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]

Logic is not subjective.

I am going to give a little, but not really. I will say that logic is probably supposed to be nonsubjective. But it is not.

It is like mathematics that way. Just because algebra, geometry, calculus and statistics have different sets of rules does not mean that they are subjective.

Math and anything related to math is probably as close to objective as there can be because the numbers have to add up. However, if one does not know the end number when doing an equation, a wrong number somewhere could produce a wrong answer. If someone does know the end of the equation, then they will know if the numbers add properly and can fix the error. If someone is trying to get the numbers to add up to something, they can simply recalculate until it does.

Similarly, different schools of thought within logic are not subjective.

Schools of thought are the most subjective, which is what I guess I am addressing most considering the nature of the forum. They depend on input. Accepted input does not have to be correct, just acceptible, and it will create an answer. Maybe not the right answer, but it will create an answer. All it then takes sometimes is one other person to agree, and voila. Or, some people, like myself, do not care if anyone agrees, I will hold to it til I can be shown I am wrong. I could defer logic to someone else and just use their thoughts, but I won't unless I totally agree with it and the premise.

There's no argument "from spirit". It begins with the Holy Spirit as a personal experience. Everything adds from there.

Then we would be better to call it the argument from personal experience.

We can if the subject is "me" and this whole issue is just "me." There are others who have had experienced the same.

You are begging the question.

Only because you refuse to acknowledge the answer.

I don't think that you intended to say what you said here. Your words taken literally, say that you are begging the question because I refuse to acknowledge the answer. I fail to see how my refusal to acknowledge the answer justifies making the fallacy of begging the question.
I will therefore presume, and ask for correction if my presumption is incorrect, that what you really meant is that it appears to McC that 2Bits is begging the question because McC refuses to acknowledge the answer.

No I think I said what I meant. But tell me why the answer is not valid. Or what question it would lead to, depending on how you are using the term.

The question is whether or not it is possible for 2Bits to arrive at the conclusion that God exists using logic. 2Bits logic starts with the assumption that his personal experience with the Holy Spirit is genuine and proceeds to conclude that God exists. What is the Holy Spirit? According to most Christians, the Holy Spirit is God. What is begging the question? It is the logical fallacy of assuming what is to be proven at the outset of your argument. Clearly, 2Bits argument from personal experience is a classic case of begging the question.

It's begging the question because of that void you have with "Spirit" and your predetermined conclusion: 1)God does not exist. 2) There can be no Holy Spirit, 3) Any experience has to be an assumption (because 1) I do not understand it and 2)because God cannot exist) 4) Since 1 is true there is no way to logically think further. End of reason. Subjective Logic has kicked in and saved you from thinking any further than that. You just call it objective logic.

The evidence of the spirit is its fruit.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

All are attributes which exist in those who have experienced the spirit and those who have not in ways that cannot be objectively distinguished.

I would totally disagree, and I think a host of other Christians would disagree too. I could give you link after link to testimonies but since you hold to 1)God does not exist. It will only be logical for you to write it off as something else.

[twobitsmedia]

Observations? You mean |- P -> P or the truth table for P & Q gives a truth function TFFF. There are no observations that will contradict these. The only guy to seriously make an attempt to argue that logic derives from empirical observations was the empiricist JS Mills. But otherwise you are on your own on that one. |- P-> P, is a theorem meaning true on no assumption, meaning true prior to any empirical observations.

I did not say there was an observation that woudl contradict it. I said it was an observation. The truth of it is not relative to the point, unless you want it to be, than OK it is.

Based on the criteria which judges what is "unsound"

Well as long as the premise is not itself a contradiction or an invalid argument then you have to step outside the logical argument and make an empirical observation to check whether your premise is true. A premise is just the starting assumption.

Stepping out? Into the forbidden zone? The observation would be subjective, too. Maybe fed by other input, but only input that is acceptible by the observer.

I contend that it marks the ends of acceptable thought. Anything outside of it might be deemed nonsense or it might really be.

Okay then. What are we to do with |- P -> ~P. Which says on no assumptions it is valid to infer ~P as a consequence of P e.g. “it is always true that, when it is the case the cat is on the mat we can conclude it is not the case the cat is on the mat”. Sorry twobits that don’t fly. Is this really where you want to steer you argument?

I wrote that off an as observation, of a truth, by your insistence...

If they stand as only observations of the end of thought,

They are not observations they are formal, a priori, necessary limits of thought.

OK

then they really serve no purpose or necessity as a reference because thought will stop anyway.

Logic in that sense has no purpose. It just is. When we stop thinking then we are no longer confined by logic.

You miss the point. It describes an observation to the end of logic but logic would end anyway. It would serve no practical purpose except as an observation.

