display | more...

A proof that pure logic can lead to pure absurdity. it goes as follows:
God is Love

Love is Blind

Therefore God is Blind

Ray Charles is Blind

Therefore Ray Charles is God

This proof has multiple fallacies, and someone else is welcome to post a more detailed and formal explanation. The primary fallacy relates to how is translates from English to symbolic logic. In symbolic logic or algebra, is translates as =. However, in English "is" can be used to describe an aspect of an object or subset without describing the entire object.

A more careful (but less amusing) translation would be:

Love is an aspect of God

Blindness is an aspect of Love

Therefore Blindness is an aspect of God.
(Still not quite right, as Love is not completely contained in the concept of God, but moving in the right direction.)
Blindness is also an aspect of Ray Charles

Ray Charles and God have blindness in common.

To really translate the statements appropriately requires a better grasp of set theory than I have; A Venn Diagram probably wouldn't hurt either.