Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction
1. There is a God

Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[McCulloch]

I did not misrepresent empiricism, that is how I have heard empiricism being misrepresnted and abused - "No one can see God, so we have to assume that there is no God"

This is not an argument that I have seen any of the leading atheist apologists use. Could you cite an example?

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the anthropic argument, the cosmological arguments, the argument from the Resurrection of Jesus and other Christological arguments all fall short of being properly convincing objective reasoning based on adequate evidence to conclude that the God described in the Bible really exists.

what method of "properly convincing objective reasoning based on adequate evidence" did you use to conclude that ALL of these arguments or not valid, not sound, or neither valid not sound

I have looked at each of these arguments and found flaws. I have read Christian apologists and those who refute them with reference to each. I have posted debate topics for many of these and no one has been able to show me that any of these are valid or sound. If you disagree with my conclusions, please show how any or all of these famous arguments do objectively lead to the conclusion that the God described in the Bible really does exist.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I did not misrepresent empiricism, that is how I have heard empiricism being misrepresnted and abused - "No one can see God, so we have to assume that there is no God"

This is not an argument that I have seen any of the leading atheist apologists use. Could you cite an example?

It would appear to be a variant on the familiar theme that there is no reason to believe in the existence of something for which there is no supporting evidence. And that evidence must ultimately be grounded in sense experience, not metaphysical speculation. That is definitely an idea found in Empiricism.

[EduChris]

...I have read Christian apologists...please show how any or all of these famous arguments do objectively lead to the conclusion that the God described in the Bible really does exist.

Which "Christian apologists" are you talking about? I am unaware of any respected, credentialed Christian scholars who claim to have arguments which "objectively conclude" that the God of the Bible "exists." Can you please give the name(s) of any such folks whom you have read?

It seems to me that the actual claim is that: 1) there are sound philosophical reasons to prefer theism over non-theism; 2) given the assumption of theism, there are good historical reasons to believe that Jesus appeared alive after he had been dead; 3) of all contemporary world theisms, Christianity is most congruent with other scholarly disciplines; and 4) the weight of personal subjective experience, and the tradition of other people's subjective experiences, must be taken into account when evaluating one's worldview.

[McCulloch]

...I have read Christian apologists...please show how any or all of these famous arguments do objectively lead to the conclusion that the God described in the Bible really does exist.

Which "Christian apologists" are you talking about? I am unaware of any respected, credentialed Christian scholars who claim to have arguments which "objectively conclude" that the God of the Bible "exists." Can you please give the name(s) of any such folks whom you have read?

It seems to me that the actual claim is that: 1) there are sound philosophical reasons to prefer theism over non-theism; 2) given the assumption of theism, there are good historical reasons to believe that Jesus appeared alive after he had been dead; 3) of all contemporary world theisms, Christianity is most congruent with other scholarly disciplines; and 4) the weight of personal subjective experience, and the tradition of other people's subjective experiences, must be taken into account when evaluating one's worldview.

[jimvansage]

Just as the existence of a 44th president demands a first,
the existence of causes and effects demands a first cause.
The Cause must necessarily be uncaused and either eternal or outside our frame of reference in space-time to say the least. The only alternative is an infinite number of causes.

William Lane Craig put it this way:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Unless there is evidence that one thing which began to exist did not have a cause, or that the universe did not begin to exist, then the conclusion was reached by an argument that is both valid and sound.
It's not about assuming theism, it's that all the evidence points to theism, and no evidence exists that would support atheism.

[EduChris]

...William Lane Craig put it this way...

William Lane Craig presents philosophical arguments to support the idea that theism is more plausible than non-theism. Nowhere does Craig ever claim that he or anyone else has presented "objective proof" for theism.

...It's not about assuming theism, it's that all the evidence points to theism, and no evidence exists that would support atheism.

I agree that there is no evidence to support non-theism; nevertheless, there is no airtight argument which can compel anyone to believe anything. No matter what the proposition, there is always a loophole for the determined skeptic. Craig understands this, and for that reason he generally talks about "better arguments for theism" instead of "objective proof of theism." And if theism is the better option, as compared to non-theism, then we are justified in assuming theism (rather than non-theism) when examining other questions such as the historical matter of Jesus' death and resurrection.

[jimvansage]

That's sounds like a fallacy in and of itself
"We'll, not everyone will ever agree" so it's not objective truth?
Many will never agree that the holocaust ever occurred for a variety of biases or cultural reasons - no matter how many concentration camps they visit, no matter how many artifacts may be uncovered, etc.

