality itself.

1. You must demonstrate that the laws of logic can apply to things and not just statements.
2. You must demonstrate that all things are contingent upon the laws of logic while the laws of logic themselves are contingent upon a mind that isn't contingent upon the laws of logic.
3. You must demonstrate that that mind is the mind of the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[gaara4158]

Everything that exists is bound by logic. Existence itself can't be separated from the Laws of Logic. Humankind's descriptions included. However, it is not because we are necessary for them but that they are necessary for us to describe anything at all.


Yes, we agree that what is is what is and it is an absolute truism. Things are what they are whether they are defined or not. What was true of this universe was true before we existed and would be if we didn't exist. This absolute truth can not be separated from existence. They can't be separated but they are not one in the same.


So you believe that the absolute truth that existence exists and does not not exist would not be true if we were not here to define that statement?

Yet, we still have the Laws of Logic that are absolute truths whether or not human minds exist. The Laws of Logic are necessary to existence, if anything exists they are necessary truths of that existence. If our minds didn't conceptualize the statement, "existence exists and does not not exist" does that mean that isn't absolutely true?


The Laws of Logic are woven into existence. The Laws of Logic exist where ever something exists, logic is of the mind, the human mind didn't invent the absolute necessary truths of existence; yet mind is what the Laws of Logic need to exist. What is needed for existence as well as the absolute truth about truths (Laws of Logic)is a necessary rational, perfect mind and a Creator of a rational, law governed universe to make sense of reality at all.


Our minds recognize that in any world, whether or not we as rational agents exist or not, that the Laws of Logic would exist. If OUR minds are not necessary, but mind is necessary, the best explanation is the Mind of God. God as the necessary piece to existence and mind itself.


See above. What Descartes had hoped was a grounding for scientific methodology and in his thinking, God was the reason behind reasoning due to God's perfection. Which in turn, if the universe is uniform and rational and we as humans are created to understand it, then science methodology can be utilized.

Ok, at this point we're just contradicting each other without establishing any new points of agreement. Instead of going back and forth in this way forever, as we've probably lost our entire audience and we certainly won't be convincing each other, I'm going to lay out what it is you need to demonstrate in order to get your "Logic exists, therefore God exists" argument off the ground.

So, we agree about what the laws of logic are and that they are real. What we disagree on is their grounding and their scope of influence. I believe they are fundamentally axiomatic and that they apply specifically to statements in terms of their coherence. You believe they are derived from the mind of God and are universally applicable not only to statements about reality but to reality itself.

1. You must demonstrate that the laws of logic can apply to things and not just statements.
2. You must demonstrate that all things are contingent upon the laws of logic while the laws of logic themselves are contingent upon a mind that isn't contingent upon the laws of logic.
3. You must demonstrate that that mind is the mind of the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, at this point we're just contradicting each other without establishing any new points of agreement. Instead of going back and forth in this way forever, as we've probably lost our entire audience and we certainly won't be convincing each other, I'm going to lay out what it is you need to demonstrate in order to get your "Logic exists, therefore God exists" argument off the ground.

There still seems to be a few hundred views, so I don't think we have lost "the audience" if that is what you prefer to call them.
I haven't claimed that "logic exists, therefore God exists".
I think you haven't shown how the Laws of Logic still apply whether or not we humans exist or not.

So, we agree about what the laws of logic are and that they are real.

No, we don't agree. You think that the Laws of Logic are human descriptions of the facts of reality. Am I correct?
I don't agree, we know that the Laws of Logic still apply in every instance of existence, any possible world and they existed before humans were on the earth.

What we disagree on is their grounding and their scope of influence. I believe they are fundamentally axiomatic and that they apply specifically to statements in terms of their coherence. You believe they are derived from the mind of God and are universally applicable not only to statements about reality but to reality itself.

I believe that they co-exist with reality. I believe that whether or not we make statements about reality or not, the Laws of Logic still apply. They still apply even when human minds don't exist, because they are woven into existence. It is more reasonable to think that these universal abstract truths of truth originate from mind. Since our minds are not the mind that are required for the Laws of Logic, an eternal non-changing mind is necessary and that necessary mind is God.

1. You must demonstrate that the laws of logic can apply to things and not just statements.

Is truth only true if it is stated?

2. You must demonstrate that all things are contingent upon the laws of logic while the laws of logic themselves are contingent upon a mind that isn't contingent upon the laws of logic.

I haven't claimed that all things are contingent upon the Laws of Logic, I have said that existence and the Laws of Logic co-exist; that the Laws of Logic are woven into existence.

3. You must demonstrate that that mind is the mind of the Judeo-Christian God.

No, because my claim is that it is More reasonable and the best explanation for the Laws of Logic in the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview means the God of that worldview. I don't have to defend any other religion's theology.

Now you have to demonstrate:
1. How human minds connect or bridge the Laws of Logic to our minds.
2. How the Laws of Logic still apply to any possible world.
3. How abstract truth of truths are just definitions.
4. How all this and existence itself fits into your own worldview.