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.

[twobitsmedia]

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.

In an earlier post on this thread, you said to me: You tell me, you're the one speaking on God's behalf.

Not something I ever said, of course, but if you are making a claim about something you now claim is meaningless, then it makes your entire assertion absurd and quite illogical, and yet, again, you continue to argue about something you are now claiming you cannot define. Would not the logical position be to define the object before even being able to object to it?

[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.

In an earlier post on this thread, you said to me: You tell me, you're the one speaking on God's behalf.

Not something I ever said, of course, but if you are making a claim about something you now claim is meaningless, then it makes your entire assertion absurd and quite illogical, and yet, again, you continue to argue about something you are now claiming you cannot define. Would not the logical position be to define the object before even being able to object to it?

I was being sarcastic. (Do you really believe that I think you speak for God? Surely, you can't believe I lack this level of skepticism?)

But, yes, you have defined the issue perfectly:

"Would not the logical position be to define the object before even being able to object to it?"

Yes.

Please define the object - or do you not claim to be logical?

[twobitsmedia]

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.

In an earlier post on this thread, you said to me: You tell me, you're the one speaking on God's behalf.

Not something I ever said, of course, but if you are making a claim about something you now claim is meaningless, then it makes your entire assertion absurd and quite illogical, and yet, again, you continue to argue about something you are now claiming you cannot define. Would not the logical position be to define the object before even being able to object to it?

I was being sarcastic. (Do you really believe that I think you speak for God? Surely, you can't believe I lack this level of skepticism?)

But, yes, you have defined the issue perfectly:

"Would not the logical position be to define the object before even being able to object to it?"

Yes.

Please define the object - or do you not claim to be logical?

"Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning"...I find it illogical for you to create something even sarcastically about something you claim has no meaning, because then you would not be able to accurately be "sarcastic". Truth be told, in order for your comment to be truly sarcastic you would have had to understand the meaning of "God" or at least a meaning in order to create an any kind of "opposite meaning".

[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

Jester, 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?

Not something I ever said, of course, but if you are making a claim about something you now claim is meaningless, then it makes your entire assertion absurd and quite illogical, and yet, again, you continue to argue about something you are now claiming you cannot define. Would not the logical position be to define the object before even being able to object to it?

Is it not logical to deny the existence of something which defies definition? Is it not logical to deny the existence of something which is logically impossible? The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn. Provide a consistent meaningful definition of what you mean by God and then we can debate the concept.

[twobitsmedia]

Is it not logical to deny the existence of something which defies definition?

Yes

Is it not logical to deny the existence of something which is logically impossible?

It is logical to deny the reality of it, assuming your comment is not addressing imagination. My question would be then, unless the subject has changed, what does that have to do with God?

The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't see any parallel in your comparison, if that is what it is meant to be, but you need to substantiate why this concept you have accepted as the Christian God is illogical.

[bernee51]

The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't see any parallel in your comparison, if that is what it is meant to be, but you need to substantiate why this concept you have accepted as the Christian God is illogical.

This has been done, by myself and others, on many occasion on this forum. I find actually reading what others write aids in comprehension.

[twobitsmedia]

The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't see any parallel in your comparison, if that is what it is meant to be, but you need to substantiate why this concept you have accepted as the Christian God is illogical.

This has been done, by myself and others, on many occasion on this forum. I find actually reading what others write aids in comprehension.

And your point? Are you McCullochs proxy?

[bernee51]

The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't see any parallel in your comparison, if that is what it is meant to be, but you need to substantiate why this concept you have accepted as the Christian God is illogical.

This has been done, by myself and others, on many occasion on this forum. I find actually reading what others write aids in comprehension.

And your point?

Are you McCullochs proxy?

He has not indicted he needs one.

[twobitsmedia]

The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't see any parallel in your comparison, if that is what it is meant to be, but you need to substantiate why this concept you have accepted as the Christian God is illogical.

This has been done, by myself and others, on many occasion on this forum. I find actually reading what others write aids in comprehension.

And your point?

Are you McCullochs proxy?

He has not indicted he needs one.

Then when he "indicts" that he needs one, then I will accept his answer from you.

[Confused]

The Christian concept of God, eternal, omni-present, omniscient, omnipotent, spirit being is as impossible as a square circle or a rational root of a prime number or an invisible pink unicorn.

I don't see any parallel in your comparison, if that is what it is meant to be, but you need to substantiate why this concept you have accepted as the Christian God is illogical.

This has been done, by myself and others, on many occasion on this forum. I find actually reading what others write aids in comprehension.

And your point? Are you McCullochs proxy?

MODERATOR NOTE:

This post has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. It only serves as your typical flamebaiting and taunting. If you cannot contribute intellectually to a thread, please don't derail it by posting rantings.