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]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

How long is a piece of string?

Two and three quarters inches.

[Nick_A]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

This is a question without meaning.

Logic is a system of analysis. If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, a logical approach to maintaining hydration and discovering water will prolong life. Logic doesn't deal with supporting ideas. Logic examines methodology. The most systematic approach to discovering water will not create water where none exists. Much like emotion and desire will not create that for which evidence is lacking.

But denial has created such blinders it is as if a person has become blind in the desert. They cannot see that water is only 100' away so dehydrate. The problem then first is not methodology but how to open your eyes which denial keeps effectively closed.

What we've proven is that in a state of denial, logic neither proves or disproves God. I'll drink to that. Now what?

[McCulloch]

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As such, there is no to me involved.

So you are denying the definition you submitted?

I must be missing something. Which definition of logic that I have submitted are you saying that I am denying. If you have a definition of logic that is different than what logicians use, please present it.

Is this why you started a new thread on a totally different and unrelated forum?

I started this thread because our discussion about being born again was veering into a different topic, that is, your claim that belief in God is logical to you. I put the debate into the philosophy forum, because logic and the basis for belief in deity are typically philosophical questions.

Either it is a valid inference that God exists based on the well established principles of logic or it is not a valid inference.

What, pray tell, is a well established principle of logic? The one that is most popular? Is that how logic is decided for you? By the most votes?

I understand logic just fine.

Logic is a well established field of study, like mathematics, archeology, or engineering. I assumed that when you claimed to understand logic, you were familiar with this field of study. I may have been mistaken and you may have been misleading us.

Logic is not subjective.

Then why did you submit the definition which said it did not have to have a true premise? It's is very subjective. It is based on your input and your input only.

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. With logic you can properly and validly infer conclusions based on premises. If the premises are true and the logic is valid then the conclusion must be true. Logic, by itself, does not guarantee that particular conclusions are true. If some of the premises are false, and the logic is valid, then the conclusions may not be true. I think that this is covered in Logic 101. Logic is not subjective.

You still blindly refuse to see the word spirit. S-P-R-I-T. Are you reading that yet?

At this point, I would like to examine the logic presented by 2Bits in support of his claim that belief in God is logical to him. However, I cannot because he has yet to present anything resembling logic in support of his assertion.
The logic so far looks something like this:

1. Spirit
2. Therefore, God exists

Now, as anyone who understands logic just fine, will note, there are a few steps missing in this logical argument. But then again, those who understand logic just fine often leave out some of the connecting steps and leave it to the reader to fill in the details.

I am probably wrong, but I will attempt to fill in the missing pieces. I see two possibilities of a logical argument based on 2Bits framework.

1. There is an experience that 2Bits and others have had called spirit.
2. This experience could only come from God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. 2Bits and others have a perceptual ability they call spirit.
2. Using this perception, they detect perceptible evidence of God
3. Therefore, God exists.

Proving the existence of God to someone without spirit would be like demonstrating the colour orange to a blind person.

The reason that I admit that I am probably wrong, is that both of these logical constructs are fallacious and would not hold up well to logical analysis. And by his own admission, 2Bits understands logic just fine and would therefore not be putting forth such poor invalid excuses for logic. I will then leave it to him to present some clarification as necessary to help us to understand just what he means when he claims that belief in God is logical and that disbelief in God totally illogical.

[twobitsmedia]

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As such, there is no to me involved.

So you are denying the definition you submitted?

I must be missing something. Which definition of logic that I have submitted are you saying that I am denying. If you have a definition of logic that is different than what logicians use, please present it.

See post 2 on this thread, or go back to the one you submitted on the other thread. Though I submit what I believe and know to be true, your previous definition allowed the option for any premise to be submitted regardless of whether it is true or not, which as I said, pretty much makes it a free for all.

I put the debate into the philosophy forum, because logic and the basis for belief in deity are typically philosophical questions.

Now logic is a philosophy? Do you have a standard defintion? And you are also continually swinging the pendulum on this "belief" vs "is" issue. Mine was "is" but you cannot get past "belief."

Either it is a valid inference that God exists based on the well established principles of logic or it is not a valid inference.

What, pray tell, is a well established principle of logic? The one that is most popular? Is that how logic is decided for you? By the most votes?

I understand logic just fine.

Logic is a well established field of study, like mathematics, archeology, or engineering. I assumed that when you claimed to understand logic, you were familiar with this field of study. I may have been mistaken and you may have been misleading us.

I understand logic just fine.

Logic is not subjective.

Then why did you submit the definition which said it did not have to have a true premise? It's is very subjective. It is based on your input and your input only.

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. With logic you can properly and validly infer conclusions based on premises. If the premises are true and the logic is valid then the conclusion must be true. Logic, by itself, does not guarantee that particular conclusions are true. If some of the premises are false, and the logic is valid, then the conclusions may not be true. I think that this is covered in Logic 101. Logic is not subjective.

