# Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong but I

(See in situ)

### Correct me if I'm wrong but I

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what your trying to say is that
any logical system breaks down at some point.

For example if we accept that (A): 1+1=2 then it follows that
(B): 2-1=1.
That is, A implies B. (this is assuming that we agree on what +,-,= mean)

Are you trying to say that you must have faith that A is true for B to be true? That is, a logical system is only internally consistent.

And by extension, you need to have faith in the axioms of a logical system. Or put another way, if the axioms of a logical system are proved incorrect then any proof that logical system has produced is no longer a proof.

Is this the point your making? Or are you using this to prove something else?

I don't really see how this results in the line
"The faith in logic creeps back to God, even while denying him."

Are you trying to say that if you have a faith in logic, it is inconsistent to not have a faith in god?

Because that doesn't make sense. With logic (which you have used to support you claim), faith in X does not imply faith in z. If that were so you could argue that:
A faith in (x) logic implies a faith in God (z), but likewise,
A faith in (x) God implies a faith in logic (z), likewise,
A faith in (x) logic implies a faith in an argument counter to you own (z), likewise
A faith in (x) God implies a faith in an argument counter to you own (z), likewise
A faith in (x) an argument counter to you own implies a faith in God and Logic (z)
A faith in (x) that you are 100% correct implies a faith in (z) that you are 100% wrong.

Your argument is truly interesting but hard to follow.