Go ahead, "Choose any you think you can break " would be a moot question, of course, but so would "nonsense" because "nonsense" would not be possible.....unless, of course, there is some criteria established within the "rules" which make that judgment and really do not observe the end of thought but rather makes rules to limit it.

I think I see where you are going. But this is not about hegemony of certain logicians telling people this is the only way to think because "we say so". The pursuit of logic is to describe the laws of valid argument. By saying |-P -> ~P is invalid is not hubris, or imposing a subjective standard. If you wanted to invent a logic where such a rule was treated as valid, you can try, but you’d be fooling yourself. Some things cannot be made valid by dictum.

I don't think we are disagreeing with defintion to some degree..

But your limits of acceptible thought say, I presume, is that cannot be, or is not so, based on whatever criteria you accept as logic.

No. Many times have I said one these boards that I am an irrational atheist. And I say that because I’m aware of what counts as a valid argument and how far I can push my position before I start talking nonsense. However, your argument from spirit as I am currently understanding it does not work, and vainly throwing pebbles at what counts as a valid argument does not protect it.

Because iof your subjective criteria and whatever logic rule limits you. This is where we disagree. Yiou judge what is valid argument based on whatver input you have recieved. ...unless you are deferring, then you don't know why your argument is... it just is.

They are not universally accepted because of the subjective nature of it.

No. It is because there are technical differences. For instance second order predicate logic quantifies over predicates, so it is possible to write (Af).Fx. This is an extention of standard first order logic that only allows (Ax).Fx. There are technical reasons why quantification over a predicate is suspect. However, it is a play off between technically suspicious modifications against added expressiveness. Slightly different case for Modal logic but the same point can be made. New operators introduced that can be criticised, but bring a gain in expressiveness. But none of the extensions attempted ever want to say anything like |- P -> ~P, or |- P & ~P.

Interesting, Well maybe I was wrong when I said that math is probably the most objective. Based on this it does end reason even with an equation. (assuming the "ifs" of course)

If you have some new rule then you can call yourself an heretical logician. Maybe you need to sign up to a non standard logic.

But that would suggest, again, that logic has some subjectiveness to it. I beleive I have been told ad nauseum that is NOT subjective.

No. For the reason just given. Bottom line there is still plenty of unfinished business in logic. But that does not mean certain established principles are ever going to be withdrawn.

Of course not. Building presumption on top of presumption seems logical???

have not evaded anything. I have been very clear in stating my position and why. But I notice when it gets read back to me it is nothing like what has been stated. Some rule of logic, not mine, seems to change the acceptability of it. Even you missed it, it appears. What rule keeps you from doing that?

Sorry twobits if I have missed anything. I don’t think you’ve been clear at all. McCulloch seems to be doing a good job of setting up a position for you. In fact I'm using Mcullochs interpolation to gain access to what you are saying, but I want to see it from you Not the McC. Also I started to read back. I did not have to go far to find this

It cannot be stated any clearer. Whatever you accept as a rule blind the posibility.

It appears the logic limits anything after that, since it has already established that God cannot be.

Well I’ve never claimed that. There is a difference between claiming “logic says there is no God” to the criticism that “twobits argument is not a logical inference”, or to claim that belief in God is not logical. There seems to be some confusion here.

Yes there is.

[twobitsmedia]

You have been making judgments and claiming superior knowledge.

No, that again, I assume, is a projection, I have not claimed any superior knowledge. Can you show me where I have? But yes, I have been making judgements, and will continue to do so.

You are confused. I was not projecting, you were.

Welll OK, "yes you are, no I didn't, yes you are, no I is not" anything I want to get into.

I did not make any claim to superior knowledge;

Well good for you. I don't think I said you did.

you do and claimed it is God’s spirit.

Could you point out where?

I did not made a judgment; you did and claim others are limited by reason while claiming logic supports your position with the help of the Holy Spirit. The projection is yours.

I am not so sure you know what "projection" means.

You seem to think your experience is the center of the universe and verifies your beliefs in God. I and others are using tools that are available to all others.

You seem awfully offended for no reason, but I am lost on your pity party.

Your references are a Spirit in you that frankly doesn’t agree with all the other “Spirits” speaking in others with the same claims.

I don't know. I was not aware the spirits were talking,....

[Nick_A]

Cathar

One problem you have when claiming belief in God is logical and non-belief is illogical is that you need explanation. This calls for logic and reason which you take out of the equation.

Which is more logical for you? We know that the universe is governed by laws. Logic is even a way of understanding connections based on these laws. No one doubts laws exist. The question is if it is more logical to assume the universal laws including gravity etc. arose from chaos or from within a conscious source where these laws exist in potential?

