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]

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.

Then read them if you misunderstand or want to hold to that blinding faith in what you think logic is. .

[twobitsmedia]

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

This is a question without meaning.

It has no meaning to you. It could have meaning to Nick. It would have meaning to the "person" (if the person was real)

Logic is a system of analysis.

And then should have lead to analysis

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, a logical approach to maintaining hydration and discovering water will prolong life.

I hope that is not an example of "logical analysis." You have assumed the person is thirsty for water. And assume his thirst means the need to hydrate.

But, that is the problem I see what many people pass off as logic. It can only make judgments base don the criteria it accepts. You took a sentence and made it into a man dehyrating in the desert next to death. Why you make that assumption is known to you (I presume). It crossed my mind at first, but analyzing it closer, it does not say that at all.

[Furrowed Brow]

What, pray tell, is a well established principle of logic?

• Modus ponendo ponens
  Modus ponendo tollens
  Modus tollendo ponens
  Modus tollendo tollens
  The rule of double negation |- ~(~P) -> P
  Conditional proof
  &-introduction
  &-elimination
  Vel-introduction
  Vel-elimination
  Reductio ad absurd
  Truth tables
  P->Q |- ~Q -> ~P
  |- P-> P
  Law of excluded middle |- P v ~P
  Universal Elimination
  Universal Introduction
  Existential Introduction
  Existential elimination
  Existential Instantiation
  Etc.

This is not exhaustive.

The one that is most popular? Is that how logic is decided for you? By the most votes?

Its taken more than a couple of thousand years to accumulate that list. McCulloch has named many of the more note worthy contributors to the subject - though I think he left off Arisottle (kebab shop owner Peckam High road). In a way logic looks after itself. It shapes the limits of thought. Its principles ensure our arguments are valid. They do not however guarantee that our premises are true.

[Cathar1950]

It seems we are having a problem with logic here.
Mac has presented a sense of formal logic. Like mathematics and mathematical symbols, it is objective.
We use these rules of reason because they work.
Where would we be without fallacies and the ability to recognize them?
Twobits presents an informal meaning of logical if not colloquial or slang.
He means understandable and it is subjective.
His use of “Spirit” is also subjective.
He has an elusive use where it is some vague formless form he equates with existence without any qualifiers. Because he makes a subjective experience the object of his devotion he thinks he is also being objective.

[Furrowed Brow]

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

Praying for divine guidance.

[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,

[twobitsmedia]

This is not exhaustive.

So it is illogical to take it all in. Sounds like a congresional committee or an IRS law.

The one that is most popular? Is that how logic is decided for you? By the most votes?

Its taken more than a couple of thousand years to accumulate that list. McCulloch has named many of the more note worthy contributors to the subject - though I think he left off Arisottle (kebab shop owner Peckam High road).

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?

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?

Its principles ensure our arguments are valid.

Or just limited.

They do not however guarantee that our premises are true.

So I can create a false premise and the rules of how to think are going to reel me in to what is "politcally" I mean, logically correct?

I guess free thinkers really aren't free as I suspected. Maybe some logic-thought police would keep the world logical then. I am getting visons of Orwell for some reason or other.

No matter I am surer you will be able to rationalize my comments since you have the rule book. And I thought Old Testament law was rigid....

[twobitsmedia]

It seems we are having a problem with logic here.

No, from what I understand logic cannot have a problem. It has rules.

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

His logic is not like mathematics.

We use these rules of reason because they work.

Because you believe they work.

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

Dialoguing issue to their end rather then establishing self-imposed ends of reason.

Twobits presents an informal meaning of logical if not colloquial or slang.

He means understandable and it is subjective.

You are close. But logic that is not undersood is not logic, unless someone wishes to place faith in someone elses logic. I do not.

His use of “Spirit” is also subjective.

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

He has an elusive use where it is some vague formless form he equates with existence without any qualifiers. Because he makes a subjective experience the object of his devotion he thinks he is also being objective.

To silly to comment on. Did you use Mc's logic to come up with that. It would explain the similarities.

[twobitsmedia]

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

Praying for divine guidance.

The way I see it, That would be silly step. Did your rules of logic bring you to that answer?

[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.