Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[bowmore]

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

So all you've been doing all along is trying to tell us that if we can deduct a contradiction from a given set of premises, then at least one premise must be false.
Apparently you also seem to think this is what logic is all about...

More importantly, you haven't even begun to arrive at your claim : that logic can prove anything about religion.

[Messenger]

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

So all you've been doing all along is trying to tell us that if we can deduct a contradiction from a given set of premises, then at least one premise must be false.
Apparently you also seem to think this is what logic is all about...

I did not say that!
What I'm saying is Logic (As consistency in identifying things) is the formal term for common sense
Anything logical can be true, anything illogical must be imaginary

More importantly, you haven't even begun to arrive at your claim : that logic can prove anything about religion.

Be patient, do you think that the most important issue in your life does not worse to be discussed thoroughly

[Messenger]

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?
  Here is one:
The greek gods are immortal, and always the same age. How did the children of zeus grow up then, and how did he grow old? That is also a paradox--- and vupti:

3. The greek gods are false, they do not exist for sure .

Don't jump conclusions, we will come to this later
But we can say that "Paradoxes are impossible to exist" (Even by any God)

[Messenger]

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.)

Please, give a reference?

Well then you don't really have a point, do you... How can mathematics apply to this field???

Wait and see  :hail: , then what do you think about my definition?
i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

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

[bowmore]

More importantly, you haven't even begun to arrive at your claim : that logic can prove anything about religion.

Be patient, do you think that the most important issue in your life does not worse to be discussed thoroughly

I'll be the judge of what is most important in my life, thank you.

[bowmore]

i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

Consider the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves, we'll call it S.

Apply your criterion to : "S contains itself".

[Messenger]

I'll be the judge of what is most important in my life, thank you.

If it is proved, it is not a matter of judgment or choice any more, it will be a FACT

[Messenger]

i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

Consider the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves, we'll call it S.
Apply your criterion to : "S contains itself".

The answer is S does/can not exist

[bowmore]

I'll be the judge of what is most important in my life, thank you.

If it is proved, it is not a matter of judgment or choice any more, it will be a FACT

I'm eagerly awaiting you to demonstrate this.
The socratic method will not make your argument any more valid.

[bowmore]

i.e.  can you bring just one example violating it or not  

Consider the set that contains all sets that don't contain themselves, we'll call it S.
Apply your criterion to : "S contains itself".

The answer is S does/can not exist

Em.. the question was if the statement

"S contains itself" is logical.

[Messenger]

Em.. the question was if the statement
"S contains itself" is logical.

No, it is not
It is the same like my old statements S2, S3
All apples are red, my apple is green

[bowmore]

Em.. the question was if the statement
"S contains itself" is logical.

No, it is not

Wrong.

If it is not logical (by your assertion) it must be false. But if it is false, it should be true, and if it is true it must be logical...

This is an example for Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

Another one would be : "This statement is false".

[Messenger]

Em.. the question was if the statement
"S contains itself" is logical.

No, it is not

Wrong.
If it is not logical (by your assertion) it must be false. But if it is false, it should be true, and if it is true it must be logical...
This is an example for Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Another one would be : "This statement is false".

Then try to apply my rule again
My rule is about consistency in defining things
Your definition of S is contradicting with itself, which make it illogical (According to my rule)

When I said "false" I did not mean the opposite of true, I meant its existence is false, i.e. can not exist

So let me restate it again!  "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist"

as for the statement "This statement is false", it is logical and it exists
Questioning if it is true or false is out of topic, it is neither true nor false

[bowmore]

So let me restate it again!  "Logical is possible to exist, illogical can not exist"

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

[Messenger]

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)
Because if he used any other way; It will not be available or even agreed to all people, i.e. not fair
And if God claims that he is just, it will be a paradox which mean he does not exist   :brick: