Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[bowmore]

Are you for real? I know a little about logic myself, and so far I haven't seen any from your hand!
And if you really are an expert on logic: Why do you propose to know the truth???

Because I can prove it!

I hope you are aware of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

Come on... what are you really here to say? And why not fill out your worldview truthfully??? If you are a logician, then its your trade, not your worldview. It all appears a bit devious to me.

Usually people oppose what they don't know, Logic can prove everything about religion

Ironically the reverse is also true. Logic can disprove everything about religion.
It really is just a matter of which premises you start from.

[bowmore]

No, the statement "God created himself" fails by itself

So you claim it's truth does not depend on the definitions of the words 'god' and 'to create' ?

No, it is the opposite, I claim it is false regardless of the definition of God, but it relies somehow on the definition of "create"

Ok let me define "god":

A god is a being that has created itself.

This definition would make the statement "God created himself" a tautology.

So your claim that "it is false regardless of the definition of God" is false.

I see no need to redefine it, so I'll just give you the wiki definition
"Logic is the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference."

We need a test criteria, not a description, can you try again?

It is a test criterion. Whatever is not "the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference" is not logic.

In order to determine the truth of a statement it must depend on premises whose truth is known.
Based on the premises you've given me so far, I don't think it is possible to logically prove that a god can or cannot exist.

Good start, but let's go step by step, first we define logic

We have. You're just stalling.

Since logic merely describes what valid inference is, and does not dictate what your starting premises should be, I'd say everything can be proven or disproved, depending on your starting premises and definitions.

Absolutely correct, we need some FACT(s)+ LOGIC to prove/disprove anything
but sometimes we can disprove something without any fact; if it is illogical

If you mean that a given set of premises can lead to a contradiction, then you are correct.

[Messenger]

For example If we want to define a circle
A continuous line of a set of points that have a fixed distance (the radius) from a fixed point (the center).
then we can test any shape if it is a circle or not using this definition.

By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

That is obvious, Knowledge=Prior Knowledge + Logic X Observations  
S1 is Logical but not true
S2, S3 are illogical i.e. not true as well

[Messenger]

Ok let me define "god":A god is a being that has created itself.

This definition would make the statement "God created himself" a tautology.

So your claim that "it is false regardless of the definition of God" is false.

Very good, your definition is called a Paradox, Paradoxes can be stated but they are impossible to exist
So we can prove by no doubt that your God is a false one, he does not exist for sure

It is a test criterion. Whatever is not "the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference" is not logic.

Yes, but it is vague
You can not give this definition to a simple person and say to him use it to test a statement
We are looking for a much simpler definition that can be used
(I don't say that there is only one definition for logic, but logic is the only accepted fact between human with no doubt)

If you mean that a given set of premises can lead to a contradiction, then you are correct.

We can use that to define logic  

[bowmore]

By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

That is obvious, Knowledge=Prior Knowledge + Logic X Observations  
S1 is Logical but not true
S2, S3 are illogical i.e. not true as well

I think you are defining logical to mean what a logician would call consistent.

S2 is only inconsistent if apples can have only one colour.

[bowmore]

Ok let me define "god":A god is a being that has created itself.

This definition would make the statement "God created himself" a tautology.

So your claim that "it is false regardless of the definition of God" is false.

Very good, your definition is called a Paradox, Paradoxes can be stated but they are impossible to exist
So we can prove by no doubt that your God is a false one, he does not exist for sure

That still depends on the definition of 'to create'.

If 'to create something' would mean 'to see the reflection of something in a mirror' there is no paradox.

It is a test criterion. Whatever is not "the study of the principles of valid demonstration and inference" is not logic.

Yes, but it is vague
You can not give this definition to a simple person and say to him use it to test a statement

It is you that insisted that the definition of logic is something you can use to test statements. I disagree.

If you mean that a given set of premises can lead to a contradiction, then you are correct.

We can use that to define logic  

Well it's silly to call it illogical, since within logic (the study of the rules of valid inference) we already have a word for it : 'inconsistent'.

[Messenger]

By itself this definition is not enough to do that. Some of the terms used in the definition require a definition of their own.

That is obvious, Knowledge=Prior Knowledge + Logic X Observations  
If you have a doubt about any thing you can ask?

Define : continuous, line and distance.

I'm not the man for that, you can search for their definitions (I just accepted their definitions)

I think you are defining logical to mean what a logician would call consistent.

