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.

[Nick_A]

The great Chess champoin Dr. Emanuel Lasker wrote that the combination reveals the hypocrite. when I read that years back it stuck with me.

There are many logical lines one can embark on over the board. But sometimnes even though they are logical, they lead to losing positions. The reason of course is that the logic was removed from the greater context which is the wholeness of the chess position itself. Variables were not considered. Two bits is the only one here who seems to understand this.

The wholeness of God includes variables beyond the scope of the associative mind and its limited variables.

The whole idea of the man in the desert is that logic would not be used to prove the need for water (God. It cannot deny the possibility for finding it which it cannot do. The best logic can do is indicate possibilities.

Walter Stacy wrote in an editorial I'm reading:

“To ask for a proof of the existence of God is on a par with asking for a proof of the existence of beauty. If God does not lie at the end of a telescope, neither does he lie at the end of any syllogism.”

Again, my guess is that twobits is the only ond here that will experience the sense in this quote. All I know is that I do and cannot understand why such a fuss is made over logic that has such a minor role in collective human understanding as it concerns revealing God.

[Cathar1950]

Where would we be without fallacies and the ability to recognize them?

Praying for divine guidance.

I guess they just have to hope the right gods or god answeres.
I often wondered what Paul saw in his visions that he couldn't mention and why.

The uses of such ideas as “Spirit” are metaphorical or imaginative.
It can hardly be called a technical description.
Any use as an answer has to be explained,

I guess a silly answer deserves a silly response. But I would like to see this "logical" sequence build. If FBs idea of logic is correct, then FBs false premise will be shown to be false. The anamoly is that Cathar has already added another false idea to the false premise and I presume sees it as logical.

I think you made the claim that some of us question. I am interested in how it is you make such claims as I watch your wiggle in your special use of language.
I bet it won’t be long before we are presented with some great examples of “Logicide”.
Of course you would have to present a clearer case.

I think you have demonstrated the limits of your understanding of logic or even the use of the word. What you describe by making your subjective experience objective explain how it is you think logic should not be limited by logic. You replace the limits of logic with no logic at all and call it logical. You claim our logical limits as some kind of drawback while presenting us with something without boundaries or description.
This is why, with a straight face I might add, you claim that your religion is not a religion but a personal relationship. It is still a religion and you just added one more problem you can’t explain.
You might want to change your name to Two-steps.
How is your subjective experience in any way objective, except we agree that it is subjective?
Your special use of words that is meaningful to the subjective experiences of believers does make it hard to pin you down but it also makes it equally hard to read anything meaningful into it. I guess you have shown some of the worse use of logic to create an even larger gap in what the world around you is talking about and what you express with your slippery cultic theology you have objectified

[Cathar1950]

The great Chess champoin Dr. Emanuel Lasker wrote that the combination reveals the hypocrite. when I read that years back it stuck with me.

There are many logical lines one can embark on over the board. But sometimnes even though they are logical, they lead to losing positions. The reason of course is that the logic was removed from the greater context which is the wholeness of the chess position itself. Variables were not considered. Two bits is the only one here who seems to understand this.

The wholeness of God includes variables beyond the scope of the associative mind and its limited variables.

The whole idea of the man in the desert is that logic would not be used to prove the need for water (God. It cannot deny the possibility for finding it which it cannot do. The best logic can do is indicate possibilities.

Walter Stacy wrote in an editorial I'm reading:

“To ask for a proof of the existence of God is on a par with asking for a proof of the existence of beauty. If God does not lie at the end of a telescope, neither does he lie at the end of any syllogism.”

Again, my guess is that twobits is the only ond here that will experience the sense in this quote. All I know is that I do and cannot understand why such a fuss is made over logic that has such a minor role in collective human understanding as it concerns revealing God.

My experience is subjective. My use of the word is not

The above from Twobits indicates you have given him too much credit.
If we are dealing with art, poetry and imagination then it should be explained and not called logical when not believing in God or gods is illogical.
It now seems that Twobits is not alone in his misunderstanding.

