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]

PS. I will be more than happy to begin giving you a definition of God in its UNCONDENSED version if that seems to be the hangup since the condensed version might have been 1) innocently ignored or 12) not understood, or 3) purposely ignored because your preestablished paramaters of logic limits the ability, but you will NOT like it I presume.

Yes, please do - and then tell us how we can tell that you are accurate in your definition.

When you can respond to post 133, then I can respond to this one.

[daedalus 2.0]

[
"Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning"...I find it illogical for you to create something even sarcastically about something you claim has no meaning, because then you would not be able to accurately be "sarcastic". Truth be told, in order for your comment to be truly sarcastic you would have had to understand the meaning of "God" or at least a meaning in order to create an any kind of "opposite meaning".

Very well, when I say "god' I mean the guy depicted on the Sistine Chapel: Old Man, Beard, White robe who is trying to finger Adam.

Is this your definition?

Now, quit stalling. Give us the definition and how we can verify it.

[twobitsmedia]

[
"Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning"...I find it illogical for you to create something even sarcastically about something you claim has no meaning, because then you would not be able to accurately be "sarcastic". Truth be told, in order for your comment to be truly sarcastic you would have had to understand the meaning of "God" or at least a meaning in order to create an any kind of "opposite meaning".

Very well, when I say "god' I mean the guy depicted on the Sistine Chapel: Old Man, Beard, White robe who is trying to finger Adam.

Is this your definition?

Now, quit stalling. Give us the definition and how we can verify it.

I dont think its going to matter since you are making illogical claims and then back tracking on them with still more illogical claims...and then looking for something logical...But even by using your definition, you are accepting a definitiion: "the guy depicted..." But yet you also claim that it is meaningless. So you are holding two contradictory positions at the same time and still looking for logic.

I will expand on the definition I already gave, but I would rather deal with this first since the subject is a"logical" God. I want to be certain that someone who is weighing it is even able to weigh it logically. At this point, since you are holding contradictory positions simultaneously...I don't see it.

[daedalus 2.0]

[
"Sarcasm is stating the opposite of an intended meaning"...I find it illogical for you to create something even sarcastically about something you claim has no meaning, because then you would not be able to accurately be "sarcastic". Truth be told, in order for your comment to be truly sarcastic you would have had to understand the meaning of "God" or at least a meaning in order to create an any kind of "opposite meaning".

Very well, when I say "god' I mean the guy depicted on the Sistine Chapel: Old Man, Beard, White robe who is trying to finger Adam.

Is this your definition?

Now, quit stalling. Give us the definition and how we can verify it.

I dont think its going to matter since you are making illogical claims and then back tracking on them with still more illogical claims...and then looking for something logical...But even by using your definition, you are accepting a definitiion: "the guy depicted..." But yet you also claim that it is meaningless. So you are holding two contradictory positions at the same time and still looking for logic.

I will expand on the definition I already gave, but I would rather deal with this first since the subject is a"logical" God. I want to be certain that someone who is weighing it is even able to weigh it logically. At this point, since you are holding contradictory positions simultaneously...I don't see it.

Quit stalling. You said you would define God. It doesn't matter what I believe. You are posting it on the internet for all to read. If I am irrational, so be it, it shouldn't keep you from defining your god.

I certainly don't stop myself from posting because you are irrational.



BTW, I just changed my mind. I now define god as "lovey-dovey feelings". In a few hours, I'm going to define "god" as an "the experience of a friendly, invisible presence in the mind of the mildly delusional". See, I can entertain many ideas at once or consecutively.

I hope you are rational enough to see how this should have no effect on your belief in or definition of "god". It is YOUR position that you are to defend. It was YOUR claim.

Now, if you please: define "god" and tell us how to verify your definition.

[twobitsmedia]

BTW, I just changed my mind. I now define god as "lovey-dovey feelings". In a few hours, I'm going to define "god" as an "the experience of a friendly, invisible presence in the mind of the mildly delusional". See, I can entertain many ideas at once or consecutively.

Then your random-thought position is useless to debate with if it can be anything it wants to within a "few hours" intervals. . Good day.

[Thought Criminal]

Then your random-thought position is useless to debate with if it can be anything it wants to within a "few hours" intervals. . Good day.

I understand completely: you reject our definitions of God but refuse to provide any of your own.

TC

[McCulloch]

The God you seek or claim does not exist does not exist.

I don't seek God. I make no claims about God. I simply echo the claims made by those who claim to believe in God.

You want to equate God with a logical impossibilty and then ask for a definition.

One cannot assert the proposition, "God exists" without some kind of definition of God. Perhaps you could present one. I don't want to equate God with a logical impossibility, I simply observe that much of what those who claim to believe in God assert about this entity is a logical impossibility.

The God that I refer to when I refer to "God" is the one whose character is established through the Biblical record, for which that is the premise of the Bible. Now, you will define him based on all of that criteria, but you will only be able to define him based on the rules of logic/thought that you have accepted and established as your criteria.

Let's be specific. God is spirit. I don't quite know what that means and the Bible is somewhat unclear on the meaning of that term. If we accept that a spirit is a kind of causal agent with a will but without a physical manifestation, then this is impossible.

Hence you can equate God to a pink unicorn and think its a logical comparison...even though there's no foundation in that which is reasonable. It is a disrespect for those who know of Gods existence, but the comparison makes it clear that the one who compares God as such believes "Christianity" to be nothing more than religious rituals and rules and a host of other things and nothing more than a human construct and delusion.

Please present evidence that God, whatever your definition is, is a logical possibility. I compared (not equated) God with the invisible pink unicorn, in that it is a logical impossibility to have color and to be invisible. The attributes of God, such as being one and being three, are also logical impossibilities. It has not been shown that anyone knows of God's existence. You and others have made the claim that you know that God exists, but have not been able to demonstrate with evidence that your assertion is valid. Christianity, in my view, is nothing more than religious rituals and nothing more than a human construction and delusion. Show me otherwise.

That leaves me nothing to debate with because I do not believe any of that is so.

You are giving up debate because we disagree?

You seem pretty good at deferring what you refer to as "logic."

I have a small quibble with this. I defer to what almost everyone who has made a serious study of the subject calls logic. We have shown in other threads that you are the one with the special personal definition of logic.

[twobitsmedia]

Then your random-thought position is useless to debate with if it can be anything it wants to within a "few hours" intervals. . Good day.

I understand completely: you reject our definitions of God but refuse to provide any of your own.

TC

I have given it...it is over looked either on purpose, or from a point of not understanding...not sure.

[Thought Criminal]

Then your random-thought position is useless to debate with if it can be anything it wants to within a "few hours" intervals. . Good day.

I understand completely: you reject our definitions of God but refuse to provide any of your own.

TC

I have given it...it is over looked either on purpose, or from a point of not understanding...not sure.

I don't see it, so I'm going to have to ask you to repeat it right here and now. Failure to do so must be interpreted as your bluff having been called.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

When you can respond to post 133, then I can respond to this one.

I responded and am waiting for your definition of "god".