Yes, this is very close

S2 is only inconsistent if apples can have only one color.

Yes, it is saying all Apples are red (it means all number apples and also the all/whole of each apple
The point is, a statement can be tested to be logical or not, without the need to test if it is correct or not

We can test those example without actually knowing apples at all

[Zarathustra]

Are you for real? I know a little about logic myself, and so far I haven't seen any from your hand!
And if you really are an expert on logic: Why do you propose to know the truth???

Because I can prove it!

Come on... what are you really here to say? And why not fill out your worldview truthfully??? If you are a logician, then its your trade, not your worldview. It all appears a bit devious to me.

Usually people oppose what they don't know, Logic can prove everything about religion
Science, mathematics, etc. can prove correctness of most things after that

First of all, you didn't answer the question you quoted, why even quote it if you are going to ignore it anyway?....
If that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question????

[Zarathustra]

What are you proposing is description for Logic or Logical rules not a definition
We are looking for a definition (A criteria) that we can use against any statement to test if it is logical or not

You don't even now semantic logic, do you? That is exactly what we can do with it!
What you are saying is: Nono we cannot just go for a drive. We have to reinvent the internal combustion engine.  
And still no real logic... your 4 sentences are so primitive , I showed them to my 8 year old son. Even he could without problem discern the "logic" in those.

[Zarathustra]

Because I can prove it!

I hope you are aware of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

He can't be, since he makes such a preposterous claim. And which truth? (I might ad) Complying with which truth concept? (I might ad further, and I could go on... It's just so dumb that I won't.)

Logic can disprove everything about religion.
It really is just a matter of which premises you start from.

Doesn't that make this thread absurd then?
You can prove/disprove anything with logic, that is why your basic premises are so important.

[Messenger]

And still no real logic... your 4 sentences are so primitive , I showed them to my 8 year old son. Even he could without problem discern the "logic" in those.

That is the point, primitive logic can prove/disprove God  

We can use a criteria like: Logic is: Identifying things consistently
Or in other words, every thing that has no contradiction is logical
Or Paradoxes are impossible to exist

To prove correctness, we need to start from some facts then deduce from it (Using Logic) conclusion(s)

To test this definition we can apply it to any statement
If we can not bring a logical statement that violates it, or an illogical one that conforms with it, then it is valid

[Zarathustra]

And still no real logic... your 4 sentences are so primitive , I showed them to my 8 year old son. Even he could without problem discern the "logic" in those.

That is the point, primitive logic can prove/disprove God  

We can use a criteria like: Logic is: Identifying things consistently
Or in other words, every thing that has no contradiction is logical
Or Paradoxes are impossible to exist

To prove correctness, we need to start from some facts then deduce from it (Using Logic) conclusion(s)

To test this definition we can apply it to any statement
If we can not bring a logical statement that violates it, or an illogical one that conforms with it, then it is valid

I'll restate my most important question, since you are so selective with what you answer. (Actually you did not even answer one):

You don't even now semantic logic, do you?
Or do you think that religious issues are not an area that appears within semantics, but mathematics instead?

[Messenger]

You don't even now semantic logic, do you?

I think you mean using logic in semantic, because the term semantic logic is not scientific (At least in my studies)

Or do you think that religious issues are not an area that appears within semantics, but mathematics instead?

Both can apply
My point is that; very basic common sense (call it Logic or Consistency can be used to make a sound proof about God)

[Zarathustra]

You don't even now semantic logic, do you?

I think you mean using logic in semantic, because the term semantic logic is not scientific (At least in my studies)

No I don't mean that. So the answer to my question is apparently: NO! You obviously don't know this. The term semantic logic is indeed scientific. (Within linguistics, sociology and philosophy, to name a few.)

Or do you think that religious issues are not an area that appears within semantics, but mathematics instead?

Both can apply
My point is that; very basic common sense (call it Logic or Consistency can be used to make a sound proof about God)

Well then you don't really have a point, do you... How can mathematics apply to this field??? And you don't have link to wiki definitions. As I wrote, a know a lot about logic. (And apparently within this field a lot more than you.)That you continously put your assumptions in bold, is not convincing - but goes against the forum rules.

But thanks for answering my question. Next unanswered question was:
If that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question???

[Zarathustra]

I just realised: Maybe this thread could be productive after all  :pop:
2. The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God is false, he does not exist for sure. http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2223&start=0  Who wants to help out?
 :pop:

Anyone...?