I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

JP, I believe your epistemoligical argument has now been refuted, as you've tried to provide a logical argument for moral and logical truth from an objective mind, but have yet to provide any evidence for this, and your argument been refuted in many ways, one of which my quote below demonstrates.

You are simply asserting your opinion without actually engaging my argument. First of all, the orthodox TAG does not rely upon any extrinsic evidence, because it is not an extrinsic-evidential argument, but one of the intrinsic logical coherence of foundational beliefs. Second, even my heterodox formulation of a transcendental argument, which bases itself on knowledge after the effect of the natural world, you have not even addressed or refuted with any of the contents of your post.

Your 'ideal' of "logical truth" can be likened to whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds or, as you have trivially changed it to "Is the theory of evolution true regardless of what human minds think about it's truth?."

No. You are repeating the same fallacious interpretation of my words that I have already answered to here

Whether or not the theory of evolution exists independently of subjective minds or,

I've never asked if the "theory of evolution" exists independently of human minds, but whether the truth of it does, that is, whether the conceptual content of it such as described in the theory actually conceptually applies to reality, exists independently of human minds or only exists in human minds.

This question of "Truth" is irrelevant, we are talking about a natural mindless mechanism. We cannot assign value-judgements (i.e. truth or falsity) to events outside of the human realm of existence. The very notion is illogical. You can quote the "principle" (not law) of non-contradiction, but again this only describes a function/property/mechanism of reality. You have demonstrated no need for an additional "Objective mind"

Again, you repeat your assertions without actually engaging my argument. Neither of my arguments are about explaining how humans have come to know logical truth, but about the reality and nature of logical order. My (heterodox transcendental) argument is about explaining why any logical rules, laws, patterns, behaviours, or order applies to the natural realm to begin with, and the orthodox transcendental argument is about whether the logical order is transcendent. But neither are about any specific logical laws.

Your entire second argument (the a posteriori) is based on a "first cause" argument. (which you have denied on more than one occasion - and as such, I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty).

Actually, it's not a first cause argument, but a transcendental source of actuality argument, which means that it doesn't depend on the idea of an unbroken causal chain in which all internal causes are traced to "one" first cause, as I've established several places.

And don't give me that shit about the FSM being made of physical spaghetti, so therefore is not transcendental, (which is a requirement of your god); - as we ALL know, the notion of FSM actually flying or being made out of spaghetti is purely metaphorical, and anyone who believes the literal truth of FSM is being narrow minded, and not acknowledging the true transcendental nature of FSM.

Right. Then I can only call you a heretic as to FSM doctrine, and at that, a tasteless heretic, because this metaphor has no significance, and does nothing (according to your own words) to diversify it's doctrinal content away from the transcendent, biblical doctrine of God that my arguments arrive at, and if it does, then it's not supported by any of my arguments.

With that, I've had enough of this thread. As I've previously said to you; I saw another atheist forum, which you infiltrated and spent many pages going round the same circular arguments. You were refuted and dismissed there, and exactly the same has happened here.

I was dismissed, but not refuted. And I was dismissed by you, but neither did you do anything to refute me.