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]

I don't seek God. I make no claims about God. I simply echo the claims made by those who claim to believe in God.

Then what is the point for asking for anything even remotely defining? To kill time?

You want to equate God with a logical impossibilty and then ask for a definition.

One cannot assert the proposition, "God exists" without some kind of definition of God. Perhaps you could present one. I don't want to equate God with a logical impossibility, I simply observe that much of what those who claim to believe in God assert about this entity is a logical impossibility.

Yes, I said I would and that I am sure as I begin you will not like it. It is VERY VERY VERY long and requires a lot of thought be put into it...I am suspecting many strawman assertions to be made.

The God that I refer to when I refer to "God" is the one whose character is established through the Biblical record, for which that is the premise of the Bible. Now, you will define him based on all of that criteria, but you will only be able to define him based on the rules of logic/thought that you have accepted and established as your criteria.

Let's be specific. God is spirit. I don't quite know what that means and the Bible is somewhat unclear on the meaning of that term. If we accept that a spirit is a kind of causal agent with a will but without a physical manifestation, then this is impossible.

Which brings me back to you then asking for information about something you already have deemed impossible.

Hence you can equate God to a pink unicorn and think its a logical comparison...even though there's no foundation in that which is reasonable. It is a disrespect for those who know of Gods existence, but the comparison makes it clear that the one who compares God as such believes "Christianity" to be nothing more than religious rituals and rules and a host of other things and nothing more than a human construct and delusion.

Please present evidence that God, whatever your definition is, is a logical possibility.

It cannot be done based on what you have already established as "impossible." It is possible, but you have accepted the limits of your capability to reason.

I compared (not equated) God with the invisible pink unicorn, in that it is a logical impossibility to have color and to be invisible.

Hmm, What color is God?

The attributes of God, such as being one and being three, are also logical impossibilities.

Which then, foes with out saying, the God you ask to be defined on your accepted terms of limitation do not exist. We are in agreement on that point. My God exists.but My God, apparently the "Christian" God is outside your reasoning capabilities. And because of that, anyone thinking outside your line of reason is irrational.

It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence.

It has not been shown to you. But you 1)admit you are not looking, 2) admit that you cannot reason past your line 3)compare/equate God with a pink unicorn and call it logic. There are probably a long list of whys and wherefores.

You and others have made the claim that you know that God exists, but have not been able to demonstrate with evidence that your assertion is valid.

Not to your satisfaction, but that is, from what you say, a logical impossibility.

Christianity, in my view, is nothing more than religious rituals and nothing more than a human construction and delusion. Show me otherwise.

"Christianity" is an irrelevant application if there is no God. Any focus you could make on that would be illogical. It would be like trying to make heads or tale out of a Biblical miracle but leaving out the "God" factor.

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

I said it leaves nothing for me to debate. You will get assertions which you already predetermine as illogical. You have established your line of reason and call it logic. Nothing is possible to exist outside of that. I believe the line is LARGELY a subjective line. You believe it is not and that is is just reality. Anything outside that line is irrational and possibly deluded.

You seem pretty good at deferring what you refer to as "logic."

I have a small quibble with this. I defer to what almost everyone who has made a serious study of the subject calls logic. We have shown in other threads that you are the one with the special personal definition of logic.

I dont have a special definition of logic. .....I believe, however, that logic not applied is not logic. Having to defer, to me, is like not having the ability to reason something through on ones own merit I see many an assertion made from nontheist who claims logic, who just say, when asked why they reason it say "because it is logical"" and "rational." Logic describes a reasoning process....it is that process which is the important part of the puzzle. How does one get from point A to C. Do they go through B or just go straight to C. And then what is A? And that is why a "proxy", whether proclaimed or self proclaimed, doesn't seem to clarify any reasoning points to me..

Now, having said all that, I hope you will stick with this for at least just a bit as I am beginning to see where you are coming from. You can create any strawman you wish and even be malicious, I do not care but since you are one of the more "reasoned" individuals on this forum I can learn from you regardless of whether we continue to butt heads and be in TOTAL disagreement. (which appears will be the case). I work at home on the computer but I have a lot to do today, and need to stick to it, so I may not come back in very often today (if at all) , and if I get kicked off for other reason, I guess that will be it anyway.

[daedalus 2.0]

Yes, I said I would and that I am sure as I begin you will not like it. It is VERY VERY VERY long and requires a lot of thought be put into it...