If you are telling me that you have received ALL information to create what you accept as logical, then is is NOT subjective. If you base your logic on the information you have along with the information you accept, it is very subjective.

You still blindly refuse to see the word spirit. S-P-R-I-T. Are you reading that yet?

At this point, I would like to examine the logic presented by 2Bits in support of his claim that belief in God is logical to him. However, I cannot because he has yet to present anything resembling logic in support of his assertion.

I have but you purposely ignore the information.

The logic so far looks something like this:

1. Spirit
2. Therefore, God exists

Now, as anyone who understands logic just fine, will note, there are a few steps missing in this logical argument. But then again, those who understand logic just fine often leave out some of the connecting steps and leave it to the reader to fill in the details.

I beleive you purposely left out the connecting steps.

I am probably wrong, but I will attempt to fill in the missing pieces.

Rather than get it from the source? Is that how you create logic?

I see two possibilities

based on what you will accept subjectively

of a logical argument based on 2Bits framework.

But, If I follow your train of what you call "logic" I suspect you will create something and then claim it cannot be...

1. There is an experience that 2Bits and others have had called spirit.
2. This experience could only come from God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This spirit comes from God. I have not presented any case for "other spirits"

1. 2Bits and others have a perceptual ability they call spirit.
2. Using this perception, they detect perceptible evidence of God
3. Therefore, God exists.

Proving the existence of God to someone without spirit would be like demonstrating the colour orange to a blind person.

I would think that everyone has the perceptual ability. I don't think and have NOT asserted that anyone can use the spirit to prove God exists.

The reason that I admit that I am probably wrong, is that both of these logical constructs are fallacious and would not hold up well to logical analysis.

What did I tell you? ("If I follow your train of though that you call logic.." ). I don't know what YOUR logical analysis would be...so I cannot say whether it would hold up. Your logic is limited to what you will accept as logical.

And by his own admission, 2Bits understands logic just fine and would therefore not be putting forth such poor invalid excuses for logic.

I am not blinded by your fascination with "logic." I am rather surprised you do not see the subjectivity of it.

I will then leave it to him to present some clarification as necessary to help us to understand just what he means when he claims that belief in God is logical and that disbelief in God totally illogical.

My initial comment was:

Logic describes a way of thought that can also depends on input and experience. Logic, by itself, is NOT is the the foundation for reality. So, no I will stick to it being circular for you. God is quite logical to me but I am not void of information (input, etc)

It hinges on "spirit" which was why it came uop in a "born again" thread.

[Rathpig]

But denial has created such blinders it is as if a person has become blind in the desert. They cannot see that water is only 100' away so dehydrate. The problem then first is not methodology but how to open your eyes which denial keeps effectively closed.

What we've proven is that in a state of denial, logic neither proves or disproves God. I'll drink to that. Now what?

What so ever are you talking about?

It as if you have latched onto this term "denial", yet you neither comprehend how it applies to your own approach nor understand how it is not applicable as a universal retort. Your response, "They cannot see that water is only 100' away so dehydrate", has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote much less logic. You should revisit the conversation from a less preconceived approach.



Once again as to the OP:

"Logic" is a study of methodology and conclusion. It is not a study of premise validity. Where logic is applied to the "God"-question deals with the asserted nature of a specific deity. At this point in Intro to Philosophy, one would present Epicurus famous "God postulate" as an example of how logic can be applied to this specific question. Epicurus demonstrated conclusively that an omni-deity was self-contradictory as applied to the question of evil. That is a grand example of simple logic.

Logic doesn't answer the ultimate question of the validity of the premise. "God" in a deistic/agnostic sense is a proposal lying outside the mechanics of logic.


The Abrahamic "God" continues to get proven contradictory through logic because as a Late Bronze Age amalgamation of cultural constructs, the Hebrew Semitic culture overstepped the bounds of an even slightly logical proposal.

[McCulloch]

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As such, there is no to me involved.

I understand logic just fine.

Logic is not subjective.

Logic describes a way of thought that can also depends on input and experience. Logic, by itself, is NOT is the the foundation for reality. So, no I will stick to it being circular for you.

Logic does describe a way of thought. It is a formalized study of principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. Logic does not depend on input an experience. This is 2Bits misunderstanding of what logic is. The truth of the conclusions of an argument involving logic depends on the truth of the premises and the validity of the logic. The logic by itself is not subjective. The truth of the premises and therefore the truth of the conclusions may be subjective, but logic is not.
Logic, by itself, is not the foundation for reality. Logic is a useful tool that helps us to come to valid conclusions if we have true premises.