I assert it is more logical to assume a conscious source then laws arising from chaos. I also assert that it is illogical to deny a conscious source because it is illogical to assume that logic mechanically arises from chaos.

You seem to believe that universal laws arose from chaos. I don't see the logic in it.

[Goat]

Cathar

One problem you have when claiming belief in God is logical and non-belief is illogical is that you need explanation. This calls for logic and reason which you take out of the equation.

Which is more logical for you? We know that the universe is governed by laws. Logic is even a way of understanding connections based on these laws. No one doubts laws exist. The question is if it is more logical to assume the universal laws including gravity etc. arose from chaos or from within a conscious source where these laws exist in potential?

I assert it is more logical to assume a conscious source then laws arising from chaos. I also assert that it is illogical to deny a conscious source because it is illogical to assume that logic mechanically arises from chaos.

You seem to believe that universal laws arose from chaos. I don't see the logic in it.

You keep on making that assertion , yet you keep on failing to provide evidence for it. How is that logical? It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[Nick_A]

Goat

You keep on making that assertion , yet you keep on failing to provide evidence for it. How is that logical? It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Assertion?? I don't know what you are denying. Are you denying that the universe is governed by laws such as gravity? Are you denying that we either have laws or chaos? Even though it cannot be proven, do you deny the logic used by Einstein in his appreciation for intelligence beyond his own? Do you deny the possibility of such a quality of consciousness where laws exist within it as potentials and come into being in what we know as Creation?

It is one thing to say something is not proven and quite another to deny its possibility. If it cannot be proven that laws arose from chaos, I would say that a conscious source is far more probable than order mechanically arising from chaos. It is illogical to deny that which is more probable unless you can provide the logic as to how laws arose from chaos.

[Goat]

Goat

You keep on making that assertion , yet you keep on failing to provide evidence for it. How is that logical? It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Assertion?? I don't know what you are denying. Are you denying that the universe is governed by laws such as gravity? Are you denying that we either have laws or chaos? Even though it cannot be proven, do you deny the logic used by Einstein in his appreciation for intelligence beyond his own? Do you deny the possibility of such a quality of consciousness where laws exist within it as potentials and come into being in what we know as Creation?

It is one thing to say something is not proven and quite another to deny its possibility. If it cannot be proven that laws arose from chaos, I would say that a conscious source is far more probable than order mechanically arising from chaos. It is illogical to deny that which is more probable unless you can provide the logic as to how laws arose from chaos.

It is a leap of faith to say that there are rules that govern the universe, and saying that those rules were created than formed. Now, when it comes to 'consciousness', it seems to be an added layer of complexity on the universe. It might, but consciousness needs a certain level of complexity, and where did that complexity arise? It's turtles all the way down.

[McCulloch]

Logic is not subjective.

I am going to give a little, but not really. I will say that logic is probably supposed to be nonsubjective. But it is not.

OK, I'll give a little too. Logic itself is not subjective. Subjective people sometimes misuse logic in subjective ways.

Math and anything related to math is probably as close to objective as there can be because the numbers have to add up. However, if one does not know the end number when doing an equation, a wrong number somewhere could produce a wrong answer. If someone does know the end of the equation, then they will know if the numbers add properly and can fix the error. If someone is trying to get the numbers to add up to something, they can simply recalculate until it does.

You illustrate the point. Math and logic can be used inappropriately and incorrectly to back up subjective goals.

Then we would be better to call it the argument from personal experience.

We can if the subject is "me" and this whole issue is just "me." There are others who have had experienced the same.

Well, it is still the argument from personal experience. A large number of people claim to have experienced the Holy Spirit, therefore God exists.

The question is whether or not it is possible for 2Bits to arrive at the conclusion that God exists using logic. 2Bits logic starts with the assumption that his personal experience with the Holy Spirit is genuine and proceeds to conclude that God exists. What is the Holy Spirit? According to most Christians, the Holy Spirit is God. What is begging the question? It is the logical fallacy of assuming what is to be proven at the outset of your argument. Clearly, 2Bits argument from personal experience is a classic case of begging the question.

It's begging the question because of that void you have with "Spirit" and your predetermined conclusion: 1)God does not exist. 2) There can be no Holy Spirit, 3) Any experience has to be an assumption (because 1) I do not understand it and 2)because God cannot exist) 4) Since 1 is true there is no way to logically think further. End of reason. Subjective Logic has kicked in and saved you from thinking any further than that. You just call it objective logic.

You are putting words into my mouth. I have not expressed any of the so-called logic you attribute to me. I do not start with the conclusion that God exists or does not exist. You, however, have stated that you start from your experience with the Holy Spirit. That is, you start with the assumption that God, the Holly Spirit exists and has interacted with you. From that assumption, you conclude that God must exist. That is begging the question.

