"`` There is no proof that God exists `` is quite accurate . Only the deepest philosophy will come to the point of seriously debating the fault in the statement , which is that as we are posessed of imperfect knowledge we can not deny the possibility that some as yet undiscovered proof of god might exist . In this case , we 'd modify the statement to `` There is no known proof that God exists. `` However , in the context , what you are doing is not deep philosophy , but nitpicking . As for the laws of logic , once more I shall try to explain from another angle : logic , mathematics and similar are ways in which we describe the universe . Take an apple . Take another apple . Now you have two apples , but you do n't actually have two of the same things . You just recognize that apples are similar one to another and that it is reasonable to invent the nonexistent context of an abstract apple ."
"All you have said is there are two apples . I noticed you said Â “ describeÂ ” , I can describe what a chair is , but that description is not the chair itself . Are the apples the `` law of non-contradiction `` ?"
"you have two apples , but you do n't actually have two of the same things"
"All you have said is there are two apples can describe what a chair is , but that description is not the chair itself ."