Logic is inference.

That's all it is.

I see an apple fall from the tree, therefore I infer a force is acting upon it.

I'll give it a name.

Gravity

I'll define through mathematics

F= G (m1 m2/r2)

I see X, I define through language and mathematics and infer Z

That's all you have.

Inference is not Truth.

You are no closer to the Truth than the Man on the Moon my friend.

I admire that you seek the truth through inference
i.e.

Occam's Razor

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity

but that is not Omnicompetence

On a quantum level, classical physics break down...within the density of blackholes, classical physics breaks down.

Logical inference falls apart, and it's back to the drawing board.

Admirable, but you don't seem to grasp the Epistemological limitations to human based knowledge and obviously you never will.

Very amusing, I like it, I myself am Catholic, and I support my God, but remember it is one thing to worship your God, but completely another to want to hurt and condemn those who worship another.

I have concious thought.
I can observe the Universe.

I know that through inference
Conservation of Mass ~ matter cannot be created or destroyed

I know that through inference
2nd law of Thermodynamics
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value

Therefore if matter and energy always existed than through entropy the energy within the Universe would have dissipated.

It has not.

The only logical inference I can make now is that indeed, out of nothing, the Universe, at least as I observe it, just showed up one "day" in a ball the size of a grapefruit and then expanded rapidly in a moment we define in human terms as the beginning of time.

Logical inference leads to a lot of illogical conclusions.

because guess what, logical inference implies that adding a "God" to all of this really only just complicates matters unnecessarily.

So I understand your point of view sir.

You don't hate God. You believe that God is just an un-necessary part of the equation.

I understand your thought process.

This works well, in explaining and defining the World around us, but it does not work very well, in my opinion in defining
human experience.

As Perham eloquently stated, we are not binary code...

You perfectly demonstrated that you do not understand what logic is. Check out this wikipedia article for a crashcourse: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Logic/Propositional_Logic. It is the most fundamental part of logic, although it extends into "higher order" logics which are built on top of it.

"I see an apple fall from the tree, therefore I infer a force is acting upon it." may be an inference, but it is not a logically valid one.

Now, a logically valid argument is one in which the conclusion is absolutely true given the premises. That's what logic is ... deriving statements which are absolutely, unquestionably true, if the premises are true. Hence my statement "deriving truths from other truths".

Logic is practically useless though, until you have a truth from which to derive others. I may not know that Fuzzy the cat is completely black, but I do know for certain that if Fuzzy is completely black and if something being completely one color means that it is has no other color on it, then he certainly, absolutely, unquestionably has no white on him. That is logic.

Logic is not making intuitive guesses, such as that a force is acting on the apple to make it fall.

Also, logic does, in fact, not break down when addressing quantum level physics. The only thing that changes is that the Classical Physics model no longer applies. There is no context in which logic necessarily breaks down, but there are people who can't apply it in any context.

You are semantically avoiding the debate.

You have not grasped that Logic is a human construct, it's foundation does not exist outside of human experience. That is not a Universal Truth.

aka

"it's all in your head dude" isn't just a Euphemism.

Maybe you majored in Philosophy or something, I don't know...what exactly are we debating again?

Oh yes, prove God exists...ontologically, in other words quantitatively.

Well, I can't.

You INFER then, that something can only exist unless it can be defined quantitatively.

Prove to me, in your "Propositional Logic" that the Universe exists outside of your mind which observes it?

We observe the Universe in human terms...this is how we see and define it.

This does not make it an Absolute outside of human observation, we can NEVER know Absolutes since the only observation of it will ALWAYS be based on human terms.

Google Epistemology. This is the study of knowledge. It has limitations.

I may not know that Fuzzy the cat is completely black, but I do know for certain that if Fuzzy is completely black and if something being completely one color means that it is has no other color on it, then he certainly, absolutely, unquestionably has no white on him. That is logic.

The cat, it's color, the name Fuzzy...
only exist in you mind.
Within your mind you have a TRUTH.

Assuming your mind is comparable to your fellow human being, we have a TRUTH...within this collection of human minds.

Outside of this "collective" of human minds.

The cat, it's color, the name Fuzzy....
cannot be defined as a Truth.

We are limited to define absolutes.

You can't take detach yourself from these limits and claim to know Absolutes.

No one can.

So what logic does is define truth in terms of what our minds can observe.

God is that which cannot be defined or observed. It is outside of the realm of human observation, therefore our "collective" of minds logically
"deduce" it does not exist.

That's the best I can do to define God.

No, the discussion is not to prove that God exists. That was several pages ago. A few posts ago you started criticizing logic, and I'm pointing out that you don't understand what logic is to begin with. This is a debate over logic, not God. The original subject line of the thread is irrelevant at this point.

Of course logic is "in my head" (though more correctly, in my mind). There is no such thing as truth outside the mind either. Truth only has meaning within logic, within the mind. It appears you not only misunderstand logic, but you also misunderstand what "truth" is.

Logic is a human construct, but it is a model of the fundamental methods with which we naturally think. Doubting logic is to doubt human thought entirely. This seems unwise, since the human mind seems to have resulted in improved survival ability over other creatures, so there must be something to it.

Truth is also a human construct. It is a property that nothing but statements have. A statement is true if it is an axiom, or if it logically derivative of a set of axioms. (Where an axiom is any statement that is definitely true given your choice of a source of knowledge... such as empiricism or a certain faith.)

Given this definition of truth, what's true is dependent on the observer. "God exists" is neither true nor false to me, because it is neither an observation nor a logical derivation of observations. "God exists" is true to you, because it is a fundamental axiom of your faith.

Now, we both have our fundamental axioms, which are not consitent with one another, but we can both use logic to derive further truths from these axioms.

For instance, it is true to you that God is good. Therefore, it is true to you that God is not evil. That is a logical deduction.

I disagree with the premise of this logical deduction, but the deduction itself is valid.

Now, when I say "absolutely true", I don't mean "outside my mind". I only mean that it has a 100% chance of being "true" (for the observer). When I say absolutely, I am speaking of the level of certainty, not the degree of applicability, i.e. that it is true for every set of axioms.

Correct, I wouldn't call expressions truths. "The cat" is an expression, not a statement, and is neither true nor false. "The cat is named Fuzzy", however, is a statement, and thus either true or false.

Again, "absolutely" refers to certainty, not to some ultimate set of axioms, because there is no such thing. This concept is a useless distortion of the concept of truth.

Of course, that's where truth lies: the mind. Where else would it be?