Unfortunately the tendency Mitch has to advance irrelevant arguments continues in this post as well. Presuppositionalism is immune to the criticisms Mitch raises against it because, among other things, the majority position in presuppositionalism which I also adhere to does not involve the claim that logic is contingent as Mitch has stated in several of his arguments but rather that logic is necessary. Thus Mitch has allegedly advanced arguments against presuppositionalism that fall prey to the Straw Man Fallacy and may be submitting an entry to a philosophical journal which includes the same error. Mitch has responded to this charge by offering a series of irrelevant concerns about Properly Basic Belief, the Ontological Argument, Modal TAG, and other subjects that constitute little more than an instance of the Red Herring Fallacy. What adherents to a position state and what adherents to a position prove are different from each other. At the very least Mitch needs to properly represent the position he has spent three lengthy posts and an article submitted to a philosophical journal supposedly refuting.
Mitch thinks that I may be missing the point with his C1, C2, and C3, but the reader will recall that Mitch asserted a false proposition with respect to C1, C2, and C3 and they were shown to be incoherent.
While I never assumed or asserted that saying “that logic exists as a necessary abstraction is not the same as saying that it’s a thing”, Mitch does not believe that there is any contradiction between “logical principles exist as logically necessary abstractions” and “logic…is not an abstract object or entity”.
It was suggested that Mitch is unable to produce a satisfactory answer to the TAG and a TA in defense of TAG and that this may be the reason for the prolonged discussions concerning apologetic method. His silence “on the TAG as of late” is irrelevant to this comment made in passing, as I am referring to material Mitch has already written wherein he allegedly makes a case against presuppositionalism.
Mitch states that his “position on logic falls under the heading of conventionalism”. Logic is perhaps imposed upon the world only by our choices, and thus there is no reason to care about adhering to the laws of logic. It is difficult to see how logic is either universal or absolute on this view. Insofar as these considerations are correct, I submit to the readers that the position Mitch takes on logic both conflicts with other statements Mitch has made concerning logic and that by convention the discussion is to be decided in my favor.