In order to even make an argument in the first place you have accept that there are prescriptive, universal, invariant laws of logic that apply. That's why it is incoherent for you to assume on one hand that the laws of logic can change and then on the other hand, you invoke them (assuming them as invariant) in order for me not to "get away" with some allegedly improper manner of argumentation, You have not yet answered this challenge regarding the inconsistency and arbitrariness of your reasoning.
The whole argument (which you deny is even an argument) is NOT that you do not use the laws of logic, it is that you cannot account for the laws of logic themselves on your premise.
People are free to disregard whatever they wish, just as I've disregarded a morality that is dependent on theism.
Well, except for your post #333 where you expressed a level of moral indignation rivaling that of any Bible Thumper, then yes.
Cordially,
Look, this has been a cute trick, but it's just not working. It's perfectly reasonable to say that we don't know all that is possible to know about logic and reason, and it's hubristic to think that we do.
And I can see what you're trying to do here, as you've unintentionally tipped your hand by basically cutting and pasting Greg Bahnsen's criticisms of Bertrand Russell's use of logic and tried to apply them to my arguments for a non-theistic morality.
The reason you're doing it is pretty straightforward.
For decades, or centuries, the theistic show-stopping question to non-theists has been "Where does you morality come from?"
Non-theists always hemmed and hawed, and reasonably so because it is an extremely difficult issue. But the question itself, "Where does your morality come from?" is altogether meaningless.
It doesn't "come from" anywhere in the sense that there's no central authority figuring it out and writing it down for us all to follow. Non-theists like myself have gotten better at answering the question, especially when you couple it with some push back against the theist, who very obviously does not get their morality from the Bible, which is in some cases more concerned with whether women wear hats in church than condemning slavery (remember, it's an Iron Age book, written by Iron Age men, using Iron Age morality). So guys like you and Bahnsen went a step further and said "OK, you have a model for morality, but it's dependent on logic. Where does you logic come from?"
No doubt once we answer that, you'll then ask, "Well where does reason come from?" Then we'll get into the infinite regression until I'm asking you "Where does God "come from", and you say, "He's eternal and uncaused", or some other such nonsense.
Understand this very clearly; answering any question about origins by saying "It comes from God" is entirely, completely, and totally meaningless. It doesn't mean anything more than that saying "Morality, knowledge, and logic come from Odin."
Totally, utterly, meaningless.
So I can confidently discuss these things knowing what your agenda is.
Bahnsen's arguments were specifically geared towards Bertrand Russell, and trying to shift the argument to the roots of logic is a non sequitur. You can't argue against this non-theistic model for morality by saying that it must exist only where one can accept that logic is unchanging. The fact that logic might change a million years into the future does not keep one from understanding and accepting it, no matter how many times you cut and past Greg Bahnsen quotes.