So you keep saying. You don't intend on writing anything on it at all, do you? You're just stalling.

[Thought Criminal]

Yes, I said I would and that I am sure as I begin you will not like it. It is VERY VERY VERY long and requires a lot of thought be put into it...

So you keep saying. You don't intend on writing anything on it at all, do you? You're just stalling.

Go easy on him. Some people don't actually have a vaguely defensible stance, so they're forced to run around and try to dispute others without a foundation.

TC

[McCulloch]

I don't seek God. I make no claims about God. I simply echo the claims made by those who claim to believe in God.

Then what is the point for asking for anything even remotely defining? To kill time?

We are debating if a belief in God is logical. That question cannot be debated without a definition. That is the point.

Which brings me back to you then asking for information about something you already have deemed impossible.

Try to keep that in mind when you present your definition of God. Make your definition of God in line with what is said about God in the Bible and not impossible. I can't wait.

It cannot be done based on what you have already established as "impossible." It is possible, but you have accepted the limits of your capability to reason.

It is not my determination of what is impossible. Square circles are impossible. Show using the common tools of logic and reason that how you define God is not impossible. Don't worry about the limits of my reasoning capacity.

Hmm, What color is God?

You tell me.

It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence.

It has not been shown to you.

It has not been shown to anyone on this forum. If I am wrong, simply point out where the existence of God has been shown. A link will suffice.

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

I said it leaves nothing for me to debate. You will get assertions which you already predetermine as illogical.

Logic is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is illogical, simply present the logic showing that I am wrong. That is the essence of debate.

I dont have a special definition of logic. .....I believe, however, that logic not applied is not logic.

This is a different form of logic than the logic studied by any logician I know.

Logic describes a reasoning process.

Logic describes a specific reasoning process.

[twobitsmedia]

I don't seek God. I make no claims about God. I simply echo the claims made by those who claim to believe in God.

Then what is the point for asking for anything even remotely defining? To kill time?

We are debating if a belief in God is logical. That question cannot be debated without a definition. That is the point.

Yes, and I have stated that the God I reference is the one that is described by the Biblical record which begins at Genesis and ends at Revelations.

It cannot be done based on what you have already established as "impossible." It is possible, but you have accepted the limits of your capability to reason.

It is not my determination of what is impossible. Square circles are impossible.

It is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle. If a rational number is used as an approximation of π, then squaring the circle becomes possible, depending on the values chosen. However, this is only an approximation and does not meet the constraints of the ancient rules for solving the problem. Several mathematicians have demonstrated workable procedures based on a variety of approximations.

Bending the rules by allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can in Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space (hyperbolic geometric space).

Note that the transcendence of π implies the impossibility of exactly "circling" the square, as well as of squaring the circle.Though squaring the circle is an impossible problem using only compass and straightedge, approximations to squaring the circle can be given by constructing lengths close to π. It takes only minimal knowledge of elementary geometry to convert any given rational approximation of π into a corresponding compass-and-straightedge construction, but constructions made in this way tend to be very long-winded in comparison to the accuracy they achieve. After the exact problem was proven unsolvable, some mathematicians have applied their ingenuity to finding elegant approximations to squaring the circle, defined roughly (and informally) as constructions that are particularly simple among other imaginable constructions that give similar precision.

Among the modern approximate constructions was one by E. W. Hobson in 1913 (see his book[4]). This was a fairly accurate construction which was based on constructing the approximate value of 3.14164079..., which is accurate to 4 decimals.

Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan in 1913, C. D. Olds in 1963, Martin Gardner in 1966, and Benjamin Bold in 1982 all gave geometric constructions for


which is accurate to 6 decimal places of π.


Kochańskis approximate constructionSrinivasa Ramanujan in 1914 gave a ruler and compass construction which was equivalent to taking the approximate value for π to be


giving a remarkable 8 decimal places of π.

In 1991, Robert Dixon gave constructions for

and
(Kochanski's approximation), though these were only accurate to 4 decimal places of π.

Show using the common tools of logic and reason that how you define God is not impossible. Don't worry about the limits of my reasoning capacity.

I am not "worriied" about it. I just see a predetermined line.

Hmm, What color is God?

You tell me.

So you equate a "pink" unicorn and reference the color of God, but do not have a color. I am still lost on why you claim a color.

It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence.

It has not been shown to you.

It has not been shown to anyone on this forum. If I am wrong, simply point out where the existence of God has been shown. A link will suffice.

