logic is used in a way that is was never meant for

No, you still don't get it. The logic is perfectly acceptable in its correctness. There is nothing wrong with the logic used. Even with unverifiable premises, the logic is being used entirely in the way it was meant to be.

Look, if I change the premises that the video's author uses while using the exact same logical principles, I arrive at a sound argument:

1. If I have an orange, it must have grown from an orange tree.
2. If an orange tree grew the orange, an orange tree must exist.
3. I have an orange.
4. Therefore, an orange tree exists.
QED.

See what I did there? I used the exact same LOGIC to arrive at a SOUND argument (a proof of existence) because I used true premises. It's a simple double application of Modus Ponens. You cannot say that Modus Ponens is "ineffectively used" because it arrives at a faulty conclusion.

Granted, you could disagree with my conclusion, suggesting that the orange was taken from a tree that no longer exists (in which case semantics matter), or that the orange was genetically engineered and created in a lab artificially, or that we all live in a dream state where nothing is real. But that is not the job of logic. That is the job of argumentation.

Logical fallacies are always fun. I wish the narrator would stop makin those hard P's, though. I've yet to see proper argument, not using a fallacy, for existence of any deity.. therefore none exists. QED

I'm from NH where my sister has a blind cat. The blind cat chases, and catches, birds.

A dog smaller than a cat is not a dog. QED.

Oh, Snake that was horrible!

I prefer this:

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

I guess you'd have to have read Hitch Hiker's Guide to appreciate what a Babel fish is.... ;-)

I agree with Dr. Feynman. It is absolutely fascinating that all around all of the time are incredible amounts of interracting electromagnetic field information. And it is interesting to think of our eyes as instruments which are tuned to see a certain spectrum of this informatino, much as a radio is tuned to hear another spectrum.



Richard Feynman, 1985. QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton Univ. Press. ...its a good, quick read, and was forced upon me in my undergrad days.

Oh QED, sorry I see now, if you'd said quod erat demonstrandum, then I'd have caught on right away!

QED being the completion of a proof.