I love religion!

[Purple Rabbit]

OK so objective truth is reality to you. Let's go through an excercise. Remember vividly what you had for dinner last night and the events that led up to it. Is that an objective truth? It happened there is no denying and your memory isn't faulty and it involves real observable objects and is duplicatable, verifiable by peer review, and describable.

Yes there is a way to deny these facts. Think of the brain in a jar scenario or think of implanted memory. Also from a long history of justice human memory is known to be a very unreliable source of information. The brain tends to fill gaps in the record with fabulation.

Please observe that it is entirely another matter whether denial of these 'facts' is useful or sensical. In most instances it is not.

Vividly remember an important aspect in your life from a few years ago, something you focused some will on. You remember it well and are adament that you're remembering it correctly, however thoughts/ memories when subject to time lose their objectivity as they lose the focus of will.

Yes, memory is not perfect.

I think a lot of atheists are under the impression that theists have this one moment where God makes sense and all our belief is based off tha one moment.

I find it irrelevant to this discussion what you think what atheists might think. If you have a question for me on what I am thinking, please say so.

God and the spirit is a continuing evolution and revelation focusing our will on every second of every day keeping as much objectivity on perception as possible.

To call it really objective you should be able to trace your thoughts down to its very roots, meaning to the level where you can precisely account how (as an example) your adrenaline level influenced your judgement. This is clearly impossible. Your thoughts are therefore subjective, they have no absolute basis you can give a detailed account of. To strive for as much objectivity as possible starts with acknowledging the fact that thought is a subjective account of reality.

I don't think "raw objective truth" is observable directly. That doesn't mean you can't derive truths from your direct or indirect observations. If you friend says he just came from dropping the kids off. You may observe that the toilet paper stuck to his shoe lends evidence to his claim and indirectly assert his truth. It is unlikely that he spent the time trying to decieve you and supported it by attacing toilet paper to his shoe.

The truths you arrive at are tentative truths, new information might disqualify the tentative truths you arrive at. For instance when you later learn that your friend has no kids the shadow of doubt is cast. Of course I agree that tentative truths are not worthless by default. Science is build on tentative truths and it has done quite well IMHO.

I agree that just because something is thought doesn't necessarily mean it's part of reality. Personal reality though, "you world", is made up of those that affect your life and the observations of your surroundings and your thoughts on those is as objective as we can achieve.

"as objective as we can achieve" sounds like subjective to me, but I agree that it might suffice in many cases.

The concept of the world as it is is just as "pie in the sky" as God. You assert that you can know what the real world is as I assert I can know what God is, from what we observe in our personal world and rationally and logically extrapolate and test theories based on that.

I do not assert what you attribute to me. I have a Kantian stance: absolute reality (or the Noumenon as Kant would say) is not knowable to us. I do assert that the tentative truths of science are the best around based on the criterion what gives the most accurate description and best predictions of the phenomena we perceive.

We all have "direct access to reality" and extrapolate what general reality is based off of our personal reality. I as a theist have access to "objective truth regarding God" and extrapolate a global idea of God based off of my personal truths revealed by God. The first is just objectively tangible and the second is objective informational.

You have shown nothing of the kind. Rather you in the above have given ample account of the fact that all your perception and thought is as relative as mine. It is closer to reality to acknowledge this fact than to redefine objective in the way you do.

Answers to your questions:
1) is logic dependent on a basic set of rules that do not follow from logic itself?
examples Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.
Law of Non-Contradiction: Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time, in the same way, and in the same sense. I don't see these as based off human thinking. They are and are not subject to mutual agreement. Laws of logic are not the result of observable behavior of object or actions like the laws of physics. Laws of logic are not descriptions of action, but of truth. I don't know where they came from from your perspective so I propose the same perspective.

Firstly, the LoI and the LoNC are assumptions for which there is no proof. They are axioms, statements that form the basis of traditional logic on assuming their truth and validity in reality.
Secondly, to build rigorous logic you also need the Law of Excluded Middle. An alternative for this axiom would be allowing for multiple values. Indeed a rigorous quantum logic can be build from this alternative quantum logic.

2) does logic apply to reality? Certainly if it's a part of science, physics, defining characteristics. We draw usefull conclusions from it. A fire is fire. We use reason to assert that fire is hit. Cause and affect teaches if fire is hot, it can burn us. You first must define using logic, but yes I think it's apllicable to reality.

Logic consists of truth statements, i.e. thought which is fundamentally subjective. The truth statements thought up do not necessarily hold in nature. There is no deductional proof that says that logic should hold in reality. Science is besides deductional reasoning (i.e. logic) also based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is partly based on assumption as shown in the Problem of Induction.