Actually,that's a fair question.

i agree , lets see the answer of the filosofic goeroe

"Logic" is the ability to think through causality and other relationships (ie. patterns) based on learning, including both personal experience and (what is often assumed to be) the human collective or "universal" experience. One does need to give credit to the human mind, human (collective) experience, and ability to learn. Most of us can agree that FIRE is HOT. A person need not be personally BURNED to understand the LOGIC of what would happen if s/he TOUCHED FIRE. Even pet goldfish can learn: swimming to the surface of the water when a person approaches often results in getting food. While swimming to the surface of the water does not in itself CAUSE food to arrive, the goldfish need not understand this to logically associate its behavior with the arrival of food.

Most human-exercised logic is based on what is often assumed to be universal experience. "If this, then that" says one. "That makes sense" says the other. Obviously, some "logic" stems from more personal experience. "But this is how I see it," says a third. Logic can only SEEM to be "abstract" and "invariant" in its rules when its conclusions are SHARED. Only that which is universally experienced can seem "invariant." Our linear experience of the passage of time, for example. A wide swath of causality would be included. The laws of physics in everyday life. And conclusions based on shared experiences "are" logical. Many "universal" experiences are only assumed to be "universal" because we have not yet realized a disagreement with anyone or any other exceptions to the "rules."

Obviously, "God" is not a universal experience. If God is not universally recognized as the experience, God cannot be considered universal, even if S/He is there. Whether the human mind in its current form was "created" or has "evolved" may be a neverending debate, but it seems to me like you are PRESUPPOSING (that word is severely overused in this thread) that the learning process in individuals and in our species either DOES NOT exist or is DIVINELY EXCLUSIVE to humans. (See: goldfish) It is this learning process, both individually and collectively which is used to formulate and judge "logic."

the only universal truth I can take out of all this bullshit is that you, mr Canuckprick, is one hell of an annoying person...

Jeeeeeesus... how is it possible to someone to reach annoyance levels this high????

(please mr Shaman... that was a rhetorical question... don´t waste yer time answering it... i really don´t wanna know...)

It doesn't matter what I think the foundation of Logic is, or if there even is one. Your argument stands as invalid on its own until you can support the premise which states that God is necessary for logic, mathematics or morality.

It's just like any other natural event. "Goddidit" is not a rational explanation for anything simply because nothing else has be provided as a supplement. Rain, illness, pregnancy, speciation, gravity, the order of orbitting celestial objects, anything. You hold the burden of proof to prove your assertions.

As badly as I want to continue the mindless jabber and entertain you by explaining my rationale for the "foundation" of logic, it is unnecessary. I could tell you that logic is simply necessary and it always existed with or without a universe or a god. I could, as another has done, claim that the Egg McMuffin is the true culprit here. I could say any number of positions I may or may not hold, but they are all irrelevant because unless I can prove them, with evidence or argument, they mean nothing. That's where you stand. You have not provided proof for your assertion. You are losing this debate and will continue to lose until you can prove that God is a necessary foundation for logic.

Besides, the claim is self-refuting. What would the universe be like without God? Would it be absent(~) of logic (L) and(+) mathematics(M)?

Because if ~(L+M)=~(L+M) then logic truly does exist because this is a logical tautology, regardless of whether or not the propositions are true.

And on the contrary, if the tautology does not exist, then ~(L+M)=(L+M) then on at least one side of that argument, logic and mathematics do exist without God.

But again, it's irrelevant.

OH WOW ME LOVE CANUCK STUPID RED SIGNATURE

ME HAVE MINE NOW

It's really quite simple arc... Jesus may love you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole

you could at least be original, and not copy the kind of mocking i use when you send me those long reeeeeally annoying PMs...

ok, sorry... asking originality from you is just asking too much... I know...

(that doesn´t change the fact you too are a very annoying person, mr Canuckprick...)

that's the spirit!

I'm sorry were you saying something of importance? Or just more of your usual putting people down to make yourself feel better?

Please take it to PMs or your own thread or go enliven AdvantaChat... it's pretty dead in there today.

It's also remarkable that this thread, as tangled as it has gotten, has not needed to be locked.

Yet.

I apologize to caffy and to the others in this thread who are actually having an adult conversation.

No kidding Caf. I personally hope it doesn't...from an Agnostic point of view it's enjoyable reading.