Does/Can Logic prove/disprove God?

[Messenger]

Within mathematics, yes I agree, you describe that conclusion as a "fact". Within any other scientific field - including logic - no. Then the conclusion becomes a hypothesis

Mathematics is nothing more than logic using some symbols
I can make the logical proof using mathematical symbols as well

[Messenger]

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.

Yes, this is just to put basis for our discussion

Let's start
Fact 1
X<> Not(X)

Fact 2
S(t)<> Not(S(t))   (State at a specific time t)

S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change
Which means that if the state of anything changed, an action must have happened to change that state
and something must did that action to happen
In other words "Nothing comes from Nothing"

[bowmore]

Let's start

He says at page 6

Fact 1
X<> Not(X)

Axiom of non contradiction. check.

Fact 2
S(t)<> Not(S(t))   (State at a specific time t)

Applied to S(t)... still fine

S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change

How do you arrive at this?

you change t to t1 and t2 without explanation, and the unless phrase is added without explanation as well.
Note that S(t1) is not necessarily Not(Not(S(t2)). This statement is a non sequitur.

Furthermore the statement is obviously false as even without an agent S(t1) can differ from S(t2).

Imagine a falling brick. It will be at different heights at moment t1 and t2 without the need of an agent intervening.

Which means that if the state of anything changed, an action must have happened to change that state
and something must did that action to happen
In other words "Nothing comes from Nothing"

You are definitely using some hidden premises, or you just assumed your conclusion. Either way the argument as it is formulated here is invalid.

[Messenger]

S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change

How do you arrive at this?

As time is just a frame of reference not an agent of change
S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN)
Using Fact 1, different values are not equal
If a state changed it is not the initial state and time is not an agent another agent is the cause of that change

Imagine a falling brick. It will be at different heights at moment t1 and t2 without the need of an agent intervening.

No, Earth and Gravity are agents of change
If No earth and no gravity the brick will not fall!

[bowmore]

S(t1)<> Not(S(t2)) unless an event (Agent, action) do the change

How do you arrive at this?

As time is just a frame of reference not an agent of change
S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN)
Using Fact 1, different values are not equal

Fact 1 is the axiom of non contradiction, which states that a statement and it's opposite cannot be both be true.
It doesn't say "Different values are not equal"

So by no means can you conclude that S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN) from S(t) <> Not(S(t))

If a state changed it is not the initial state and time is not an agent another agent is the cause of that change

This would only follow if "changes need an agent to cause them". Since you did not include that as a premise, your current argument is invalid.

Imagine a falling brick. It will be at different heights at moment t1 and t2 without the need of an agent intervening.

No, Earth and Gravity are agents of change
If No earth and no gravity the brick will not fall!

Point taken, I'll give a better example. Imagine a brick moving through space at a speed greater than zero m/s, without any forces acting upon it.

Since Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

[Zarathustra]

Within mathematics, yes I agree, you describe that conclusion as a "fact". Within any other scientific field - including logic - no. Then the conclusion becomes a hypothesis

Mathematics is nothing more than logic using some symbols
I can make the logical proof using mathematical symbols as well

Yes, mathematics is more than logic, it is a tool to describe quantity. I think you mean, that you can make a mathematical proof using mathematical symbols, that adhere with logic.
The point is, that it is a rule you assume based on your background in mathematics. - It is not a rule which is agreed upon in the area you are in right now - which is not mathematics. You can't call it a fact, but a hypothesis. "Correct" is another word that applies, "fact" just isn't.
By the way, when explaining the sudden value change:

As time is just a frame of reference not an agent of change

Could you please persuade the cells in my body this "fact". I wouldn't mind staying young and fit forever.  :pop:

[Messenger]

Fact 1 is the axiom of non contradiction, which states that a statement and it's opposite cannot be both be true.
It doesn't say "Different values are not equal"

So by no means can you conclude that S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN) from S(t) <> Not(S(t))

It does with a little analysis
for example if we assume that an apple can be red, green or yellow
If we say it is red, it means that it is not (G nor Y)

Since Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

But its movement needs a cause!

[Messenger]

It is not a rule which is agreed upon in the area you are in right now - which is not mathematics. You can't call it a fact, but a hypothesis. "Correct" is another word that applies, "fact" just isn't.

It think there is no difference, Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

Could you please persuade the cells in my body this "fact". I wouldn't mind staying young and fit forever.

Even cells or decay or radiation have a cause, it is not time it is an attribute of the object itself
If time is the agent then why non-living things don't die  

[Zarathustra]

It is not a rule which is agreed upon in the area you are in right now - which is not mathematics. You can't call it a fact, but a hypothesis. "Correct" is another word that applies, "fact" just isn't.

It think there is no difference, Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

Where you kicked out of school? Is that why you stopped your ph.d?
If you really where a "logician", you would know that I didn't adress the law of the excluded middle. I agree that it stands as one of our few axioms.
What I was clearly referring to was these assumptions:

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

Assumption 1 is correct. What you quoted me for, was a response to assumption 2. You should know that, and be able to respond to it if you were really a logician... [/quote]Do you really think that non-living things do not deteriorate over time?  

Anyway: Your answer for bowmore was a load of crap. Respond to his questions or get out of this forum.

[Messenger]

the law of the excluded middle. I agree that it stands as one of our few axioms.

Very good that you believe in some facts

What I was clearly referring to was these assumptions:

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

Do you really think that non-living things do not deteriorate over time?

NO, they but each object has its own attributes, then don't behave the same
Even deterioration has a cause (Particle emitting for example)

[Zarathustra]

What I was clearly referring to was these assumptions:

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

Do you really think that non-living things do not deteriorate over time?

NO, they but each object has its own attributes, then don't behave the same
Even deterioration has a cause (Particle emitting for example)

Damn. You really ARE an expert...!
- In misquoting out of context. You are not half bad at not answering anything either.  :pop:

[bowmore]

Fact 1 is the axiom of non contradiction, which states that a statement and it's opposite cannot be both be true.
It doesn't say "Different values are not equal"

So by no means can you conclude that S(t1)=S(t2)=... S(tN) from S(t) <> Not(S(t))

It does with a little analysis
for example if we assume that an apple can be red, green or yellow
If we say it is red, it means that it is not (G nor Y)

I assume you mean "not (G or Y)" which means "not(G) and not(Y) whereas "not(G nor Y)" would be equal to "not(G and not(Y))" and thus "not(G) or Y"

So assuming A(c) means "The Apple is c" where c is a colour from {red(R), green(G), yellow(Y) }

You say you can arrive at

A(R)=A(G)=A(Y)

from

A(R) <> Not(A(R)) ?

I'd like to see you produce this step by step.

Since Newton's first law of movement states "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force." The brick's location will change over time, without the interaction of an agent.

But its movement needs a cause!

There is no logical law that says so.
I'm also told that certain events at the quantum level are not caused (but I'm no quantum mechanics specialist).
So that every change needs a cause is your assertion, not a logical necessity, and not an observed fact.

At any rate you didn't include it in your argument, and I'd already warned you for audiatur et altera pars.

[bowmore]

Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

A chess board is both black and white  

[Messenger]

Mutual exclusive attributes can not be equal by definition, so no one can argue/deny that 1 <> 2 or black <> white

A chess board is both black and white  

That is how my proof will work

[bowmore]

That is how my proof will work

I'm more interested in how you'll make your proof for "nothing comes from nothing" work.

You haven't addressed any of the issues I pointed out with it.