Logical Absolutes

[LadyForCamus]

So, if the contention is: why are these seemingly immutable facts about reality the way that they are or, “why is reality the way that it is?” then yes. I agree, the answer to that as far as we can tell is “we don’t know, and we may never know.” 

Sure, that seems reasonable. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's not an interesting question.

Where did I say it wasn’t?

[...] there needs to be something thing we’re referring to in order for that concept to be coherent, no? [...] 
Without a thing or things existing, there isn’t a fact of any thing to be able to know and then describe.

Yes, I think we're talking about how things behave in the existing world. It's hard to imagine any rules existing in a world where nothing existed, because rules are something, and therefore if there are rules there are something.

”Nothing existed” is logically contradictory, but that’s beside the point. I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the word “rules” here. I’d say descriptions of a world requires, first, a world; something to describe.

Are the laws of logic, math, and nature not somehow part of reality? I'm pretty sure they're real.

Yes. They refer to a material world that exists.
 

think you've shifted the thread topic from the existence of logical absolutes to the assertion that logical absolutes can't be solved by theism. So it's gone from a metaphysical argument about the relation of logical and mathematical rules to matter, to a more typical (for this forum) assertion that there certainly won't be an explanation that includes God.

I’m not shifting the thread topic at all. I’m following along with the flow of our specific dialogue. You clarified that when theists argue there is no grounding for the logical absolutes, what they mean is that we currently have no explanation for why our reality exists as it does. I conceded that fact. We don’t know. The second half of the theist claim is that their world view solves this problem, and I don’t think it does.