With regard to Dillahunty and Slick, theism does provide an explanation for the origin or source of these things that naturalism currently lacks. Unfortunately, their explanation is not a very good one, as it leaves them open to charges of vacuity. If the laws of logic and morality are whatever God thinks they are, then they are both arbitrary and subjective. Theists try to circumvent this problem by suggesting that God possesses a nature that "just is" the correct one, but as I showed Chloroform recently, this doesn't eliminate the charge of arbitrariness and vacuity. The Euthyphro dilemma is in full force whether it's God's commands or his nature.
As to things like the laws of logic being reflections of empirical facts or merely descriptive, I'd have to disagree. The idea that 2 + 2 = 4 seems true in a way that is more than just a convention of language. The problem of abstracts is a tough one, and one that I see no easy answer for.
As to things like the laws of logic being reflections of empirical facts or merely descriptive, I'd have to disagree. The idea that 2 + 2 = 4 seems true in a way that is more than just a convention of language. The problem of abstracts is a tough one, and one that I see no easy answer for.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
