Sye – a third atheist “account” of logic
As we are still talking about whether atheists can “account” for (i.e. justify, allow for, and explain) the laws of logic, here’s a third possibility outlined in next post.
Quine’s view is that the laws of nature are not necessary. This is a popular view (more so in the U.S., largely because of Quine’s influence). Quine considers them very high level empirical propositions. And revisable in the light of experience.
Sye will have to shoot this theory down too, as well as the two I have already presented….
Of course, even when you, Sye, have dealt with these three, there are innumerable other possibilities you must rule out. What you really need is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.