Logic doesnt exist

"Burden of proof is on Con to prove that logic exists, and he must prove that logic exists without using any logic." - From description

the problem for my opponent is a very simple one. He must not use any logic. However, each claim is made out of logic. "Logic exists" is a logical claim which says "Logic = exists" and this claim depends on logic to be true, in order for claim to be true.

In other words, my opponent must not make any claims, because each claim he makes is either using logic, some logical connective such as "is, are, or, =", or not having any sense which then makes him unable to prove logic.

So each claim he makes is either using logic, or is illogical.

If he attempts to make any claim, he loses debate by default.

to make matters a bit worse, each proof for logic would come in form of a claim, and each claim depends on logic to be true, which then creates circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

Each claim requires reason in order to be true, and each reason is also a claim which requires a reason to be true. this forces only 3 possible results: infinite reasoning (impossible), circular reasoning (fallacy), or unproved (opponent fails to meet burden of proof).

My opponent might counter and say denying logic is nonsense and self contradiction, but such counter only works if logic is true, and such counter depends on logic in order to be true, thus it cannot be used to prove logic at the same time without creating another circular reasoning. Contradiction argument only works if logic is already true, which still needs proving.

"Counter(contradiction) true because of logic, logic true because of counter(contradiction)".

Circular reasoning

I could say logic is false because logic is false. So if we accept circular reasoning as valid, it doesnt prove logic any more than it disproves it.

Once again, my opponent is not allowed to use logic to prove logic. thus, any claim he makes must be not logical by default, and not logical claims cannot be used to prove anything, thus logic is unproved.

truly, all reasoning is circular, infinite or unproved, and all 3 of these reasonings are flawed and can be used to likewise disprove said reasoning.

Further, my opponent suffers from problem of definitions. But all definitions contain words, and those words need further definitions, which contain words which need definitions, which again contain words, which need definitions.

thus, all definitions are circular, infinite or undefined in a definition tree.

Observations dont prove definitions or logic, because observations depend on definitions or logic. You cannot observe anything to make induction without relying on law of identity. You cannot make any definition with observation without likewise relying on law of identity.

thus, a crucial problem: Logic to be true depends on definitions, and definitions to be true depend on logic. this creates circular dependence and circular reasoning. Same with observations. Observations depend on logic and definitions, and logic and definitions depend on observations. thus, observations cannot be used to prove logic or definitions.

Science is observations. However, the problem with science is that it uses observations to prove observations, in other words, it uses circular logic.

You cannot prove observations with non-observations, and proving observations using observations is circular logic.

So my opponent now has to explain how are observations proved without observations. So my opponent now must either explain observations using observations, or observations using non-observations.

Can non-observations prove observations?

No. Non-observations by definition dont observe anything, and if they dont observe anything, they are not observation of anything, thus no observation is proved by them.

It is not proved that person observes anything. Person cannot prove that person observes anything.

this is not to be confused with existence of logic and definitions, which is a separate issue. Logic and definitions are always one of 3: circular, infinite or unproved.

If you think about it, all claims are made out of words, and all words out of definitions which are further made out of words.

Because of this, all definitions are circular, infinite or unproved. there is no 4th option when each word has to be defined. When each word has to be defined using other word, it is not possible to have a complete system, it is not possible to complete the definitions because in the system there is always some word which is undefined or defined with circular definition.

Because of this, all definitions are flawed, in other words, undefined, and thus all words are equally undefined and flawed. this means that science which depends on use of definitions fails because definitions fail.

then consider the logic and reasoning. In logic and reasoning, each claim requires a reason in order to be true. But each reason is also a claim which needs a reason for it to be true. this results in circular reasoning or unproved reasoning, because for each reason, a new claim is made which needs another reason.

From this, we see that person doesnt actually have any way of proving observations true, and due to this, person can never prove science of observations.

If two things cannot be proved true, then two things are equally true.

So observations, even if consistent, cannot be proved true and not a simulation.

Many people will say "theists are using Bible to prove Bible".

But many people use things outside Bible to prove things outside Bible, which is same circular logic because you eventually run out of reasons for every reason.

You cannot have reason for every reason, and reason why every reason is a reason.