Well, barely understanding logic is not his only problem. It took four times to ask him the same question that required nothing more than a simple yes or no. The angels dancing on the head of the pin in his mind were Jakevellian. Last I checked, he still hadn't answered the question.
Don't hold your breath.
It seems to me that you raise three profound concerns:
1. The proscriptive-descriptive dichotomy of the various forms of logic: the distinction between the proscriptive axioms of logic and the descriptive application of these axioms to the substance of the cosmological order outside of the realm of logic. By the way, thus far, in my posts, when I talk about these things being absolute and universal, I'm talking about the constraints of human cognition within the realm of logic.
Here I'm speaking more broadly to the various kinds of logic: the classic laws of thought and expression (syllogistic), the laws of propositional logic (mathematical/symbolic), the laws of inference and the logic of first order predicate.
I actually understand that, which is why I don't jump on your comments and try to force you to apply them to the real universe.
2. The origin of logic?
3. The free will-omniscient dichotomy (in theological terms, the problem of evil).
Number 3 is the most daunting.
I actually debated that in seminary, and managed to convince the audience that omniscience doesn't mean what they think it does.
I'd be willing to take a stab at these if you like, but in small bits for obvious reasons. LOL!
I am not nearly as confused as I appear to be in this thread. I am deliberately not taking a position on a lot of things in order to not get forced into defending myself from all the people who came here only to attack the beliefs of others. The free will/omniscient paradox actually exists only if we assume that the universe is pre deterministic, which is not really supported in the Bible.
The only logical absolute that we can be certain of is that we have so little knowledge compared to all the knowledge there is to be had, that our logic and understanding will always be limited by what we can know, reason, discern, envision now at this time. And that 100 years from now it will be highly probable that much of what we accept as probable truth now will be shown to be quite different than what we now perceive.
Though from your exchange with Justin it appears that you don't actually think what QW's saying about logic is right, but this is important. And we need to be clear.
On the face of it, relative to what QW's asserting, the emboldened is all wrong, Fox. Horrifically wrong. And this goes to the next level of realization regarding what the transcendental argument demonstrates, which I might as well get to now.
QW proves this idea is false in his very assertions. He necessarily presupposes that the claim in the major premise of the transcendental argument, for example, is true: the concomitant axiom that the laws of thought are absolutely and universally binding. That is to say, he necessarily presupposes that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are universally binding in order to make the very distinctions he's making about phenomena outside of our minds (see post
#1164).
My question? Why does
this have to be explained?
If the properties and processes of the cosmological order are not synchronized with the mechanism by which we are able to coherently communicate with one another, understand one another, how in the world could we know that the cosmological order were actually up to something other than what it appears to be communicating to us as filtered through this very same mechanism?
We can't see things any other way. We can't make diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive propositions true at the same time, in the same way, within the same frame of reference.
We can't escape the cognitively binding apprehensions of the logical principle of identity.
What could possibly be the evidence for something that is contrary to what our minds could possibly perceive?
There is no such evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelming supports the axiom that the principle of identity is universally applicable.
QW's contention is just wrong.
This mechanism is not man made. It's an inherent part of our nature. We're an inherent part of nature. The principle is an inherent part of all nature. There's no grounds whatsoever to assert as he does that we are hopelessly incapable of ascertaining the truth about the phenomenal realities of the cosmological order. We have been doing it for centuries with greater and greater accuracy as our store of knowledge has increased, and we will go on doing it with greater and greater accuracy for the same reason.
The transcendental argument cannot be falsified.
Any argument launched against it will necessarily presuppose the principle of identity, which strongly recommends that God must be; that is, an indivisible, immutable ground of universal Truth must exist. What platform within the divisible, mutable cosmological order could possibly account for this?
G.T.'s delusions of grandeur notwithstanding (posts
#1148 and
#1151), the major premise of the transcendental argument is not merely some curiosity that's eerily unassailable or a mere academic exercise in logic.
Justin is right to laugh at him. And by the way, being that it's logical proof is objectively and universally apparent, it
is demonstrable knowledge.
And allow me to further illustrate why it (like all other axiomatic truths) is demonstrable knowledge.
How do we know that Newtonian physics "break down"? How do we know that the theories of general and special relativity "break down"? How do we known that we have barely scratched the surface of quantum physics? How do we know, for specifically, that while the recycling cosmos theory eloquently accounts for the conservation of energy, but still doesn't resolve the matter of how time itself began in the first place, as someone on this thread got into his head somehow?
By the categorical distinctions of the universally applicable principle of identity, that's how! It obviously prevails at both the proscriptive and the descriptive levels of human apprehension.
Insofar as they work or hold up, insofar as they are understood: Newtonian physics, the general and special theories of relativity, and quantum physics
are logical.
Delta4Emabasy in
posts #1068 and
#1072 has the right of it. And while I disagree with his deterministic view, which is ultimately premised on the philosophical apriority of ontological naturalism,
dblack has the right of it when he asserts that any given person's view of the utility/limits of science is ultimately bottomed on that person's philosophy of science. Philosophy proceeds science. Science is contingent. And the nature of QW's assertions is philosophical,
not scientific.
What’s QW's error?
He's conflating our lack of knowledge with an imaginary breakdown of the absolute axiom of human cognition! This is the human in the gap fallacy.
What are we in search for? A unifying theory for everything, that's what. What are we lacking? The right thinking tool? No! We're lacking the knowledge that would resolve the apparent contradictions we recognize via a fully functional and universally applicable thinking tool. This thinking tool puts absolutely no limits are our ability to decipher the cosmos.
Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, Pasteur—all understood that the teachings of reveled religion and the inferences of scientific observation were not mutually exclusive, but mutually affirming sources of information about the same indivisible reality. They rightly held that divinity constituted the only guarantee that the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition were reliably synchronized with the apparent substances and mechanisms of empirical phenomena. —Rawlings
You mock yourself. Kant was just fooling around?. That makes sense. Not. 