The evidence of the spirit is its fruit.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

All are attributes which exist in those who have experienced the spirit and those who have not in ways that cannot be objectively distinguished.

I would totally disagree, and I think a host of other Christians would disagree too. I could give you link after link to testimonies but since you hold to 1)God does not exist. It will only be logical for you to write it off as something else.

The word totally is quite inclusive. I will take you literally at your word.
You say that the evidence of the spirit is its fruit.
I will assume that you agree with Paul that the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
I have claimed that these attributes exist in humans who have the Spirit and in humans who do not. You totally disagree. Therefore, you claim that those who do not have the Spirit do not have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have love that is indistinguishable from the love that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have joy that is indistinguishable from the joy that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have peace that is indistinguishable from the peace that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have patience that is indistinguishable from the patience that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have kindness that is indistinguishable from the kindness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have goodness that is indistinguishable from the goodness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have faithfulness that is indistinguishable from the faithfulness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have gentleness that is indistinguishable from the gentleness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have self-control that is indistinguishable from the self-control that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.

[daedalus 2.0]

I am going to give a little, but not really. I will say that logic is probably supposed to be nonsubjective. But it is not. .

So God couldn't create a stable universe in which his law of Identity, for example, didn't hold?

Your God created a world in which humans create everything subjectively? That God's character isn't logical - that his being doesn't ground logic?

Or, is there objective logic?

Take your pick.

[daedalus 2.0]

Logic is not subjective.

I am going to give a little, but not really. I will say that logic is probably supposed to be nonsubjective. But it is not.

OK, I'll give a little too. Logic itself is not subjective. Subjective people sometimes misuse logic in subjective ways.

Math and anything related to math is probably as close to objective as there can be because the numbers have to add up. However, if one does not know the end number when doing an equation, a wrong number somewhere could produce a wrong answer. If someone does know the end of the equation, then they will know if the numbers add properly and can fix the error. If someone is trying to get the numbers to add up to something, they can simply recalculate until it does.

You illustrate the point. Math and logic can be used inappropriately and incorrectly to back up subjective goals.

Then we would be better to call it the argument from personal experience.

We can if the subject is "me" and this whole issue is just "me." There are others who have had experienced the same.

Well, it is still the argument from personal experience. A large number of people claim to have experienced the Holy Spirit, therefore God exists.

The question is whether or not it is possible for 2Bits to arrive at the conclusion that God exists using logic. 2Bits logic starts with the assumption that his personal experience with the Holy Spirit is genuine and proceeds to conclude that God exists. What is the Holy Spirit? According to most Christians, the Holy Spirit is God. What is begging the question? It is the logical fallacy of assuming what is to be proven at the outset of your argument. Clearly, 2Bits argument from personal experience is a classic case of begging the question.

It's begging the question because of that void you have with "Spirit" and your predetermined conclusion: 1)God does not exist. 2) There can be no Holy Spirit, 3) Any experience has to be an assumption (because 1) I do not understand it and 2)because God cannot exist) 4) Since 1 is true there is no way to logically think further. End of reason. Subjective Logic has kicked in and saved you from thinking any further than that. You just call it objective logic.

You are putting words into my mouth. I have not expressed any of the so-called logic you attribute to me. I do not start with the conclusion that God exists or does not exist. You, however, have stated that you start from your experience with the Holy Spirit. That is, you start with the assumption that God, the Holly Spirit exists and has interacted with you. From that assumption, you conclude that God must exist. That is begging the question.

The evidence of the spirit is its fruit.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

All are attributes which exist in those who have experienced the spirit and those who have not in ways that cannot be objectively distinguished.

I would totally disagree, and I think a host of other Christians would disagree too. I could give you link after link to testimonies but since you hold to 1)God does not exist. It will only be logical for you to write it off as something else.

The word totally is quite inclusive. I will take you literally at your word.
You say that the evidence of the spirit is its fruit.
I will assume that you agree with Paul that the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
I have claimed that these attributes exist in humans who have the Spirit and in humans who do not. You totally disagree. Therefore, you claim that those who do not have the Spirit do not have love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have love that is indistinguishable from the love that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have joy that is indistinguishable from the joy that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have peace that is indistinguishable from the peace that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have patience that is indistinguishable from the patience that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have kindness that is indistinguishable from the kindness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have goodness that is indistinguishable from the goodness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have faithfulness that is indistinguishable from the faithfulness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have gentleness that is indistinguishable from the gentleness that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.
I have claimed that those without the Spirit can have self-control that is indistinguishable from the self-control that those with the Spirit have. You disagree.

Well, remember:
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. (Psalms 14.1)

Xians must believe that or disagree with God and suffer eternally. What a horrible existence for them.