Is belief in God Logical?

[McCulloch]

God is quite logical to me
I understand logic just fine.
The antithessis of there being no God is totally illogical.
The belief [that God exists] would be [logical] too, but yes God is logical.

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

In order to avoid confusion, for purposes of this debate, the word logic without any modifiers will mean formal deductive logic. If you wish to reference any other form of logic, please distinguish them appropriately, for example, fuzzy logic or modal logic.

Feel free to reference the works of eminent logicians such as, Charles Babbage, Garrett Birkhoff, George Boole, George Boolos, Nick Bostrom, L.E.J. Brouwer, Georg Cantor, Rudolf Carnap, Gregory Chaitin, Graham Chapman, Alonzo Church, John Cleese, René Descartes, Julius Dedekind, Augustus DeMorgan, Michael Dummett, Leonard Euler, Gottlab Frege, Terry Gilliam, Kurt Gödel, Fredrich Hayek, Arend Heyting, David Hilbert, David Hume, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, William Jevons, Immanuel Kant, Stuart Kauffman, Gottfried Leibniz, Ada Lovelace, Jan Łukasiewicz, G. E. Moore, Robert Nozick, William of Ockham, Michael Palin, Blaise Pascal, John Paulos, Giuseppe Peano, Charles Peirce, Karl Popper, Emil Leon Post, Hilary Putnam, Willard van Orman Quine, Frank Ramsey, Julia Hall Bowman Robinson, Bertrand Russell, Claude Shannon, Thoralf Skolem, Alfred Tarski, Alan Turing, Nicolai A. Vasiliev, John Venn, John von Neumann, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Eugene Wigner or Stephen Wolfram.

[bernee51]

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

Of course, it is logical to believe in God because there must be someone who controls what is happening in the universe and all the evolutions including their very beginning.

Why MUST there be someone (thing?) controlling what is happening in the universe?

For example, somebody created us, people (we are not a natural evolution development from the ape to the human). We know that somebody controls us, people. And the entire enternity must also be controlled by someone because otherwise it would dissolve and perish.

I'm interested to know as well.

On what bssis do you claim that "somebody created us..."

On what basis do you claim we are not the product of evolution?

Why do you say "We know that somebody controls us..." I am part of 'We' and I do not know this.

What exactly is "entire eternity' and why must it be 'controlled' to stop it from dissolving and perishing?

[Jester]

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

I will tentatively assert that God's existence can be perfectly logical or utterly illogical depending on one's premises. Perhaps it is merely the particular flavors of theism and non-theism, rather than the basic positions themselves which can be evaluated with logic.

[daedalus 2.0]

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

I will tentatively assert that God's existence can be perfectly logical or utterly illogical depending on one's premises. Perhaps it is merely the particular flavors of theism and non-theism, rather than the basic positions themselves which can be evaluated with logic.

The term "god" is meaningless by most definitions. This makes any premise that includes the term meaningless and therefore invalid.

[McCulloch]

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

I will tentatively assert that God's existence can be perfectly logical or utterly illogical depending on one's premises. Perhaps it is merely the particular flavors of theism and non-theism, rather than the basic positions themselves which can be evaluated with logic.

Yes, I agree, that is a very tentative assertion.
How about an example of a set of premises (other than premises which beg the question) that leads one to the logical conclusion that God exists? Such an example would move your assertion a bit away from its rather shaky tentativeness.

[Cathar1950]

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

I will tentatively assert that God's existence can be perfectly logical or utterly illogical depending on one's premises. Perhaps it is merely the particular flavors of theism and non-theism, rather than the basic positions themselves which can be evaluated with logic.

The term "god" is meaningless by most definitions. This makes any premise that includes the term meaningless and therefore invalid.

I am not sure I would go with meaningless but I suppose that is true on any practical level as there is no agreement on the term or the way it is used.
There is El, Yahweh, Alla, Jesus and that is just among the Abrahamic religions. Then there are the other gods as well as if you claim all are god then you have created another one. I have read that belief is largely involuntary and the objects is ever changing. It may not be logical but the claims are what we have to go on and we should at least be doubtful when it comes to claims for God or gods if we are asked to go beyond our experiences and analogy.

[Jester]

Yes, I agree, that is a very tentative assertion.

I wouldn't want to overstate my case.

How about an example of a set of premises (other than premises which beg the question) that leads one to the logical conclusion that God exists? Such an example would move your assertion a bit away from its rather shaky tentativeness.

That is fair enough.

For some, the idea that morality is objectively binding is just that. Particularly, if they lack the premise that the supernatural world could be evidenced or refuted by science.

Perhaps the most common premise is the idea that chance is insufficient for explaining certain things. Most people, after a long enough chain of events which seem to them highly unlikely (so long as they adhere to a naturalistic perspective), will begin to consider supernatural causes.

There is the possibility of interjecting logic into many of these situations, but I'm wondering if that is the major consideration. Nearly all events can be interpreted from wildly different perspectives. This is why, I expect, people tend to maintain toward the beliefs they held in youth througout their lives.

This reminds me rather of Carl Jung's statement that the magical beliefs of primitive peoples did not differ from modern beliefs in their way of thinking, but in their underlying assumptions.

[Jester]

The term "god" is meaningless by most definitions. This makes any premise that includes the term meaningless and therefore invalid.

I think most of us have at least a vague idea of what someone else means when they use the word. That would establish at least basic meaningfulness.

[daedalus 2.0]

The term "god" is meaningless by most definitions. This makes any premise that includes the term meaningless and therefore invalid.

I think most of us have at least a vague idea of what someone else means when they use the word. That would establish at least basic meaningfulness.

A vague idea of what it is isn't enough. Just because you can imagine it, doesn't make it meaningful.

Could we define "god" for this argument?

[Thought Criminal]

The term "god" is meaningless by most definitions. This makes any premise that includes the term meaningless and therefore invalid.

I think most of us have at least a vague idea of what someone else means when they use the word. That would establish at least basic meaningfulness.

A vague idea of what it is isn't enough. Just because you can imagine it, doesn't make it meaningful.

Could we define "god" for this argument?

The problem isn't just disagreement among people as to what constitutes a god, but problems of definition and self-consistency. We've shown that many of the attributes assigned to God are either meaningless in themselves or mutually contradictory.

TC

[McCulloch]

How about an example of a set of premises that leads one to the logical conclusion that God exists?

For some, the idea that morality is objectively binding is just that. Particularly, if they lack the premise that the supernatural world could be evidenced or refuted by science.

1. Premise: Morality is objective.
2. Premise: Supernaturalism cannot be proven or disproven objectively.
3. Conclusion: God exists

Perhaps the most common premise is the idea that chance is insufficient for explaining certain things. Most people, after a long enough chain of events which seem to them highly unlikely (so long as they adhere to a naturalistic perspective), will begin to consider supernatural causes.

1. Premise: Some things cannot be explained by chance.
2. Premise: Long causal chains are highly unlikely.
3. Conclusion: God exists

Are you willing to stand by these logical examples OR would you like to present alternative sets of premises that would lead one to the logical conclusion that God exists?