Excerpt of Stephen Law v Sye

In my backlog of blog posts, I'm catching up on the whole Stephen Law v Sye series. I just read this in New Argument:

What's wrong with this argument, Sye? Which premise do you reject? Or is the logic faulty?

1. God exists
2. If God exists, the laws of logic and principles of good argument objectively obtain
3. A law of logic (or, if you prefer, principle of good argument) is that an argument containing an unargued for and contentious premise does not establish the truth of its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Sye's argument contains an unargued for and contentious premise
Conclusion: Sye's arg does not establish its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt

If you accept the laws of logic etc. and that God exists, and you say you do, it seems you must accept the conclusion.

Sye responds:

Well, I don't quite understand premise #2, but I reject any premise which states "If God exists," as His existence is the necessary precondition for logic. (Yes, by the impossibility of the contrary).

So, Stephen Law responds:

Sye, you reject any premise that begins "If God exists..." because "God is a necessary precondition of logic."?

Then presumably you also reject any premise that begins "If God doesn't exist..." too, for the same reason.

Oh, hang on, your own premise (1) is, in effect, "If God does not exist, the laws of logic cannot hold absolutely."

You'll need to do much better than that Sye....

To quote the McDonald's corporation: I'm lovin' it.