[T]o say that the laws of logic are either immaterial or material is to create a false dichotomy. So, the laws of logic are immaterial? Fine then, please tell me what they are.
That is not a false dichotomy; that is a dichotomy. To say the laws of logic are material or immaterial is merely to state that (A) the laws of logic are material or (B) it is not the case that the laws of logic are material. Second, as to what they are, that is not a question universally agreed upon even by those who defend the Christian faith “presuppositionally”. One view is that they are necessary propositions which have their existence in the mind of God. Folks like Bahnsen would be quick to point out that while the Christian can make sense of their immaterial existence, the non-Christian cannot give an account of such universal, invariant, immaterial laws of thought.
You also said:
[T]o say that the laws of logic “exist” is to commit the fallacy of reification. The laws of logic do not exist “out there”, but the objects the laws of logic refer to certainly do. It seems to me that those who argue TAG would rather focus on the concept rather than the referent.
I have a feeling you have trouble affirming the laws of logic exist because you are limiting existence to that which is material. This is evidenced by your comment that they do not exist “out there” since places such as “here” or “there” are appropriate to material objects. Moreover, the meaning of “existence” and what is allowed to “exist” will depend on one’s prior worldview commitments.
Even putting aside existence, Bahsen’s main point still goes through. The laws of logic cannot obtain in this world in the way we all assume they function (i.e. universally and invariantly) unless God exists.
Lastly, what is a Spinozian Deist as opposed to a regular Deist? What brought you to that position? Just curious =)