I Am Fascinated By Science, Religion, and Philosophy

@CharlieZ Very interesting. What is your point then?

@Carazaa That what is Scientific knowledge should (and it´s not) solely nor mainly based on logic.
Not confronted solely nor mainly based on logic.
But in systematic research, based in factual meassured data, usually integrated to a theoretical scientific frame. Sometimes refuting that previous frame based, as said, in facts.
Refusing any authority claim.
Not based on "common sense" armchair philosophy nor in any "basic intuition".

Logic, symbolic mathematical one, helps to guide and TEST that what we think is consistent.
But no, never, provides the truth of the things in itselves wich is, so to say, the scope of Science.

An example?

Dembski, a mathematician, made a "development" based on the "No Free Lunch" theorems of Dave Wolpert, to suport "Inteligent Design".
The capacity to detect the inner failure of Dembski Mathematics, helped to discard it as valid.

Another different example?

For more tan 700 years, the accepted cosmic system was the one from Ptolomeus.
It stated that Earth was in the center of the Universe.
It´s Math was not sooooo bad (for his times).
But a pair of lenses in a telescope were enough to show, that no matter what abstract math and logic may say, that model was factually false.

The main problem with creationist here is not mainly if their "logic" is good or bad describing the natural world. Merely logic CAN´T do it, not well and neither bad.
There are two problems, yes.
On the content, they avoid and reject the systematic work of Science based in testable facts.
In the DEBATE, they use not rigurous math logic but the kind called rhetoric, wich helps to hide inconsistencies.
The one used by Greek Sophists, the Scholastics and used car sellers.

So Logic proves God doesn't it! Did you look at the video?

@Carazaa Logic don´t prove that God don´t exist.
Can´t do it.
Conversely, Logic don´t prove that God exist.
Can´t do it.

Not to prove, not to reject.

The existence of God, for those who believe (like I DO) is based on faith and not in logic.

But, by example, Intelligent Design, that´s another kind of fish.
What Science (with Math as ONE tool, amongst others) can do and does is to show that said religious narrative don´t provide a good description of the material Universe.

I know, and not since yesterday, what Lennox (what Dembski) say.
I´m myself a mathematician and researcher.
They use Science and it´s Math badly.

@CharlieZ Logic is a tool to get from one set of axioms to a conclusion. However, its success depends on the validity of the initial axioms. In your example, if I don't accept that "all men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man," I'm not going to accept your conclusion that "Socrates is mortal," either. So we end up with:

Some men might be mortal.
Socrates might be a man.
Therefore, Socrates might be mortal, or might be immortal.

@LeopoldBloom That´s why and even better, formal logic scan each one of the combinations of true / false proposed "states" of each "antecedent", giving all posible combinations of true / false for the proposition.
That is called the veritablility table for each well posed logical propossition.
It´s equivalent is what in programming you can see as the "IF...THEN...(but if) ELSE, THEN..."

And thats also why Logic haves NO ontological commitment, except as a tool.