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]

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 "Let be Light there", etc.

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!?

OK, but doesn't logic observe the law that says it must be "Let there be light" as opposed to "Let be Light there."? "Logic" as a concept has a beginning and it begins with man establishing rules of argument or speech, or as it has been asserted, observes that. It simply describes that "Let there be light" is logical and "Let be Light there" is not. And someone else can apply a mathematical equation to it with all the "ifs" and "assumes" applied. The assertion "Let there be light" would have been made before the observation and before logic defined it. Now the way I see it, if logic is logical it cannot create rules for speech as much as it can observe them and create rules about noncontradiction and such. The problem I have with some forms of "logic" is that it does create rules and fallacies but only on a purely subjective nature.

"If God exists , then Logic must have preceded the existence of God" assumes logic to be the highest form of reality/truth/intellect/whatever, not to mention an infallible science.

[twobitsmedia]

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?

I guess I have heard a Christianized version of it years ago which escapes me now, but I will agree that even if one could establish a necessity for a first cause, it is a leap to necessitate that God has to be that cause. At least not with so little criteria.

[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 "Let be Light there", etc.

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!?

OK, but doesn't logic observe the law that says it must be "Let there be light" as opposed to "Let be Light there."? "Logic" as a concept has a beginning and it begins with man establishing rules of argument or speech, or as it has been asserted, observes that. It simply describes that "Let there be light" is logical and "Let be Light there" is not. And someone else can apply a mathematical equation to it with all the "ifs" and "assumes" applied. The assertion "Let there be light" would have been made before the observation and before logic defined it. Now the way I see it, if logic is logical it cannot create rules for speech as much as it can observe them and create rules about noncontradiction and such. The problem I have with some forms of "logic" is that it does create rules and fallacies but only on a purely subjective nature.

"If God exists , then Logic must have preceded the existence of God" assumes logic to be the highest form of reality/truth/intellect/whatever, not to mention an infallible science.

In this case we are really discussing one aspect of Logic (or the Laws of Logic): the Law of Identity.

A cannot be both A and not A.

This is a foundation on everything we accept as real (Actual). To counter this, you would have to show - really show, not suggest - that something can be what it is and what it isn't at the same time.

I know Xian's believe God is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus was a Man, etc. but this is not proof. It's not even close.

This is why Xians are considered Misologists (someone who hates or distrusts logic). The irony is that they try to use logic when it suits them, but then claim logic is not as reliable as Faith.

I can't convince you if you don't want to see it. If you can show me how the Law of Identity is suspended at times or even COULD be suspended, I will entertain your religion, but until then, you are proposing something illogical.

Also, if you search yourself, you will notice that your belief in God is based on Faith, not logic.

So why enter into the logic discussion? God is fine when he isn't examined critically - lots of people believe in lots of gods. But gods wither in the sight of Logic.

[twobitsmedia]

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?

I guess I don't think plants or animals care about time or are even aware of it. .If they do something based on time I would presume it is instinctive, as they don't look at a clock to see if it is time. We can measure them that way and we do.

If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?

Time is not moving. Humans would stop measuring it.

[daedalus 2.0]

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?

I guess I don't think plants or animals care about time or are even aware of it. .If they do something based on time I would presume it is instinctive, as they don't look at a clock to see if it is time. We can measure them that way and we do.

If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?

Time is not moving. Humans would stop measuring it.

So the Universe would be in suspended animation, like Hans Solo?

[twobitsmedia]

I will reply to more of this later, but quickly want to respond to these points.

I know Xian's believe God is Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus was a Man, etc. but this is not proof. It's not even close.

"believe" and "proof" can be two decidedly different things. I can believe many things about God what I believe may or may not be true, and even if it was, a "belief" cannot produce "proof". "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." So asking for proof for a belief is an illogical question. At best, one can question the premise.

This is why Xians are considered Misologists (someone who hates or distrusts logic).

That may be stereotypical, but I wil let it slide.

The irony is that they try to use logic when it suits them, but then claim logic is not as reliable as Faith.

Logic and faith are two different things. Logic would make observations about what is. Faith would be an action based out of 1) a strong beleif, or 2) an experience (though maybe subjective)

I can't convince you if you don't want to see it.

I will say it is not in your favor if I do not want to see it, but not impossible.

If you can show me how the Law of Identity is suspended at times or even COULD be suspended, I will entertain your religion, but until then, you are proposing something illogical.

Ahh Yes, G cannot equal G because I have not experienced G. And all life is an objective experience.

Also, if you search yourself, you will notice that your belief in God is based on Faith, not logic.

I don't need to search, I am aware of the case I have for God that is faith, and the case I have for God that is logic. (Faith and logic are two different things..although let me qualify that I am not saying faith is illogical) )

So why enter into the logic discussion? God is fine when he isn't examined critically - lots of people believe in lots of gods. But gods wither in the sight of Logic.

I haven't seen him wither at all. I have seen some rules of observation established, and some rules established which limit argument based on certain criteria.

[twobitsmedia]

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?

I guess I don't think plants or animals care about time or are even aware of it. .If they do something based on time I would presume it is instinctive, as they don't look at a clock to see if it is time. We can measure them that way and we do.

If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?

Time is not moving. Humans would stop measuring it.

So the Universe would be in suspended animation, like Hans Solo?

Give me a break.... you think time is moving something? And if it is, how is it moving anything? And where is the universe moving to? Are you saying if time stopped, so would the universe? Star Wars was a movie, this is reality.

[Nick_A]

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

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Existence is a process defined by eternally striving "to be" A tree exists. It comes into being, grows up, and then dies. God IS since God is complete and not part of the process of striving "to be" that defines the cycles of existence within Creation.

[bernee51]

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?

I guess I don't think plants or animals care about time or are even aware of it. .If they do something based on time I would presume it is instinctive, as they don't look at a clock to see if it is time. We can measure them that way and we do.

If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?

Time is not moving. Humans would stop measuring it.

So the Universe would be in suspended animation, like Hans Solo?

Small miracles!!! I am in agreement with 2Bits on something!!!

Time is a concept - a human construct. It is a unit of measurement between 'nows.' The universe (as it currently manifests) I see as an infinite progression of emerging 'nows'. How long is a 'now'? It, like infinity, cannot be measured in terms of 'time' - both are, to that extent, outside of time. Humphrey, in his dissertation of consciousness, likened our sense of selfhood, to a time slice'. We concatenate previous 'nows', with the emergent 'now', and anticipated 'nows' to give the impression of a self existent 'in time'.

On the OP - I can see how belief in a god concept is logical in the wide picture of the evolution of human consciousness. The concept has aided the ongoing emergence of human society. But, like human society, the god concept has and is also evolving. It will evolve itself into non-existence.

While I would hold the BELIEF in a god concept to be logical, I see the BELIEF in an extant god to be illogical.

[bernee51]

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

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Existence is a process defined by eternally striving "to be" A tree exists. It comes into being, grows up, and then dies. God IS since God is complete and not part of the process of striving "to be" that defines the cycles of existence within Creation.

Existence is a process of constantly emerging in the 'now' - it is not a striving 'to be' because that would necessitate it being what it is not. God, then, by your logic does not exist in the 'now'. Given that 'now' is outside of time (as I have posited above) god then also does not exist outside of time.

I accept though that you do have a logical attachment to a mytho-rational god concept.