God is quite logical to me but I am not void of information (input, etc)

I probably misunderstood what you meant by this. I thought that this statement meant that the existence of God is a valid logical conclusion from premises that are known to be true. The message that I am getting (and I could still be misunderstanding) is that the existence of God is a valid logical conclusion from premises 2Bits believes to be true, but cannot prove or validate to anyone else.

If you base your logic on the information you have along with the information you accept, it is very subjective.

To speak of basing one's logic on information is to display a fundamental ignorance of the subject of logic.

he has yet to present anything resembling logic in support of his assertion.

I have but you purposely ignore the information.

2Bits has still not presented anything resembling a logical argument to support his assertion. Logical arguments normally consist of premises and conclusions based on those premises.

I don't know what YOUR logical analysis would be...so I cannot say whether it would hold up. Your logic is limited to what you will accept as logical.

This is not about my standards of what logic is. As I have already pointed out, logic is a well established field of human endeavor. 2Bits has made the claim that his belief in the existence of God is consistent with and supported by the method of reasoning we call logic, yet he has not presented any actual logic.

[twobitsmedia]

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As such, there is no to me involved.

I understand logic just fine.

Logic is not subjective.

Logic describes a way of thought that can also depends on input and experience. Logic, by itself, is NOT is the the foundation for reality. So, no I will stick to it being circular for you.

Logic does describe a way of thought. It is a formalized study of principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. Logic does not depend on input an experience. This is 2Bits misunderstanding of what logic is. The truth of the conclusions of an argument involving logic depends on the truth of the premises and the validity of the logic. The logic by itself is not subjective. The truth of the premises and therefore the truth of the conclusions may be subjective, but logic is not.
Logic, by itself, is not the foundation for reality. Logic is a useful tool that helps us to come to valid conclusions if we have true premises.

God is quite logical to me but I am not void of information (input, etc)

I probably misunderstood what you meant by this. I thought that this statement meant that the existence of God is a valid logical conclusion from premises that are known to be true. The message that I am getting (and I could still be misunderstanding) is that the existence of God is a valid logical conclusion from premises 2Bits believes to be true, but cannot prove or validate to anyone else.

If you base your logic on the information you have along with the information you accept, it is very subjective.

To speak of basing one's logic on information is to display a fundamental ignorance of the subject of logic.

he has yet to present anything resembling logic in support of his assertion.

I have but you purposely ignore the information.

2Bits has still not presented anything resembling a logical argument to support his assertion. Logical arguments normally consist of premises and conclusions based on those premises.

I don't know what YOUR logical analysis would be...so I cannot say whether it would hold up. Your logic is limited to what you will accept as logical.

This is not about my standards of what logic is. As I have already pointed out, logic is a well established field of human endeavor. 2Bits has made the claim that his belief in the existence of God is consistent with and supported by the method of reasoning we call logic, yet he has not presented any actual logic.

I will answer more in depth l8ter as I gotta go, but God will never be logical to you because of the subjective restrictions or rules or criteria or whatever you call it, you have placed on what you call logic. Spirit is not because you have not experienced spirit, therefore God is not. That is your logic. I have experience spirit, God passed from "belief" to "is."

[twobitsmedia]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

Yes. It may not support the location of it, though.

On further thought, the limited information does not suggest that he is thirsty for water, or how long he has been on the desert, so even if logic did support where the water is, then it may not be important.

And logic supports the "idea" that water exists because the "person" has probably had water before and hence, "a thirst," although it is unclear whether the person is thirsty for water or not. Logic itself, cannot support the reality of the water, only the reasoned idea that it is real.

And it actually may support the location of water (at home, in the fridge, etc), but may not support whether water is in any close proximity.

[twobitsmedia]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

How long is a piece of string?

Which string?

[McCulloch]

Here are some resources which might help clear up some misunderstandings.

Product Description
Introduction to Logic offers one of the most clear, interesting and accessible introductions to what has long been considered one of the most challenging subjects in philosophy. Harry Gensler engages readers with the basics of logic through practical examples and important arguments in the history of philosophy and from contemporary philosophy. Using simpler and manageable methods for testing arguments, readers are led through in a careful step-by-step way to master the complexities of logic.

You see, logic is generally considered a subject within philosophy.

Logic: A Very Short Introduction

Product Description
Logic is often perceived as having little to do with the rest of philosophy, and even less to do with real life. In this lively and accessible introduction, Graham Priest shows how wrong this conception is. He explores the philosophical roots of the subject, explaining how modern formal logic deals with issues ranging from the existence of God and the reality of time to paradoxes of probability and decision theory. Along the way, the basics of formal logic are explained in simple, non-technical terms, showing that logic is a powerful and exciting part of modern philosophy.

It appears as if another source agrees that the claim that a belief in God is logical belongs in the philosophy forum.


Couldn't resist.