Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis
I propose that logic is of the same kind of rule as a stop sign: logic is a human endeavor, is defined by humanity, and cannot be meaningfully separated from it. What we mean by logic is shown in how we live and explain what logic is. It is a method whose rules are defined as universal, just as the stop sign means "stop" regardless of whether you know what it means or not - or even whether anyone actually stops at it! But note that this doesn't mean that the meaning of the stop sign is independent of the way of life of those people who use it.
I disagree. Reality demonstrates itself in a multitude of logical patterns. Human beings did not invent "logic", but rather discovered ways of representing it in symbollic form for communication. I know you can recognize the subtlety between the words that represent the reality and the reality itself.
You could argue the patterns of logic require an observer to have meaning, but you have to then say the same about all reality.
Regarding Bahnsen, I would argue that any laws which describe reality in any non-linear manner (gravitation, thermodynamics, etc) are inherently describing how things change
over time. He seems to have missed the concept of calculus here. That is, an invariant law can describe a world where things are constantly changing. In fact the laws of physics were derived from empirical study of the world combined with logical symbology and rules that we human beings had already embraced as invariant (ie. math).