Your comment assumes that every Christian who claims God exists, then is delusional? Yes? A mass delusion of some sort. People come to this website from many parts of the world; who do not know each other and account similar stories but they are all still part of some great mass delusion? And this "delusion" has gone from generation to generation throughout history...and this is called "logical" to claim it is delusion? Something passed on from generation to generation? I want to be clear if that is what you think.

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

I said it leaves nothing for me to debate. You will get assertions which you already predetermine as illogical.

Logic is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is illogical, simply present the logic showing that I am wrong. That is the essence of debate.

"Faith is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is not born of faith simply present the real faith showing that this pseudo-faith is wrong." Probably it makes no sense to you, but that is what I see when you write what you just did.

I dont have a special definition of logic. .....I believe, however, that logic not applied is not logic.

This is a different form of logic than the logic studied by any logician I know.

3 plus 3 will always be 6.

but
1 + 5=6
2 + 4=6
4 + 2=6
5 + 1=6
6 + 0=6
1+1+1+1+1+1=6
1+1+4=6
1+2+3=6 (and so on)

and on and on and on. I may go to 6 by way of 4 ones and a 2. You may get to 6 by way of 1 and 5. In which case I do not experience 1 and you did not experience 4. Or, maybe I am at 4 and your are at 5...and neither of us is at 6 yet. I am not going to accept 5, but instead will take 2 and go to 6, and because I did not experience 5, it probably was not real. Or maybe I get to 4 and become satisfied with 4. I see no need to go to 5 or 6 then. Since I see no need, I can draw the line and say that 5 and 6 is illogical anyway....as neither of us really set out for 6 anyway.
.
Or, I suppose we could debate whether we actually started at 1 or if the beginning was at 0 with questions about where 0 came from or it was always there. Or maybe it does not matter since we are already past 1 already..

Logic describes a reasoning process.

Logic describes a specific reasoning process.

with a premise that is NOT unreasonable.

[daedalus 2.0]

Yes, I said I would and that I am sure as I begin you will not like it. It is VERY VERY VERY long and requires a lot of thought be put into it...

So you keep saying. You don't intend on writing anything on it at all, do you? You're just stalling.

Go easy on him. Some people don't actually have a vaguely defensible stance, so they're forced to run around and try to dispute others without a foundation.

TC

To think, for all the time he has spent typing trash he could have read a dozen books and added something useful to the forum and maybe his life.

[daedalus 2.0]

I don't seek God. I make no claims about God. I simply echo the claims made by those who claim to believe in God.

Then what is the point for asking for anything even remotely defining? To kill time?

We are debating if a belief in God is logical. That question cannot be debated without a definition. That is the point.

Yes, and I have stated that the God I reference is the one that is described by the Biblical record which begins at Genesis and ends at Revelations.

It cannot be done based on what you have already established as "impossible." It is possible, but you have accepted the limits of your capability to reason.

It is not my determination of what is impossible. Square circles are impossible.

It is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle. If a rational number is used as an approximation of π, then squaring the circle becomes possible, depending on the values chosen. However, this is only an approximation and does not meet the constraints of the ancient rules for solving the problem. Several mathematicians have demonstrated workable procedures based on a variety of approximations.

Bending the rules by allowing an infinite number of compass-and-straightedge operations or by performing the operations on certain non-Euclidean spaces also makes squaring the circle possible. For example, although the circle cannot be squared in Euclidean space, it can in Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space (hyperbolic geometric space).

Note that the transcendence of π implies the impossibility of exactly "circling" the square, as well as of squaring the circle.Though squaring the circle is an impossible problem using only compass and straightedge, approximations to squaring the circle can be given by constructing lengths close to π. It takes only minimal knowledge of elementary geometry to convert any given rational approximation of π into a corresponding compass-and-straightedge construction, but constructions made in this way tend to be very long-winded in comparison to the accuracy they achieve. After the exact problem was proven unsolvable, some mathematicians have applied their ingenuity to finding elegant approximations to squaring the circle, defined roughly (and informally) as constructions that are particularly simple among other imaginable constructions that give similar precision.

Among the modern approximate constructions was one by E. W. Hobson in 1913 (see his book[4]). This was a fairly accurate construction which was based on constructing the approximate value of 3.14164079..., which is accurate to 4 decimals.