[twobitsmedia]

Where would we be without fallacies and the ability to recognize them?

Praying for divine guidance.

I guess they just have to hope the right gods or god answeres.
I often wondered what Paul saw in his visions that he couldn't mention and why.

The uses of such ideas as “Spirit” are metaphorical or imaginative.
It can hardly be called a technical description.
Any use as an answer has to be explained,

I guess a silly answer deserves a silly response. But I would like to see this "logical" sequence build. If FBs idea of logic is correct, then FBs false premise will be shown to be false. The anamoly is that Cathar has already added another false idea to the false premise and I presume sees it as logical.

I think you made the claim that some of us question. I am interested in how it is you make such claims as I watch your wiggle in your special use of language.

I am using the same language as yours. I even use the same dictionary.

I bet it won’t be long before we are presented with some great examples of “Logicide”.

I prefer logical heresey.

Of course you would have to present a clearer case.

If that means deferring to the great assumed logic of someone else, it probably won't happen.

I think you have demonstrated the limits of your understanding of logic or even the use of the word.

I understand logic just fine.

What you describe by making your subjective experience objective explain how it is you think logic should not be limited by logic.

I have never made my subjective experience objective. I think you are already going down the wrong road with this....but , please, build on the premise.

You replace the limits of logic with no logic at all and call it logical.

I have never said that either. I submit that logic is based only on input. Apparently FBs list of "logic" rules is nonexhaustive. If it is, then that means he is not operating on logic, but only the parts he read and, maybe, accepts. Is partial logic logical? What a paradox.

You claim our logical limits as some kind of drawback while presenting us with something without boundaries or description.

It is becoming clear that the "logical" love to be bound and limited. Maybe it is the safe place for them,

This is why, with a straight face I might add, you claim that your religion is not a religion but a personal relationship.

It is based out of the reality of that relationship I suppose would be more accurate.

It is still a religion and you just added one more problem you can’t explain.

No, I can explain it fine. The problem is that you cannot understand it...based, I presume, on some standard that you claim which defines what religion is.

How is your subjective experience in any way objective, except we agree that it is subjective?

My subjective experience is NOT objective. I am pretty sure I have said that many times.

Your special use of words that is meaningful to the subjective experiences of believers does make it hard to pin you down but it also makes it equally hard to read anything meaningful into it.

I can't make a case for all believers. Their experience is out of my realm. The Holy Spirit is the common denominator. That is the objective reality. The affects of that is the common denominator.

I guess you have shown some of the worse use of logic to create an even larger gap in what the world around you is talking about and what you express with your slippery cultic theology you have objectified

I have no idea what that means. You lost me after "I guess.."

[twobitsmedia]

The great Chess champoin Dr. Emanuel Lasker wrote that the combination reveals the hypocrite. when I read that years back it stuck with me.

There are many logical lines one can embark on over the board. But sometimnes even though they are logical, they lead to losing positions. The reason of course is that the logic was removed from the greater context which is the wholeness of the chess position itself. Variables were not considered. Two bits is the only one here who seems to understand this.

The wholeness of God includes variables beyond the scope of the associative mind and its limited variables.

The whole idea of the man in the desert is that logic would not be used to prove the need for water (God. It cannot deny the possibility for finding it which it cannot do. The best logic can do is indicate possibilities.

Walter Stacy wrote in an editorial I'm reading:

“To ask for a proof of the existence of God is on a par with asking for a proof of the existence of beauty. If God does not lie at the end of a telescope, neither does he lie at the end of any syllogism.”

Again, my guess is that twobits is the only ond here that will experience the sense in this quote. All I know is that I do and cannot understand why such a fuss is made over logic that has such a minor role in collective human understanding as it concerns revealing God.

My experience is subjective. My use of the word is not

You picked this up before the edit. the word "spirit" was left out.

The above from Twobits indicates you have given him too much credit.

I will accept that on the basis of the pre-edit error.

If we are dealing with art, poetry and imagination then it should be explained and not called logical when not believing in God or gods is illogical.

I am lost on this comment. Art, poetry and imagination are not logical? Believing in God or gods can be illogical. But it is not the rule.

