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]

Bernee

Existence is a process of constantly emerging in the 'now'

Yes, existence is a process of constantly emerging in the 'now' but we are limited in its comprehension in linear time. This is why we cannot know a "thing in itself" as described by Kant since existence for us is a process.

it is not a striving 'to be' because that would necessitate it being what it is not.

Yes, there is a difference between what Kant describes as noumenon and phenomenon.

God, then, by your logic does not exist in the 'now'.

God "IS." Isness is NOW. The degeneration of the being of isness Creates existence within which linear time is experienced moving through it.

Given that 'now' is outside of time (as I have posited above) god then also does not exist outside of time.

God as inner unity of being exists outside time and space. The degeneration of being is the source of Creation and the beginning of the transition of unity into diversity.

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

I don't know about this but will admit to an illogical attachment to ketchup.

[Cathar1950]

I believe time is the measurement of change. Things change even if humans were not here to measure it.
How does an unchanging God create? How does a God outside of time and space relate or act?
Some look at time as a change where there is an aspect now that wasn’t there before.
There is something in the present that was not in the past even though the past is still with us.
I suggest your faith is based on doctrines, dogma and ritual you experience subjectively and objectify.
Your concept of God as “Is” , is meaningless.
If God is existence itself then why not call It “existence”, not God?
How do you say “existence exists” and still think you are saying anything?
Even the Bush tells Moses He is “I will become that which I will become” and “I am” is a poor translation from the Hebrew. Bloom goes as far as saying God says He will be where he will be. The Hebrew writings evolved as did the concepts of God.
R.E. Friedman writes about the “Disappearance of God” in the ancient writings as man becomes more and more responsible or like God, matures (perfect).
I find your concepts of God, if we can really call them concepts, confused as are your concepts of ‘Spirit” and the nature of Jesus as human and divine.
Your flighty ideas sound more like a hodgepodge of rhetoric pronounced by the believer for the believer.
At this point you seem to be chasing your tail and dismissing logic when it doesn’t suit your propaganda. You incoherency is only matched by the circulatory nature of your beliefs that you present as some higher understanding or enlightenment given to the believer and is ambiguous at best. I find it amusing that your lack of coherency is seen as a lack of Spirit on the part of others.
I suggest you have nothing that isn’t outside of human experience and has explanations found in psychology, anthropology and history while you claim other.
Until we can get you to define God, Spirit and logic in some coherent fashion it is hard to see where you can make a claim that belief in God is logical where non-belief is illogical using the accepted meanings of logical. At this point it is difficult to argue with you when your use of words or use of language is so slippery and has special meaning to you as a believer which also doesn’t happen to be shared by all believers.

[bernee51]

Bernee

Existence is a process of constantly emerging in the 'now'

Yes, existence is a process of constantly emerging in the 'now' but we are limited in its comprehension in linear time. This is why we cannot know a "thing in itself" as described by Kant since existence for us is a process.

The "Self" however is timeless - not constrained by linear time. Only the objects are so constrained.

God, then, by your logic does not exist in the 'now'.

God "IS." Isness is NOW. The degeneration of the being of isness Creates existence within which linear time is experienced moving through it.

God must also then be 'is not ness' - i.e. infinity.

Given that 'now' is outside of time (as I have posited above) god then also does not exist outside of time.

God as inner unity of being exists outside time and space.

What you call god I call 'Self'.

The degeneration of being is the source of Creation and the beginning of the transition of unity into diversity.

Th construction of the illusion on 'Self' is what gives the appearance of diversity.

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

I don't know about this but will admit to an illogical attachment to ketchup.

And this non-seq indicates what? A refusal to acknowledge the challenge to evolve? Denial sourced in emotional attachments?

[Nick_A]

Cathar

In all sincerity, a post is not the way to explain these things since they require the addition of a vertical perspective that is not normal for us, You are not used to these things so it seems strange.

We simply cannot comprehend pure being outside the confines of time and space. This is why we cannot prove God since scientific proof relates to existence in time and space. You want to equate existence with isness and they are different. Existence is a process while "isness" or "to be" is a state of being.

You ask how the unchanging creates. It does so by allowing its vibrations of inner unity to slow down and its inner unity as "ONE" to become its THREE components. which begins existence in creation. You want me to explain this in a post? Can't happen.

Simone Weil explains it artistically. I know what she means but many will not. withdrawing is the same as allowing the results of the slowing down of vibrations.

5 flashes of Weil

1. Why God is hiding?
"God could only create by hiding himself. Otherwise there would be nothing but himself."
-- Gravity and Grace

Again, this is a beautiful artistic depiction of a difficult concept. This is why people ponder such things rather than demand superficial answers.

Until we can get you to define God, Spirit and logic in some coherent fashion it is hard to see where you can make a claim that belief in God is logical where non-belief is illogical using the accepted meanings of logical. At this point it is difficult to argue with you when your use of words or use of language is so slippery and has special meaning to you as a believer which also doesn’t happen to be shared by all believers.

I define the experience of God in time and space as "meaning"

Spirit in Creation is the living relative quality of being that connects cosmoses or levels of reality.

Logic defines the correctness of relationships within linear time.

Spirit reveals a perspective that is outside the domain of linear time but is rather the quality of the moment in relation to the quality directly above and below it. They are complimentary and not in opposition to each other.