Indian mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan in 1913, C. D. Olds in 1963, Martin Gardner in 1966, and Benjamin Bold in 1982 all gave geometric constructions for


which is accurate to 6 decimal places of π.


Kochańskis approximate constructionSrinivasa Ramanujan in 1914 gave a ruler and compass construction which was equivalent to taking the approximate value for π to be


giving a remarkable 8 decimal places of π.

In 1991, Robert Dixon gave constructions for

and
(Kochanski's approximation), though these were only accurate to 4 decimal places of π.

Show using the common tools of logic and reason that how you define God is not impossible. Don't worry about the limits of my reasoning capacity.

I am not "worriied" about it. I just see a predetermined line.

Hmm, What color is God?

You tell me.

So you equate a "pink" unicorn and reference the color of God, but do not have a color. I am still lost on why you claim a color.

It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence.

It has not been shown to you.

It has not been shown to anyone on this forum. If I am wrong, simply point out where the existence of God has been shown. A link will suffice.

Your comment assumes that every Christian who claims God exists, then is delusional? Yes? A mass delusion of some sort. People come to this website from many parts of the world; who do not know each other and account similar stories but they are all still part of some great mass delusion? And this "delusion" has gone from generation to generation throughout history...and this is called "logical" to claim it is delusion? Something passed on from generation to generation? I want to be clear if that is what you think.

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

I said it leaves nothing for me to debate. You will get assertions which you already predetermine as illogical.

Logic is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is illogical, simply present the logic showing that I am wrong. That is the essence of debate.

"Faith is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is not born of faith simply present the real faith showing that this pseudo-faith is wrong." Probably it makes no sense to you, but that is what I see when you write what you just did.

I dont have a special definition of logic. .....I believe, however, that logic not applied is not logic.

This is a different form of logic than the logic studied by any logician I know.

3 plus 3 will always be 6.

but
1 + 5=6
2 + 4=6
4 + 2=6
5 + 1=6
6 + 0=6
1+1+1+1+1+1=6
1+1+4=6
1+2+3=6 (and so on)

and on and on and on. I may go to 6 by way of 4 ones and a 2. You may get to 6 by way of 1 and 5. In which case I do not experience 1 and you did not experience 4. Or, maybe I am at 4 and your are at 5...and neither of us is at 6 yet. I am not going to accept 5, but instead will take 2 and go to 6, and because I did not experience 5, it probably was not real. Or maybe I get to 4 and become satisfied with 4. I see no need to go to 5 or 6 then. Since I see no need, I can draw the line and say that 5 and 6 is illogical anyway....as neither of us really set out for 6 anyway.
.
Or, I suppose we could debate whether we actually started at 1 or if the beginning was at 0 with questions about where 0 came from or it was always there. Or maybe it does not matter since we are already past 1 already..

Logic describes a reasoning process.

Logic describes a specific reasoning process.

with a premise that is NOT unreasonable.

This is total gibberish, TBM. Please provide yor definition of God so we can move along. Stop stalling.

[McCulloch]

We are debating if a belief in God is logical. That question cannot be debated without a definition. That is the point.

Yes, and I have stated that the God I reference is the one that is described by the Biblical record which begins at Genesis and ends at Revelations.

Thank you. We agree. Let us then debate whether belief in the God described in the Bible is logical. Your job should be fairly straight forward. Simply present some logic that concludes with "Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists. "

Two small quibbles:
The Bible does not start with Genesis and run continuously as a narrative to Revelation. That is only the traditional order of the books.
The last book of the Christian Bible is not called Revelations. It is Revelation to John, Apocalypse of John commonly called Revelation.

It is not my determination of what is impossible. Square circles are impossible.

It is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle. [...] non-Euclidean spaces [...] Euclidean space, [...] Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space (hyperbolic geometric space).[...] transcendence of π implies the impossibility of exactly "circling" the square, as well as of squaring the circle.[...] E. W. Hobson in 1913 [...] Srinivasa Ramanujan in 1913, C. D. Olds in 1963, Martin Gardner in 1966, and Benjamin Bold in 1982 [...] Kochańskis [...] Robert Dixon

I appreciate your research but I was using a much simpler example of impossible. A square circle. That is a shape which simultaneously meets the definition of a square and a circle. This is impossible.

Hmm, What color is God?

You tell me.

So you equate a "pink" unicorn and reference the color of God, but do not have a color. I am still lost on why you claim a color.