[McCulloch]

So, you are creating logic out of ancient writings? Hmmm, Now where have I heard that argument before? Thats even older the modern day Bible is supposed to be in its current form,

In a way logic looks after itself.

Because why?

For someone who claims to know logic, you demonstrate a fair amount of ignorance about the topic. The list of logicians dating back to antiquity is not meant to be used like a religious text, but is a summary of how humans have studied logic for a long time. You may wish to refer to them, or not. But it is difficult to claim to be well acquainted in a subject when you are unfamiliar with those who are considered scholars in the field.

It shapes the limits of thought.

Really. How telling. So, if someone thinks outside of it, the logiocal world explodes or something? Is it like the forbidden zone?

This is more what I expect from a religionist. However, the topic of this thread is not whether or not logic is a valid methodology, but is to evaluate your claim that belief in the existence of God is, in fact, logical.

Mac has presented a sense of formal logic. Like mathematics and mathematical symbols, it is objective.

His logic is not like mathematics.

Logic is very much like mathematics.

All I know is that I do and cannot understand why such a fuss is made over logic that has such a minor role in collective human understanding as it concerns revealing God.

The fuss is being made about 2Bits claim that his belief in the existence of God is based on logic.

The Holy Spirit is the common denominator. That is the objective reality.

I don't know about your definition of objective but I don't understand how you can claim that the Holy Spirit is objective reality.

I have reviewed 2Bits' posts in this thread and the Born Again thread to see if there was any actual logic presented. I found none. Perhaps someone could point me to a specific post with his logical arguments please.

There's no delusion, which is why I can say "God is" rather than "I believe God is." But I cannot produce my experience for you, nor can I produce God for you.

This appears to be the argument from personal experience.

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists.

Did you clearly specify how you know God exists?

S - P - I - R - I - T

Spirit does not prove God. God is sprit. Spirit can confirm God.

Really, no logic here.

I know that fairies exist because hypertranstemporal quantum guons. That's not logic either.

[McCulloch]

Every allegedly logical argument for the existence of God falls short. Here is a brief list.

The argument from First Cause

1. Everything has a cause
2. Nothing is its own cause
3. Causal chains cannot go on forever
4. There must be a first cause
5. That first cause is God

The argument from design

1. There is something or perhaps everything, that is too complex to have come about by accident
2. There must have been a designer
3. The ultimate designer is God

The argument from the Anthropic principle

1. The values of various physical constants are precisely set for our existence to have come about
2. We exist
3. They must have been fine tuned
4. God is the fine tuner

The Ontological Argument

1. God is a being than which nothing greater can even be conceived
2. Assume that God does not exist
3. We could conceive of a being greater than the non-existent God
4. This contradicts (1)
5. Therefore God exists

The argument from coincidence

1. Remarkable events occurring at the same time cannot possibly be an accident
2. Therefore God exists

The Argument from Prophesy

1. A holy book contains prophecies
2. the same book or adherents of it report that these prophecies have come true
3. the book claims that God exists
4. Therefore God exists

Variation

1. A holy book presupposes God exists
2. People read and accept the narrative
3. Therefore the entire book is true and God exists

The Subjective argument

1. People feel the need for God
2. Therefore, God exists.

The argument from prayer and miracles

1. Someone prayed or needed an extraordinary event to occur
2. an extraordinary event occurred
3. Therefore, God exists

The argument from redefinition

1. God is Love (or some other such thing)
2. Love exists
3. Therefore God exists

The argument from Cognitive tendency

1. Some cognitive tendencies suggest the existence of an all-powerful agent
2. Therefore, God exists

The universality argument

1. Across cultures the similarities in what is considered right and wrong are strikingly apparent
2. The best explanation is God
3. Therefore, God exists

Pascal's Wager

1. We can choose to believe or not
2. If we choose to believe and are wrong, we lose nothing
3. If we choose not to believe and we are wrong, we suffer great loss
4. Therefore it is prudent to believe in God

[twobitsmedia]

So, you are creating logic out of ancient writings? Hmmm, Now where have I heard that argument before? Thats even older the modern day Bible is supposed to be in its current form,

In a way logic looks after itself.

