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]

Cathar

You are still stuck with begging the question as to why God is not subject to precursors also. Of course God could be anything and it is a matter of belief concerning the attributes of God.

Only existence needs a precursor because it is within the boundaries of time and space. God doesn't exist. God IS. That which IS, neither begins or ends in linear time.

Does time move through being or does being move through time? Normally we perceive ourselves as being moving through time from yesterday into tomorrow. Actually time moves through being. The movement between yesterday and tomorrow is through "being." this is not easy to visualize since it goes against what we are accustomed to. But from this perspective, reality is being and being IS in "NOW" beyond the comprehension of mechanical existence as with our normal lives and can only be experienced consciously.

The problem as first you need to show that God exists and then you need to show your image of God is right. Appeal to numbers besides being a fallacy the numbers are fluid enough and there is enough variations that any call would be saying God protects the good and we are protected and flourish therefore we are good.

How can God as non-personal have an image? Images exist. God IS. Only a perception of a personal god has an image.

You have a human construct no matter how you imagine God.

Why imagine God? Why not try to become capable of a conscious experience of the source?

I find the “Beast” was an amusing characterization if it were not for the imaginary persecution complex evolves as you stand firmly against human reason.

If I'm standing firmly against reason through asserting the importance of the distinction between the personal and impersonal God, so is Einstein. Does he stand against reason as well.

I just posted his address to "The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc.,
New York, 1941." on the "Expelled" thread

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=280

He explains the value of ID before anyone knew the name and the importance of distinguishing between what we call now as Creationism (personal God) and ID. The deniers don't know how to take it so ignore it. Yet for the open-minded, it is food for thought.

You have taken an apocalyptic writing developed in the first century all the way to the 19th. I bet it gives you great comfort knowing God’s revelation was all about you and my drinking with the beast so you can pre-enjoy my everlasting torment and your vindication that will never come in any way that you could possibly imagine.

I'm sorry that you read this so wrong. The "Beast" being referred to, though the same a in Revelations IMO, was referred to by Plato and concerns the group think of the masses. It sustains our life in the cave. By saying you will get a picture was just an expression concerning the approval by modern day denial. The extra Merlot was just a way of saying that you support this group denial quite well

There was no thought about any lasting torment or any cackling with glee at the thought of it.

I am just one of the few that share the concern for the importance of unifying science and religion as expressed by those like Einstein, Simone Weil, Jacob Needleman, and Basarab Nicolescu. And for that we must as Prof Needlman said:

What is needed is either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific mind while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the heart; an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we were meant to be -- both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.

We are at a time now where there is far too much fighting to ever pause long enough to ponder what he means so any collective valuing of this concept is at least 50 tears away IMO. I have my doubts if we can survive that long without awakening to an inner morality that can put technology into perspective.

Even though I stand with a minority, it is a minority I feel honored to stand with.

To all who have witnessed my discussion with cnorman and Jester: This is a perfect example of how "god" is a meaningless term. This guy keeps repeating "God IS", as if it is meaningful.

What "IS"?

His answer: "God"

What is God?

His answer "that which IS".

Mind numbingly irrational and invalid. This guy doesn't even know what he is talking about but because of religion he can say it with such passion and authority - as if it is meaningful.

(Catch this guy on another day and I'm sure he'll tell you God=Love, or God=this, or God=that).


Is is IS, not God is IS. <<<<Brilliant!

Don't be surprised if you receive an autographed picture from the "Great beast."

Yes God IS. You seem surprised at this. Have you ever considered what else IS? Kant wondered what is a thing in itself or noumenon. This would be what it is. I'm happy to see that you know. As for me, I accept that God IS but as far as the noumenom of a tree or what it is, I'll leave that to Oprah who knows all things.

[twobitsmedia]

I suspect the end of the inquiry will end with the "First Cause" and negate the entire inquiry.

Though I think the First Cause idea has merit, I suspect that if accepted it may only affirm a "First Cause" but will only definitively say something about God if one wants it to.

Add that God is suppose to be outside of time and space,

Thats not a position I accept entirely. I believe God is both inside and outside of time.

it makes it impossible to hypothesize anything about him in this realm.

Hypothesizing is the easy part. Doing it in a way that can be understood by someone who does not is the problem.

[twobitsmedia]

If God exists (a HUGE "if"), then Logic must have preceded the existence of God. (And by Logic I mean the laws of logic, e.g., the Law of Identity).

Why is this a "must"? (Assuming God could be preceded)

[Confused]

I suspect the end of the inquiry will end with the "First Cause" and negate the entire inquiry.

Though I think the First Cause idea has merit, I suspect that if accepted it may only affirm a "First Cause" but will only definitively say something about God if one wants it to.