The example of the invisible pink unicorn is another example of that which is logically impossible. Invisibility is not consistent with color, therefore there cannot be an invisible pink unicorn. Omnipotence and omniscience are not consistent with regrets and mistakes, therefore the God of the Bible cannot exist.

It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence.

It has not been shown to you.

It has not been shown to anyone on this forum. If I am wrong, simply point out where the existence of God has been shown. A link will suffice.

Your comment assumes that every Christian who claims God exists, then is delusional? Yes? A mass delusion of some sort. People come to this website from many parts of the world; who do not know each other and account similar stories but they are all still part of some great mass delusion? And this "delusion" has gone from generation to generation throughout history...and this is called "logical" to claim it is delusion? Something passed on from generation to generation? I want to be clear if that is what you think.

Nice evasion. Are you saying that God has been shown to exist because there are lots of people who have believed in God?

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

I said it leaves nothing for me to debate. You will get assertions which you already predetermine as illogical.

Logic is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is illogical, simply present the logic showing that I am wrong. That is the essence of debate.

"Faith is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is not born of faith simply present the real faith showing that this pseudo-faith is wrong." Probably it makes no sense to you, but that is what I see when you write what you just did.

For one thing, faith is not a well defined discipline. There are so many people of faith with so many divergent and irreconcilable positions. There are no standards whereby the practitioners of faith can settle their differences. Logic, on the other hand, is well defined, akin to mathematics.

I dont have a special definition of logic. .....I believe, however, that logic not applied is not logic.

This is a different form of logic than the logic studied by any logician I know.

3 plus 3 will always be 6.

but
1 + 5=6
2 + 4=6
4 + 2=6
5 + 1=6
6 + 0=6
1+1+1+1+1+1=6
1+1+4=6
1+2+3=6 (and so on)

and on and on and on. I may go to 6 by way of 4 ones and a 2. You may get to 6 by way of 1 and 5. In which case I do not experience 1 and you did not experience 4. Or, maybe I am at 4 and your are at 5...and neither of us is at 6 yet. I am not going to accept 5, but instead will take 2 and go to 6, and because I did not experience 5, it probably was not real. Or maybe I get to 4 and become satisfied with 4. I see no need to go to 5 or 6 then. Since I see no need, I can draw the line and say that 5 and 6 is illogical anyway....as neither of us really set out for 6 anyway.
.
Or, I suppose we could debate whether we actually started at 1 or if the beginning was at 0 with questions about where 0 came from or it was always there. Or maybe it does not matter since we are already past 1 already..

Yes, but 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 not 1

Logic describes a reasoning process.

Logic describes a specific reasoning process.

with a premise that is NOT unreasonable.

Actually, the study of logic has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the premises. Something can be logically valid yet still untrue.

Fine, state a set of premises which do not beg the question, which do not assume what is to be proven, that then logically lead to "Therefore, God exists".

[Zzyzx]

.

This is total gibberish, TBM. Please provide yor definition of God so we can move along. Stop stalling.

Evidently many (most?, all?) people who worship "gods" are unable to define or identify beyond very general terms what it is that they worship. It is not uncommon for the same people to claim knowledge of "what god wants", while being unable to say "what god is". Incredible.

[twobitsmedia]

We are debating if a belief in God is logical. That question cannot be debated without a definition. That is the point.

Yes, and I have stated that the God I reference is the one that is described by the Biblical record which begins at Genesis and ends at Revelations.

Thank you. We agree. Let us then debate whether belief in the God described in the Bible is logical. Your job should be fairly straight forward. Simply present some logic that concludes with "Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists. "

Two small quibbles:
The Bible does not start with Genesis and run continuously as a narrative to Revelation. That is only the traditional order of the books.
The last book of the Christian Bible is not called Revelations. It is Revelation to John, Apocalypse of John commonly called Revelation.

Thats fine, It is an irrelevant point to me. and not a point I made anyway. The Bible runs Gen to Rev, probably not in accurate order and maybe not even in order of some of the chapters of each book, but nonetheless..it is laid out that way. It is within the bounds of that book that God is defined or, at least the one I refer to.

It is not my determination of what is impossible. Square circles are impossible.