Because why?

For someone who claims to know logic, you demonstrate a fair amount of ignorance about the topic.

I understand it fine.

The list of logicians dating back to antiquity is not meant to be used like a religious text, but is a summary of how humans have studied logic for a long time. You may wish to refer to them, or not. But it is difficult to claim to be well acquainted in a subject when you are unfamiliar with those who are considered scholars in the field.

If the way that logic was studied in 1 BC is relevant to applied logic today, then I will see the need to review the history. As it is, this is 2008. It is interesting your claim is a bit different than FBs. Are you not working with the same logic?

It shapes the limits of thought.

Really. How telling. So, if someone thinks outside of it, the logiocal world explodes or something? Is it like the forbidden zone?

This is more what I expect from a religionist. However, the topic of this thread is not whether or not logic is a valid methodology, but is to evaluate your claim that belief in the existence of God is, in fact, logical.

So you would accept an invalid methodology just to make some kind of point and think it would mean something about the existence of God? I can save you the trouble. The answer is no: God is illogical to you by your methodology (ie your rules for thought) (and the fact that you already said it).

But now, having cleared that up: God is and He is logical. 1)I used to not believe in God, 2) I then believed in God, 3)I then experienced the Holy Spirit, 4) and now I know God is and it would be illogical for me to say God does not exist.

I presume that you cannot get past 3, and because of 4 have doubts about 1.
3 was a personal experience and I cannot make a case for how anyone else experiences it. But, they have, and I presume the laws of thought, I mean logic, are that it is mass delusion generation after generation after generation, or the other way to explain it is to deny that it can be because if you have not experienced spirit, then no one else can. Also, since there cannot be a step 4, (because of the limits of thought, I mean logic, step 3 just cannot happen and any consideration of step 3 and 4 can only based on step 2 (belief).

Mac has presented a sense of formal logic. Like mathematics and mathematical symbols, it is objective.

His logic is not like mathematics.

Logic is very much like mathematics.

False premise on top of false premise will not add up though. It will add up to something, but the answer could be just about anything.

I have reviewed 2Bits' posts in this thread and the Born Again thread to see if there was any actual logic presented. I found none. Perhaps someone could point me to a specific post with his logical arguments please.

And then re-read it and see where I have stated repeatedly that anything past "spirit" is illogical to you based on your established criteria for what is logical.

There's no delusion, which is why I can say "God is" rather than "I believe God is." But I cannot produce my experience for you, nor can I produce God for you.

This appears to be the argument from personal experience.

It is the foundation for it (this issue). Your logic, it appears, says that if you have not experienced it than it cannot be so.

I don't have beliefs about the existence of God. I know God exists.

Did you clearly specify how you know God exists?

S - P - I - R - I - T

Spirit does not prove God. God is sprit. Spirit can confirm God.

Really, no logic here.

I know it's that "S" word again.

I know that fairies exist because hypertranstemporal quantum guons. That's not logic either.

On top of all the reasons it isn't, the first and foremost reason is that you said it isn't. Affirming and unnaffirming an assertion in the same sentence does not make much sense, except maybe in comedy.

[twobitsmedia]

Every allegedly logical argument for the existence of God falls short. Here is a brief list.

That is a joke right? Please tell me that is not really something you consider as a source of logic?

[Cathar1950]

Although I understand the need to understand the rich history behind logic, reason and mathematics as well as the many arguments for God, I object to the claim that belief in God is logical while at the same time claim non-belief is illogical.
Is non-experience of God also experience?
His experience of God which he presents as “Spirit” is subjective yet more real then what can be easily explained in psychological or anthropological terms and pregnant with social and cultural meanings.
Any study in the area of religious experiences can help us understand the meanings they use with their ritualistic acceptance of mystery.
Granted the use of such words as “Spirit” and in Twobit’s case “Logical”, have special meaning to those that share their cultic experiences, but that in no sense means we can’t and don’t understand it.