If you want to argue with logic, you have a better chance to determine if it is logical to argue against the existence of a source. You could at lest say that if a source for creation did exist, this and that could not happen. It is just not logical to try to comprehend a state of being through logic that is a function of linear time and can only provide indications.

[McCulloch]

If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?

Time is not moving. Humans would stop measuring it.

Certainly. But time would still go on. Gravity would still attract.

"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.

Asking for proof of a belief is a reasonable question. If you believe something, that means that you hold that proposition or premise to be true. The next logical thing to do is to then ask if such a proposition or premise is, in fact, true and thus look for proof.
However, if you point is that we should never ask if your belief is genuine, then certainly, we cannot ask for proof that you believe. Belief cannot be proven, just disproven.

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.

I disagree. Existence is that state or fact of existing; being. A rock exists. It strives not neither does it spin.

[twobitsmedia]

If humans were to be exterminated, would time stop?

Time is not moving. Humans would stop measuring it.

Certainly. But time would still go on. Gravity would still attract.

But who would be there to measure it?

"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.

Asking for proof of a belief is a reasonable question. If you believe something, that means that you hold that proposition or premise to be true.

The next logical thing to do is to then ask if such a proposition or premise is, in fact, true and thus look for proof.

the next logical thing . It would only be logical based on something illogical about something after the premise. "I believe God exists" is not an illogical statement. It does not say God exists, it does not even say God is real. It just says I believe God exists. One might question the premise of why "I believe" as my "belief" is a psychological state there is nothing to show, unless maybe you want brain waves or something like, but that would not indicate what person is thinking....just whether they are or not.

If I say "God exists" and am emphatic that it is more than a belief. It may be worthy to ask why I say God exists.....and go from there.

However, if you point is that we should never ask if your belief is genuine, then certainly, we cannot ask for proof that you believe. Belief cannot be proven, just disproven.

This is where your "logic" boils over with subjectiveness.
I don't think the intent of logic was to nullify reason. But, that is the way it is often used.

[Nick_A]

McCulloch

I disagree. Existence is that state or fact of existing; being. A rock exists. It strives not neither does it spin.

Don't underestimate a rock and what it is composed of. Its structure is either in the process of coming into being or eroding. It's atomic structure is in movement. But it never IS. It is always in the process of change.

A rock is not an isolated thing away from universal forces but a part of their eternal interaction.

[Goat]

McCulloch

I disagree. Existence is that state or fact of existing; being. A rock exists. It strives not neither does it spin.

Don't underestimate a rock and what it is composed of. Its structure is either in the process of coming into being or eroding. It's atomic structure is in movement. But it never IS. It is always in the process of change.

A rock is not an isolated thing away from universal forces but a part of their eternal interaction.

That does not contradict what McCulloch said. A rock gets acted upon by outside forces, and those force will leak over, But, rock, unless acted upon by other forces, just sit there.

[Nick_A]

McCulloch

I disagree. Existence is that state or fact of existing; being. A rock exists. It strives not neither does it spin.

Don't underestimate a rock and what it is composed of. Its structure is either in the process of coming into being or eroding. It's atomic structure is in movement. But it never IS. It is always in the process of change.

A rock is not an isolated thing away from universal forces but a part of their eternal interaction.

That does not contradict what McCulloch said. A rock gets acted upon by outside forces, and those force will leak over, But, rock, unless acted upon by other forces, just sit there.

The universe is in constant change. It is composed of and sustained by the interaction of different qualities of force. A rock may just appear to be sitting there to you but is gradually eroding in accordance with the process of involution.

Time in Buddhism itself has been measured by such erosion. For example:

Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.

[McCulloch]

I disagree. Existence is that state or fact of existing; being. A rock exists. It strives not neither does it spin.

Don't underestimate a rock and what it is composed of. Its structure is either in the process of coming into being or eroding. It's atomic structure is in movement. But it never IS. It is always in the process of change.

A rock is not an isolated thing away from universal forces but a part of their eternal interaction.

A rock is. I don't quite get what IS is.

I suppose that for the purposes of this discussion, we should dispense with the word is. It is just too easy to equivocate and to misunderstand. For example, Love is blind; God is Love; My father-in-law is blind; Therefore God exists and is my father-in-law. The verb to be can be used in many different senses.

• I think therefore I am. [existence]
• The meeting is in three minutes. [occurrence]
• The report is in my briefcase. [position]
• Leave him as he is. [state]
• Woe is me. [to belong]
• Martha is tall. [a copula to connect the subject with its predicate adjective, or predicate nominative, in order to describe, identify, or amplify the subject]
• Is that right? [a copula to introduce or form interrogative or imperative sentences]
• He is waiting [an auxiliary to form the progressive tense]
• He is to see me today.[to indicate future action]
• Ice is frozen water. [To equal in identity]
• One US dollar is €0.65 [equivalence]
• Gasoline is $125 / liter. [price]
• Ten is most likely; one is least [to indicate significance]
• A human is an ape. [to indicate membership in a class]
• He is really stupid. [to indicate a specified quality]
• Each datum is just ones and zeros. [to indicate composition]

I get the idea that you might mean that God is existence itself. If so, then why call it God?