It is possible to construct a square with an area arbitrarily close to that of a given circle. [...] non-Euclidean spaces [...] Euclidean space, [...] Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space (hyperbolic geometric space).[...] transcendence of π implies the impossibility of exactly "circling" the square, as well as of squaring the circle.[...] E. W. Hobson in 1913 [...] Srinivasa Ramanujan in 1913, C. D. Olds in 1963, Martin Gardner in 1966, and Benjamin Bold in 1982 [...] Kochańskis [...] Robert Dixon

I appreciate your research but I was using a much simpler example of impossible. A square circle. That is a shape which simultaneously meets the definition of a square and a circle. This is impossible.

Though I certainly agree it is impossible can you explain why it is impossible?

Hmm, What color is God?

You tell me.

So you equate a "pink" unicorn and reference the color of God, but do not have a color. I am still lost on why you claim a color.

The example of the invisible pink unicorn is another example of that which is logically impossible. Invisibility is not consistent with color, therefore there cannot be an invisible pink unicorn. Omnipotence and omniscience are not consistent with regrets and mistakes, therefore the God of the Bible cannot exist.

OK, in the style of Bertrand Russell, then the point makes some humorously logical point.. to take an absurd definition and compare it to absurd definition an call it logic.

It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence.

It has not been shown to you.

It has not been shown to anyone on this forum. If I am wrong, simply point out where the existence of God has been shown. A link will suffice.

Your comment assumes that every Christian who claims God exists, then is delusional? Yes? A mass delusion of some sort. People come to this website from many parts of the world; who do not know each other and account similar stories but they are all still part of some great mass delusion? And this "delusion" has gone from generation to generation throughout history...and this is called "logical" to claim it is delusion? Something passed on from generation to generation? I want to be clear if that is what you think.

Nice evasion. Are you saying that God has been shown to exist because there are lots of people who have believed in God?

No, if I wanted to say that I would say that. I want to know how you perceive that. Is that all delusion ? Or what? You must have a logical explanation for it if you have made a judgment on whether it is logical or not. What, if everyone who claims God exists, is the "reasoning":(if any) behind the declaration?

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

I said it leaves nothing for me to debate. You will get assertions which you already predetermine as illogical.

Logic is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is illogical, simply present the logic showing that I am wrong. That is the essence of debate.

"Faith is a well defined discipline. If you disagree with me that something is not born of faith simply present the real faith showing that this pseudo-faith is wrong." Probably it makes no sense to you, but that is what I see when you write what you just did.

For one thing, faith is not a well defined discipline. There are so many people of faith with so many divergent and irreconcilable positions. There are no standards whereby the practitioners of faith can settle their differences. Logic, on the other hand, is well defined, akin to mathematics.

Actually faith is well defined. The Biblical standard is Hebrews 11. The further away the context is from that definition, the more absurd the declaration of faith becomes. I see the same thing with logic. The further away someone gets from the reality of logic...but yet still claims it is logic...the more absurd the argument becomes.

I dont have a special definition of logic. .....I believe, however, that logic not applied is not logic.

This is a different form of logic than the logic studied by any logician I know.

3 plus 3 will always be 6.

but
1 + 5=6
2 + 4=6
4 + 2=6
5 + 1=6
6 + 0=6
1+1+1+1+1+1=6
1+1+4=6
1+2+3=6 (and so on)

and on and on and on. I may go to 6 by way of 4 ones and a 2. You may get to 6 by way of 1 and 5. In which case I do not experience 1 and you did not experience 4. Or, maybe I am at 4 and your are at 5...and neither of us is at 6 yet. I am not going to accept 5, but instead will take 2 and go to 6, and because I did not experience 5, it probably was not real. Or maybe I get to 4 and become satisfied with 4. I see no need to go to 5 or 6 then. Since I see no need, I can draw the line and say that 5 and 6 is illogical anyway....as neither of us really set out for 6 anyway.
.
Or, I suppose we could debate whether we actually started at 1 or if the beginning was at 0 with questions about where 0 came from or it was always there. Or maybe it does not matter since we are already past 1 already..

Yes, but 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 not 1

Bertrand Russell???

Logic describes a reasoning process.

Logic describes a specific reasoning process.

with a premise that is NOT unreasonable.

Actually, the study of logic has nothing to do with the reasonableness of the premises. Something can be logically valid yet still untrue.

Very good..but then you set the standard for God at what? Logically valid, which could still mean nothing to you.

Fine, state a set of premises which do not beg the question, which do not assume what is to be proven, that then logically lead to "Therefore, God exists".

The premise, of course, is God is. Not "I believe God exists." The narrative begins in Gen and ends at Revelation. But going into that, I think is still slightly premature.