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.

[Tdmasta]

you:
1) the universe could not possibly have been in basically the state that it currently is for all of eternity-that is- current life must have come from either something more intelligent than itself, or less intelligent.

No i didnt say less intelligent and it means that you assume that luck is very intelligent, which leads to the ridiculous assumption that you previously quoted.

2)nothing can possibly create anything more intelligent than itself because humans aren't yet capable of doing so.

Again your giving too much credit to the laws of chance, and the focus was on the complexity of the human intelligence and all creation (IE: you, me, the luck perhaps?)

3) that being so, humans must have come from a more intelligent being(I.E. God)

That's the most probably reason, call "this Intelligent something" whoever you like.

3) Therefore God.

My personal thought, based in previous logic.

me:
1) 2 is a ridiculous assumption

Well, you just accepted that you believe in chance and luck, without an
intelligent being/s behind all this complexity, it's your own ridiculous
assumption.

2) okay, so where did God come from?

That's deserves another thread, no relation with the "Designer" existence.

You:
God was always there.

Perhaps, never said that though, but if u think about it we would never end
if we start a discussion about a creator who did a creator, that sounds endless.

Me:
Special pleading.

Good for ya

[FinalEnigma]

you:
1) the universe could not possibly have been in basically the state that it currently is for all of eternity-that is- current life must have come from either something more intelligent than itself, or less intelligent.

No i didnt say less intelligent and it means that you assume that luck is very intelligent, which leads to the ridiculous assumption that you previously quoted.

I assume no such thing. also, Luck doesn't exist.

2)nothing can possibly create anything more intelligent than itself because humans aren't yet capable of doing so.

Again your giving too much credit to the laws of chance, and the focus was on the complexity of the human intelligence and all creation (IE: you, me, the luck perhaps?)

Where in the realm of science do you encounter the laws of chance? there is no such thing.

me:
1) 2 is a ridiculous assumption

Well, you just accepted that you believe in chance and luck, without an
intelligent being/s behind all this complexity.

No, I didn't. I believe in evolution and the laws of physics and probability.

You:
God was always there.

Perhaps, never said that though, but if u think about it we would never end
if we start a discussion about a creator who did a creator, that sounds endless.

That is rather my point.

Me:
Special pleading.

Good for ya

huh? what kind of response is that when someone tells you that you have committed a logical fallacy? 'good for you'?

[Tdmasta]

And as i said before Atheism is entirely based in faith, no rational logic involved as far as i noticed.

But your free to believe what yout want to.

[Tdmasta]

I assume no such thing. also, Luck doesn't exist.

Allright Luck/Chance doesnt exist for you but you believe in the laws of probability
which involves luck and chance, so your contradicting yourself.

Where in the realm of science do you encounter the laws of chance? there is no such thing.

The laws of probability involve chance.

From Wikipedia Chance

Chance commonly refers to:
Probability
Luck
Randomness
Contingency
Chance (Ancient Greek concept)

No, I didn't. I believe in evolution and the laws of physics and probability.

See definition of probability

That is rather my point.

Good so we agree in something

huh? what kind of response is that when someone tells you that you have committed a logical fallacy? 'good for you'?

In your mind a logical fallacy was committed, in mine you are just contradicting yourself about your beliefs, and dont get mad for it.

[FinalEnigma]

I assume no such thing. also, Luck doesn't exist.

Allright Luck/Chance doesnt exist for you but you believe in the laws of probability
which involves luck and chance, so your contradicting yourself.

That isn't what I said. Chance quite plainly exists. luck is a subjective projection from humans onto chance and probability

Where in the realm of science do you encounter the laws of chance? there is no such thing.

The laws of probability involve chance.

they involve chance, yes. but there is no 'law of chance'
apologies if I was unclear and seemed to claim that chance does not exist. I meant there are no 'laws of chance'

No, I didn't. I believe in evolution and the laws of physics and probability.

See definition of probability

Now that I have clarified, could you address my point?

huh? what kind of response is that when someone tells you that you have committed a logical fallacy? 'good for you'?

In your mind a logical fallacy was committed, in mine you are just contradicting yourself about your beliefs, and dont get mad for it.

The correct response to an allegation of a logical fallacy is not to brush it off, nor is it 'no I didn't! you are the one committing a fallacy!' It is to address the fallacy and show how your argument does not commit said fallacy.

