Is logic a subset of math or vice versa?

Logic may end up being the result of quantum level activity in the brain… LOL…but yes in electronics mathematical calculations are the result of logic operation. For example binary multiplication by 2 is just a logical bit shift.

0001 = 1, 0010 = 2, 0100 =4, 1000 = 8

Some people say that “moral facts” have the same status as logic – that they somehow exist in some external timeless fashion.  But I think that logic is grounded in the physical world, whereas morality is grounded in the human world, therefore there are no moral facts in the way that logic and math have facts.  Any moral “facts” exist in the human world, or living world at best.

logic and math are human constructs

Surely they’re abstractions rather than constructs.  I think that the roots of logic are an abstraction of physical logic.

Yes, but the physical world has physical logic, and I think the basic laws of logic are an abstraction of that physical logic.

Unseen wrote:

the physical world

The world of physical objects which is on a human scale, at least.

Would God have to have a logic of His own – to be internally consistent?  Or would God exist beyond of any logic?

Existence necessarily implies reality, and reality is logical.  But since in what sense does logic exist?  As the laws of logic?  As an arrangements of logical entities and the relationships between them?

My point is, God would not have to have a “real” existence in the sense that we ourselves understand “real” – and I claim that logic itself has the status of an abstract rather than solid existence.  However, the laws of logic apply to reality, according to the physical context and situation.

My point is, God would not have to have a “real” existence in the sense that we ourselves understand “real”

There are a lot of problems here. The biggest one being: assigning God qualities without any justification. You can give “God” or “the Easter Bunny” or “Tree spirits” whatever qualities you want. That’s why humans have been so creative over the centuries because they’ve created a magical realm where the laws of physics don’t apply and where weird/impossible/mysterious qualities abound. For example “God is above ethical judgement and sees not actions but a part of the human soul that defies what we would consider true morality”. And yet, I just made that up. And this argument is as convincing as “God would not have to have a “real” existence in the sense that we ourselves understand “real”. All these arguments say is: I can define some mysterious being in such a way where I give it qualities which we can never understand or even argue against (let alone prove). I keep reading this and asking myself what? why? if we didn’t take God’s existence for granted…how do you arrive at this:

God would not have to have a “real” existence in the sense that we ourselves understand “real”

How is this an obvious logical sentence? How would you defend this argument as opposed to the argument “God would have to have a “real existence” in the sense that we ourselves understand as “real”? And please don’t refer to fictional qualities of a being man has invented. Anyone can invent anything and give them whatever fantastical properties they like. If we had never heard of God before, how would you argue to people about God’s realness?