Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[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:

[Messenger]

Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting. I'll sit back and have a laugh.  

Are you afraid?

[bowmore]

So your criterion is only appicable to statements that claim something exists...
And while I would agree with "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist" it is only of value if you believe logic accurately describes reality.

If God exists then the only way to prove himself is by logic (common sense)

I wouldn't call common sense the same as logic though.

I've met theists who insist that logic doesn't apply to their god, and they would certainly not agree with you.

Regarding any matter (except God) we call a person who is not using logic INSANE

Any theist (or atheist) who claims that illogical can exist is hopeless in discussing anything with him, nothing can be proved/disproved to him  

Personally I value logic highly. But I find that ultimately logic is only validated through induction. Epistemologically we then end up with Hume's problem of induction. There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

To those atheists that maintain logic doesn't apply to god, I just insist that they've just shot themselves in the foot, as the burden of proof lies with them, and they've just robbed themselves of the one tool that could prove god.

[bowmore]

If that is your viewpoint ("logic can prove everything about religion")... Then why start this thread as a question???

Because I want you to lead yourself from start to conclusion, it will be your proof not mine

Do you consider this a logical answer, Bowmore?

Messenger is obviously just applying the socratic method. I find it condescending, and it really stretches the thread to become much longer than need be.

I'm very interested how he will demonstrate his point though.

[Messenger]

There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

We don't need to consider all Logic, we can use only this rule X<>Not(X)
or in words "A real thing can not have contradictions"

To those atheists that maintain logic doesn't apply to god, I just insist that they've just shot themselves in the foot, as the burden of proof lies with them, and they've just robbed themselves of the one tool that could prove god.

It applies to both theists and atheists as well, they are delusional

[Zarathustra]

Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting. I'll sit back and have a laugh.  

[Messenger]

Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting.

So, do you agree or disagree that "Contradictions can not exist"?
For example a "Circle square shape"

[Zarathustra]

Well I am always ready to debate logic. But I won't sit around and wait for your primitive assumptive "logic", Messenger. Maybe someone who does not know a lot about logic will find you interesting.

So, do you agree or disagree that "Contradictions can not exist"?
For example a "Circle square shape"

Quit stalling! Read this book: "Modern Logic - A Text in Elementary Symbolic Logic" by Graeme Forbes, Oxford University Press, 1994 - as I recommended. Or another textbook on logic. Then come back and I'll be happy to debate you.
Until then have fun with Bowmore (or rather vice versa   )

[bowmore]

There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

We don't need to consider all Logic, we can use only this rule X<>Not(X)
or in words "A real thing can not have contradictions"

Yet that rule is a rule of logic. You cannot use it to prove logic's own validity, that would be circular reasoning.

[Messenger]

There is no way to absolutely prove that logic is an accurate description of reality.

We don't need to consider all Logic, we can use only this rule X<>Not(X)
or in words "A real thing can not have contradictions"

Yet that rule is a rule of logic. You cannot use it to prove logic's own validity, that would be circular reasoning.

It is just a formalization of how people describe things

When I describe a shape as a circle it means by default that it is not a square
This rule does not depend by any mean on the object itself, it depends on "my" definition of the words "Circle" and "Square"

If someone refers to a shape as a circle, then in another statement refers to it as a square, he is illogical (Inconsistent) or this shape does not exist for real
This rule is the basis of all our knowledge and how our brain works
A child cries for his mother, stops when she takes him, because he knows that with her <> without her  i.e. X<> not(X)
Even animals know that as well

It is amazing that many Theists/Atheists don't know/accept that as a fact

[bowmore]

It is amazing that many Theists/Atheists don't know/accept that as a fact

I'll accept it on a pragmatical basis.

[Messenger]

It is amazing that many Theists/Atheists don't know/accept that as a fact

I'll accept it on a pragmatical basis.

Then we can move to proving/disproving god

A proof is a sequence of valid inferences that start from a set of facts and Axioms to a conclusion

If that sequence hold a Logical consequence then the conclusion becomes a fact

[Zarathustra]

Now I am as scared as Lance Armstrong challenged by a kid on a tricycle.  :cool:

[bowmore]

A proof is a sequence of valid inferences that start from a set of facts and Axioms to a conclusion

If that sequence hold a Logical consequence then the conclusion becomes a fact

Nothing new for me there.

[Faithless]

"A real thing can not have contradictions"

Thread ended.  The Bible has just been disproven.

Next?