Opening line, "Human Minds" and an Equivocation Fallacy
I would change
The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). Wikipedia defines the argument as follows:
"The Transcendental Argument is an argument for the existence of God that attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of God."
The transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) attempts to show that logic, science, ethics (and generally every fact of human experience and knowledge) are not meaningful apart from a preconditioning belief in the existence of God."
Or similar. But the opening sentence "The transcendental argument for the existance of God (TAG)." isn't really a sentence yet, but I don't want to change it since it's a work in progress and the author(s) might have other things in mind.
The counter argument to 4.3 should be added: logical absolutes shouldn't be dependent on any mind, however Slick is sneaky and specifies it only applies human minds. And I believe Matt said on AETV 6.1 contains an equivocation fallacy where logic is equivocated to be the same as logical absolutes, and I believe Matt gave an example of something else to demonstrate the silliness of what Slick is trying to say here, but I forget. While these may specifically focus on the CARM version I feel they are important as various combinations of the argument can be presented, and being able to spot out the possible flaws is always useful. --Aardvark 08:01, 17 June 2009 (CDT)
Counter to Section 6 of Carm.org's TAG
Possible counter-arguments to section 6:
• If the physical/conceptual dichotomy is true, then God must be either physical or conceptual. If God is physical, then he would necessarily be part of the universe, and couldn't have created it. If God is conceptual, then he is the product of another mind, which is then subject to the same dichotomy, leading to an infinite regress of minds.
• If the physical/conceptual dichotomy is not true, then Logical Absolutes are not necessarily conceptual in nature, and thus do not require a mind. If they do not require a mind, then God does not necessarily exist.
• Further, the Logical Absolutes, being absolute, would apply to God. God cannot be God and not God at the same time and in the same sense. Therefore the Logical Absolutes could not be the product of God's transcendent mind since they are necessary for that mind to be able to exist in the first place. --Denada 14:22, 17 June 2009 (CDT)
Needs to address what is meant by "logical absolute"
Logical statements are only meaningful within a specified system of logic. It is not justified to appeal to some "ultimate" or "universal" logical system that exists independent of human minds, which is the unstated major premise at the heart of TAG. Logical absolutes are only absolute within a system, which can be defined however one chooses (although there are no guarantees that an arbitrarily defined system will be useful). The wikipedia article on formal systems  gives a good (but rather technical) overview of how logic is developed.
Response from Set Theory Axioms
I just got handed the trascendental argument by an old friend on facebook, here's the response I came up with after consulting with after consulting some friends, do with it what you will:
Logical absolutes exist only in the systems for which they are defined. The law of Identity, that is A=A, is a mathematic axiom that is used (among others) to define what numbers can and can't be.
I believe that you were going to argue that logical absolutes have to exist, and that since they were discovered by man, they predate him and exist in nature. Therefore *something* must have made them. This argument stems from a misunderstanding about the nature of logic and math.
The law of contradiction, which you are using (that is that "A=A" and "A=NOT A" cannot both be true at the same time) is an axiom added to make sure that A=A never breaks.
So: sure, there can be things that are absolutely consistent with one another, but they have no truth value outside of their internally-consistent context. There is nothing further involved.