Mr Avocate, this is exactly the argument given by my opponent, logic only deals with symbols and has no correspondence with reality.
Let me give you an example of some arguments going back a year:
Descartes argument about pure concepts: I argue that one cannot know what is imperfect without knowing what is perfect. They respond, that one knows what is perfect from what is imperfect. I insist, no, because saying something is not x, requires the existence of x first for the negation of that to exist. They respond - that's just linguistics and does not correspond with reality.
What do you think? Can one know what is imperfect without knowing what is perfect?
The problem of evil and omnipotence, omniscience: I argue that god cannot be omnipotent, because if god is omnipotent he should be able to create another god, die, create a rock he cannot lift; he should know what we would do before we even do it. If is he benevolent, he should not condemn anybody to eternal suffering; he should not allow evil. They respond that god's benevolence, omniscience and omnipotence is different to ours and beyond our comprehension. I insist, that then we cannot use those words in the first place. They respond - that's just linguistics and logic.
The argument of subsistence: I argue that any number of particulars must necessarily subsist within a substratum which contains them all, because it is unthinkable for any particulars to exist in a vacuum. They argue, that if it unthinkable it does not mean it cannot happen. I insist, but if it unthinkable, how can we say such a thing can exist. They respond, but that's just logic.
The argument of interaction: I argue that dissimilar entities cannot interact with each other. They argue that there is no reason that should be true. I insist, how can two things which have no similarity, interact. They respond, that's just an assumption of logic.
Is there a rebuttal to any of these, or do you actually agree with their position?
