Never heard of the TAG argument? See it here: http://carm.org/transcendental-argument
Here is the goofiest part. I'll put it in bold, and then my argument in regular font.
Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
Yes they are.
1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
Well, not when you say it like that. But when you find an "atom," you did not find "not-an-atom." More on this concept below.
2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
But they can be evaluated and deduced. Why aren't those on this list?
3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
If there were nothing, there would not be logical absolutes, since that would contradict the idea of "nothing." So they are a product of the physical universe.
3a. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
Yes. That is the case. Everything would cease to exist when everything ceases to exist. That's what "ceasing to exist" means.
3b. If they were properties of the universe then they could be measured the same way heat, motion, mass, etc., are measured. Since they cannot be measured, they are not properties of the universe.
Why should we expect "logical absolutes" -- which are not "heat, motion, mass, etc." -- to be measured in the exact same way? The premise here doesn't even make sense. "A rock" does not equal "not a rock." That doesn't need to be "measured." It's plainly obvious to working brains! It's observational. It's just reality.
4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
No, they would be nothing. The universe is "all that is." If "all that is" did not exist, then there would be nothing, including no logical absolutes.
This is like suggesting we go North of the North Pole. Sorry. Just can't be done. That's not how it works.
4a. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence. The condition of the universe does not effect the truth that "Something cannot bring itself into existence."
Is this a jab at the so-called "big bang theory"? If so, it just shows more ignorance. There is no "before the big bang." That's like North of the North Pole. It's just not there. You can't go before time. There is not before time.
With no universe, there is not even the idea "Something cannot bring itself into existence" to even consider in the first place! With no universe, 1+1=2 does not exist. There is no 1, no plus, no equals, and no two. Get it? Nothing! No-thing!
4b. For example, if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
No. If the universe did not exist, there would be no thing to be either itself or not itself in the first place. There would be nothing. Get it? You can't talk about nothing. It's not there!
5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
Therefore, this is some of the most absurd nonsense I've ever read.