>>362
Oh I missed this. Thanks for responding!

>The law of identity is not a given.

It is immediately perceptually evident. Pretty much self-evident. And a cool thing about it is it'd have to be true for anyone to even deny it.

>Certainly in what most non-theists consider a random universe

I do not believe in a 'random universe'. Some atheists do, I know; that's their problem, not mine.

>A could be B tommorow.

Yes, change is possible. That is not a violation of identity. B is still itself.

>These naturally do not necessarily follow, even so, universal knowledge is reserved for the Omniscient, and those to whom He has revealed knowledge.

1. Logic applies to reasoning about existence
2. No subject of reasoning is excluded from the realm of existence (real or fictional, as we can argue about hypothetical examples, fictional characters, etc)
3. Therefore, logic applies to all reasoning

Is this not valid?
I don't need to be omniscient to know that everything that is, is.

>Well, having read this thread, you would have seen at least one person posit that the laws of logic are NOT universal. (the rest have mostly been silent on the matter).

Not my view, not my problem.
------
>>364

>This is proven with transcendental logic, i.e. the impossibility of the contrary.

That is what I'm asking for support for.

>God is the necessaroy precondition for universal, abstract, invariant laws and the uniformity of nature by the imposibility of the contrary. I am here to refute contrary proposals, but as you see they are few and far between.

You can refute contrary positions till the cows come home. But that won't show that a valid contrary position is impossible.