Thanks for restating the issue. It's still very confusing. I'm none the wiser but I think what you feel is that it is an equivocation fallacy with possibly a category mistake thrown in.

the error of assigning to something a quality or action which can only properly be assigned to things of another category, for example treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.

Yes, it's insisting that something I've said is in one category or equivocating it as some phenomena, then missing the point that this has no bearing, and it's all done based on the presumption of some closed, circular definition.

Basically, I claimed to deduce G[od] exists, because Lan[guage] is only produced by m[inds], Lan[guage] exists and G is an m[ind]. — Hallucinogen

Santa exists because Gifts are only produced by Givers; Gifts exist and Santa is a Giver.

The premisses are everything after the word 'because' and these are ok. A gift does entail someone's giving something, that is, a giver. And there are such things as gifts. And Santa is famous for being a giver. But he's a special kind of giver. He's the kind of giver that doesn't exist. And there are many other givers. The conclusion 'Santa exists' does not follow. Reframed as an Aristotelian syllogism it would be an Undistributed Middle.

"But if God doesn't exist, who wrote the laws of physics?" This is analogous to asking: if Santa didn't put the toys under the tree, then who did? In the case of the toys, it was Dad. In the case of the laws of physics, opinions vary. God is in the line-up but is only one suspect out of several mentioned in this thread.

OK, so as I suspected, it has no more weight or relevance than the error that I made this post to point out. — Hallucinogen

So, you're not really trying to understand Someone's argument. You are just looking for excuses to dismiss it. You came looking for a non-existent so-called "logical fallacy" rhetorical magic wand to wave at it and make it disappear.

No, this is precisely what Someone is doing.

"But if God doesn't exist, who wrote the laws of physics?" This is analogous to asking: if Santa didn't put the toys under the tree, then who did? In the case of the toys, it was Dad. In the case of the laws of physics, opinions vary. God is in the line-up but is only one suspect out of several mentioned in this thread. — Cuthbert

Key thing you are missing: whoever did, has to have a mind (which you already granted with your Santa-Giver analogy).

So, you're not really trying to understand Someone's argument. You are just looking for excuses to dismiss it. You came looking for a non-existent so-called "logical fallacy" rhetorical magic wand to wave at it and make it disappear. — T Clark

And the reason why this is actually what Someone is doing is because this appeal to the difference between methological and metaphysical naturalism is just as effete as insisting my argument can't work because of the difference between supernatural and natural.

Metaphysical naturalism says there are no supernatural phenomena. Scientific methodological naturalism says only that science is not capable of examining supernatural phenomena. — T Clark

And why should I care about this? It has no effect on my argument. It's just coming up with a distinction that I'm not logically committed into accepting and insisting it stops me from making my conclusion. Sort of like a rhetorical magic wand to wave at my argument and make it go away.

If my premises are about natural things, then God is natural. If they are about supernatural things, then God is supernatural. I made this point to someone in the argument and a couple of times here in the forum and I don't know why you're not accepting it.

I'm basing my premises on facts about physics and mathematics. If someone insists that makes it metaphysically natural, then the consequence is my argument proves metaphysical naturalism wrong. If someone insists my argument exists within the confines of methodological naturalism (which is what they insisted), then it proves that God is not one of the phenomena excluded by methodological naturalism.

Sort of like a rhetorical magic wand to wave at my argument and make it go away. — Hallucinogen

That's my metaphor. You should think of one on your own.

We're clearly not making any progress. Nuff said.