Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Ryft]

You asked a question before, and I realized that you had completely missed the concept I was trying to communicate. Probably my fault. You asked, "Who would make these observations if there were no such minds?" or something to that effect.

What you had said was, "These things are observations that would exist even if there were no transcendent minds" (Msg. 97). I was wondering if you were aware of the internal conflict in your statement, so I asked you a question to make you aware of that conflict; namely, "If there are no minds (transcendent or otherwise), then how are these things 'observations'?" (Msg. 104). In other words, "observation" implies mind. (1) If there are no minds, then nothing is observed. (2) If nothing is observed, then there are no observations. (3) Therefore, if there are no minds, then there are no observations. It is thus incoherent to say that x, y, and z are observations that would exist even if there were no minds.

If a square is hidden in some deep recess of the universe where it has never been seen ...

Never seen by whom? Is your scenario assuming God out of existence from the outset?

If it assumes God out of existence from the outset, then it is a scenario that does not address the Christian argument and leaves the reader wondering why it was presented. If it does not assume God out of existence from the outset, then it is a painfully incoherent scenario—for it suggests that an omnipresent God who sustains absolutely all of creation could somehow fail to observe something. I am willing to concede for the sake of argument that such abstract realities are mind-dependent, but then I would return your attention to the divine mind at the center of the very position you are attempting to engage. Indeed logical absolutes existed before human beings were around to comprehend them, which is due to the necessary being in whom they are grounded (and thus they exist in any conceivable universe).

Logical absolutes are simply descriptions of the way our universe appears to behave.

Incorrect. Logical absolutes are a-priori normatives, not a-posteriori descriptives; they are statements of what must be the case or cannot be the case, not what is or is not the case. For example, the law of non-contradiction states that X and not-X cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. Moreover, it expresses something that is definitionally impossible to observe; ergo, it is not a description of some observed behavior.

Again, this is the reason that logical absolutes are an insufficient proof of any gods existence.

That is because logical absolutes are unintelligible apart from God's existence. Disregarding the likes of Sarfati and Slick, presuppositional apologetics argues from God to logic, not the other way around.