Also, apologies if I seemed to convey [strike]madness[/strike] anger. That would be the result of poor communication on my part.

[Tdmasta]

And no im not interested in talking in a cyclic fashion that will always derive in
consecuent and endless contradictions.

If u dont have a personal logic that goes directly to the point (IE: Rational Atheism Logic) but rather focuses about my personal logic im not interested on continuing.

Again believe in what you want to, but at least give a good reason of believing
on that, otherwise is a blind unfounded cause.

[McCulloch]

So in this case the statement "God doesn't exist" is based entirely in faith too, yes it's the same faith that Christians, Buddhisms and Muslims have for their "Chosen One", although I have more reasons to believe that "It" exists than "It" doesn't, the other question could be "Is the disbelief in God logical?"

Feel free to post that as a debate question.

My Theist logic could be:

1. - There's intelligence and logic behind everything I see in this world and this universe, including mathematically perfect physics and fully functional alive beings that surpass even our most advanced computers.
2. - So to have an already intelligent being like us humans, we had to have a "Designer" for we to be this perfect, because it's clear that "The Coincidence" "The Chance" and "The Nothing" all these lack logic and intelligence.
3. - Therefore it must be an "Intelligent Something" that did this complexity.

This is called the argument from design. It is seriously flawed logically. We are not perfect, therefore, our alleged creator could not have been perfect. We observe that the kind of order found in nature can occur without intentional design. How did the Designer come into existence when you already believe that nothing that seems to be well designed can exist without a designer? Who designed the designer? Oh, yeah, He has always existed. That is called special pleading. If you posit an eternal uncreated intelligent creator, why not simply posit an eternal uncreated universe or multiverse?

[Tdmasta]

Feel free to post that as a debate question.

You got my point, thank you.

Tdmasta wrote:
My Theist logic could be:
- There's intelligence and logic behind everything I see in this world and this universe, including mathematically perfect physics and fully functional alive beings that surpass even our most advanced computers.
- So to have an already intelligent being like us humans, we had to have a "Designer" for we to be this perfect, because it's clear that "The Coincidence" "The Chance" and "The Nothing" all these lack logic and intelligence.
- Therefore it must be an "Intelligent Something" that did this complexity.

This is called the argument from design. It is seriously flawed logically. We are not perfect, therefore, our alleged creator could not have been perfect. We observe that the kind of order found in nature can occur without intentional design. How did the Designer come into existence when you already believe that nothing that seems to be well designed can exist without a designer? Who designed the designer? Oh, yeah, He has always existed. That is called special pleading. If you posit an eternal uncreated intelligent creator, why not simply posit an eternal uncreated universe or multiverse?

Yes its mostly a fact of faith, but at least i have several points that lead to the Theist theory, but do you have points that lead to the Atheism theory?

About the "Designer" who always existed its the only posible theory, otherwise you would never end in the creation circle, there must be a beginning before
everything existed.

About the Fallacies:

Atheism Fallacy:

"Theres evolution and physics, therefore theres no God/Designer"

Theism Fallacy:

"There's intelligence and complexity in everything therefore there's a God/Designer"

So yes both are fallacies, and the only thing we are doing is choosing the one that fits into our minds, in my case the second and again is mostly faith.

[Tdmasta]

Forgot about this:

We are not perfect, therefore, our alleged creator could not have been perfect. We observe that the kind of order found in nature can occur without intentional design. How did the Designer come into existence when you already believe that nothing that seems to be well designed can exist without a designer?

A good comparison is the human and computers:

"Why are the computers so primitive in comparison to the human itself?"

"Shouldnt a being as complex as the human should create a "machine" of the same level of complexity as itself?"

So its the same logic about the the "Designer" just becasue there are lesser beings than "It" doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

[JoeyKnothead]

Forgot about this:

We are not perfect, therefore, our alleged creator could not have been perfect. We observe that the kind of order found in nature can occur without intentional design. How did the Designer come into existence when you already believe that nothing that seems to be well designed can exist without a designer?

A good comparison is the human and computers:

"Why are the computers so primitive in comparison to the human itself?"

"Shouldnt a being as complex as the human should create a "machine" of the same level of complexity as itself?"

So its the same logic about the the "Designer" just becasue there are lesser beings than "It" doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

Couldn't we also say that since there is no proof of this "Designer", that it's a reasonable conclusion to say "It" doesn't?