I just read through the whole thread. Some of it was quite painful. But I'm glad I did. And this is still going on! Heheh. Now it's Spengbab time.

Hi, my name is Jason. And my world view is a bit of Objectivism, with knobs on. I speak only for myself. I can honestly agree to every stage of the argument on the proofthatgodexists.org site. Except the last step.

>How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic

Okay, here goes~
To be is to be something, to be self-identical. A is A, the rest follows from that. Non-contradiction flows from the fact of identity (A = A, so A isn't not A), and so on. 'Logical' and 'illogical' are adjectives that are properly applied to reasoning and ideas. A line of reasoning can break the law of non-contradiction. That makes it illogical. Logic is universal because existence is universal.

How do I know? I've seen it. I see (and hear and taste etc.) things in reality. Whatever they are, they're themselves. But... how do I know that fact is universal? Could it not happen, one day, that I encounter some rare and marvellous sort of thing that isn't itself? No. Never. For me to encounter such a thing it would have to be encounterable. Not not encounterable. This magic thing must be at least something. It must have an identity. Why not a self-contradictory identity, then? Consider the possibility of it being encounterable and not encounterable simultaneously. No, I don't have to consider thing because this is not a possibility. It's arbitrary nonsense. If anyone wishes to seriously put forward a case for this possibility... that would be interesting.

Eh.. that's enough for one post.