Logic as am academic discipline was created around 2600 years ago, but as a "characteristic of the universe" it always existed. In that it's like biology or mathematics. These academic disciplined were first created around the same time than logic, but their subject always existed. As a living organism we evolved an instinctive ability to understand the subject of logic (the interelation between facts and investigative skills), just like we evolved an ability to understand numbers, to better survive and manipulate an hostile environment.
To a certain point yes. You cannot have complex discussion, critique, debates, etc. without a commonly accepted sets of rules and comprehension of the world's mechanic. You need to agree on interelation between proposition and that's what logic studies, the interelation between facts.
Then why do you ask me to disprove your definition of God as the Prime Creator of the universe for which the proof of his existence is the existence of the universe itself? You asked me to prove you wrong using logic. Do you want me to do that and do you want to read that or do you just want to move on to something else with you life?
But they cannot be KNOWN to be true nor can they be claimed to be true; they can only be said to be potentially true until proven or disproven. Everything and anything could be true that doesn't mean that everything is true. Logic allows KNOWLEDGE of the truth. It allows to make a distinction between the things you believe and the things you know.
Note that in all the situation above the people who claim something PROVED IT beyond all reasonnable doubt and they had logical arguments and scientific evidences to support their claim.
In this scenario, you are the admirals not Army General Mitchell because you specifically told me you would never accept any argument against your unproven second premise and you would not provide any proofs for it either. You are doing a thing akin to claiming you can be on the sunken battleship and still be correct when you say "this ship cannot be sunk and nothing can prove me wrong".
Describe art with logic. Describe poetry, music, love, sadness. You can quote the dictionary but that leaves out the really important part, the essence, the powerful overwhelming feeling that those things produce in people. I know you don't understand. How could you? To you those things can be logically quantified and measured and analyzed but that's what a robot would do, not a human.
Logic is necessary to comprehend? To you it is. There is a man who can recite Pi to 100,000 places correctly. Use logic to explain that. You can't, but I can. I know what he is doing, how it works. Your logic can't explain things that are outside of the box but that is the only way to fully understand the reality of the universe. Science has to blend with art. They have to become one because they are one. I know you don't understand.
Why did I ask you to disprove my definition of God? So I could disagree with your result regardless of the evidence. To prove to you that humans are emotional beings and that emotion drives us, not logical thinking. You are a robot but the rest of us are not. You think we should be like you but losing our emotions is abhorent to humans.
I cannot claim something true when it's not? Sure I can, it happens all the time. Theists say that God exists and atheists say that God does not exist. One group is correct and the other is wrong. It's happening right now on this forum.
Logic allows knowledge of the truth? As if it had to power to do otherwise. Logic doesn't allow anything to happen, those things happen irregardless of logic.
Robots can't understand empathy. You can quote the dictionary but you have never felt it so you don't really know what it is.