Add that God is suppose to be outside of time and space,

Thats not a position I accept entirely. I believe God is both inside and outside of time.

it makes it impossible to hypothesize anything about him in this realm.

Hypothesizing is the easy part. Doing it in a way that can be understood by someone who does not is the problem.

Ok, you are going to have to explain your position of being both inside and outside of time.

The First Cause answers nothing.

[twobitsmedia]

Ok, you are going to have to explain your position of being both inside and outside of time.

The First Cause answers nothing.

Time, the way I see it, is only a measure that man uses. I am not sure it really means anything except in that sense. Time does nothing, creates nothing, destroys nothing. It is a word that describes a measurement. Things may change over time, but it was not time that caused it. We will grow older, but not because of time. The Biblical record is loaded with insertions about time, days and events, or measurements like "the end times" or my favorite: "it came to pass." Revelation refers to that "one hour" where it took the great city to crumble. But, the Bible was not written by God or even for God really. It was written to men by men (inspired by God). And many of the events which happened in time were done or caused by God but God didn't do it based on any timeclock, just the events at hand. I don't see any case for God floating inside and outside of time nor even being just outside of it. God is spirit. I do not see any case for spirit being bound by anything and particulary not some cheap measurement called "time." .

[daedalus 2.0]

If God exists (a HUGE "if"), then Logic must have preceded the existence of God. (And by Logic I mean the laws of logic, e.g., the Law of Identity).

Why is this a "must"? (Assuming God could be preceded)

If God preceded (the laws of) logic, none of his thoughts would make sense. It would simply be luck - random luck that he got it right.

"Let there be Light" might well have been "Be Light there let", or "Be cheese sleepy let", etc. Since a term would mean both A and not A, light and not light (e.g., cheese, pickles, running, snow, etc.) (Law of Identity).

Plus, more crucially, if the law of identity didn't proceed God, then he would be God and not God.

Surely, you don't accept that one of the eternal and unchanging qualities of God is that he is NOT God!?

[McCulloch]

Though I think the First Cause idea has merit, I suspect that if accepted it may only affirm a "First Cause" but will only definitively say something about God if one wants it to.

The first cause argument has no merit. It comes in two forms

1. Everything has a cause.
2. No causal chain can be infinite.
3. Therefore, there must be a first cause, something uncaused. That is God.

In this form, it is self contradictory.

1. Everything that is either has a cause or is uncaused
2. No causal chain can be infinite.
3. Ultimately, then every caused thing can trace its origin to something uncaused.
4. The first (or perhaps only) uncaused thing is God.

Neither argument says anything about the God that they intend to prove exists. Certainly neither argument posits the Christian god or a personal god in any sense. The first is self contradictory and the second does not necessitate only one god. Another weakness is the whats-his-name's razor. Why imagine an entity called God as the first cause, the one uncaused thing? Why not simply posit that the universe itself, space|time, the laws of being are uncaused?

[McCulloch]

God doesn't exist. God IS. That which IS, neither begins or ends in linear time.

You are equivocating. Is is a form of the verb to be. The word exist means to be. To say that something exists is exactly equivalent to saying that that thing exists. To say otherwise is to deny logic and answer the question in the OP in the negative. Thanks

[daedalus 2.0]

God doesn't exist. God IS. That which IS, neither begins or ends in linear time.

You are equivocating. Is is a form of the verb to be. The word exist means to be. To say that something exists is exactly equivalent to saying that that thing exists. To say otherwise is to deny logic and answer the question in the OP in the negative. Thanks

Good catch. I think Nick_A IS denying logic, therefore, we can't understand what he is restroom fizzle stacking slippery efnaofl asfohvjkl.....

[McCulloch]

Time, the way I see it, is only a measure that man uses. I am not sure it really means anything except in that sense. Time does nothing, creates nothing, destroys nothing. It is a word that describes a measurement. Things may change over time, but it was not time that caused it. We will grow older, but not because of time. The Biblical record is loaded with insertions about time, days and events, or measurements like "the end times" or my favorite: "it came to pass." Revelation refers to that "one hour" where it took the great city to crumble. But, the Bible was not written by God or even for God really. It was written to men by men (inspired by God). And many of the events which happened in time were done or caused by God but God didn't do it based on any timeclock, just the events at hand. I don't see any case for God floating inside and outside of time nor even being just outside of it. God is spirit. I do not see any case for spirit being bound by anything and particulary not some cheap measurement called "time." .

I have no clue what you mean about time being only a measure that humans use. Are you saying that the plants and animals that existed before [before it a term referring to time] humans did not experience time? If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?