But if logical arguments support theism, at the very least give more weight to the assumption of theism, then one is left with the higher probability, the higher likelihood, that there is a God.
How certain or how probable the truth value can be attained by logic/rationality is all that's really up for debate.

[EduChris]

...That's sounds like a fallacy in and of itself..."We'll, not everyone will ever agree" so it's not objective truth?...

Neither I nor William Lane Craig will argue that theism is not objectively true. I certainly believe it to be objectively true, and Craig undoubtedly does the same. But believing something to be objectively true is not the same as having demonstrated it via "objective" proofs. Craig does not claim to have objectively proven theism to be true, nor does he claim that anyone else has ever done so.

...if logical arguments support theism, at the very least give more weight to the assumption of theism, then one is left with the higher probability, the higher likelihood, that there is a God...

Sure, and this is precisely what Craig is doing--he is demonstrating that the arguments for theism are stronger than any arguments for non-theism. But it is difficult to get non-theists to understand that they need to present arguments for non-theism. Typically, non-theists have a small view of "god"--they suppose that "god" is some sort of object who "exists" within the broader framework of reality, just as all other objects "exist" within the framework of reality. Given this "small view" of "god," the non-theist feels as justified in dismissing the notion of "god" as she feels in dismissing leprechauns and unicorns and such. However, all contemporary world theism take a much larger view of God. In this larger view, God is not an object who exists, but is rather the framework for all existence, the wellspring of all possibility and all reality. Given this larger understanding of God, "existence" is not really up for debate, since even non-theists will understand (if they understand anything of logic) that the framework within which all possibilities are found (and in which at least some possibilities are realized) is a logically necessary, logically prior precondition for everything else. The real debate is not "existence," but rather, "Does this logically necessary framework of all possibility and all existence and all reality and all being--does it know about me and care about me?" Theists say "yes," and non-theists say "no."

The problem for non-theists, in this debate, is how an unconscious and uncomprehending source could ever give rise to consciousness, freedom, self-realization, moral obligation, and so forth. Typically, the non-theist (to the extent she carries her presuppositions out to their logical conclusion) will argue that such notions are illusory, insubstantial, non-efficacious--the absurd and impotent froth on the waves of "purely physical" reality. But at this point, the non-theist undercuts her own agency, which causes her position to end up refuting itself. And even beyond the self-referential incoherence of the non-theist position, non-theists can't actually live their day-to-day lives as though they had no agency.

The irony is that most non-theists like to imagine that they have arrived at their views by means of logic and reason, when in fact their conclusions vacate the very notion of logic and reason.

[McCulloch]

Neither I nor William Lane Craig will argue that theism is not objectively true. I certainly believe it to be objectively true, and Craig undoubtedly does the same. But believing something to be objectively true is not the same as having demonstrated it via "objective" proofs. Craig does not claim to have objectively proven theism to be true, nor does he claim that anyone else has ever done so.

This does not make sense to me. It is unreasonable to believe that something is objectively true without being able to argue that it is objectively true. Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say that you believe that is it probably true if that is all you can support with evidence?

The problem for non-theists, in this debate, is how an unconscious and uncomprehending source could ever give rise to consciousness, freedom, self-realization, moral obligation, and so forth. Typically, the non-theist (to the extent she carries her presuppositions out to their logical conclusion) will argue that such notions are illusory, insubstantial, non-efficacious--the absurd and impotent froth on the waves of "purely physical" reality. But at this point, the non-theist undercuts her own agency, which causes her position to end up refuting itself. And even beyond the self-referential incoherence of the non-theist position, non-theists can't actually live their day-to-day lives as though they had no agency.

The irony is that most non-theists like to imagine that they have arrived at their views by means of logic and reason, when in fact their conclusions vacate the very notion of logic and reason.

This so called problem is not really a problem at all. Emergent characteristics are well known. For example, individual buyers and sellers are unpredictable and somewhat fickle. However, large numbers of buyers and sellers in a free marketplace behave as if certain economic laws were in place. The entire field of study called macro-economics is based on a principle which according to EduChris vacate the very notion of logic and reason.

[jimvansage]

The reason individuals go against the laws is consciousness/free will. That tells us nothing about the nature and/or origin of law, consciousness or free will.

I believe that if an argument is both valid and sound that the conclusion is true. If the evidence is objectively true, and the conclusion objectively follows from the premises, then the conclusion is objectively true.

back to the example:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

How certain can I be that Socrates is mortal? 100%? 99% 50%