By demonstrating that an Atheist world cannot account for thepreconditions of the laws of logic an Atheist cannot even account for a rationaldebate concerning the existence of God. The impossibility of the contrary, the best and only proof that thenesesary truth of the existence of God is his revelation of himself to us thatmakes it possible for us to use logic. This could be translated, using onlynessesary truths, into the form of:L: (laws of logic)G: (God exists) if L entails GL================GLogic is the laws of reasoning that God has established. IfGod has established these laws of reasoning that we call logic then how couldthe Atheist system account for the laws of logic. First they are immaterial anduniversal, and how could anything immaterial and universal be accounted for in anaturalistic (matter only) universe. Second if God has established these laws ofreasoning then there would be no atheism.
An Atheist wants to believe in laws oflogic which are universal in application, but in order to escape the ultimateimplications of this idea ( there is a God who imposes universal standards ofreason. ), the Atheist will try to maintain that the laws of logic are merely conventions of general agreement amongst them. This is philosophically non-acceptable, if logic were simply a matter of convention, it would be impossibleto have any kind of rational debate because either side could win by simplystipulating different laws of logic by convention. Therefore since universallaws cannot be changed by convention since they hold constant in all possibleworlds is it not fair to say then that there is a God who imposes universalstandards of reason.