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]

The question then is, "Does logic support the belief that God exists? Is it illogical that there is no God? "

Because of the definition you submitted on the other thread:

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. Logic does not depend on the truth of the premises.

Your debate question does not have to have any premise of truth, and thereby, it can go wherever it would want. The answer to both questions is yes and no: depends on what input you have received to create your "logic."

It would be illogical for you to pray to a God that you do not believe is there. It would be illogical for me to not pray to a God that I know is there.

[McCulloch]

Your debate question does not have to have any premise of truth, and thereby, it can go wherever it would want. The answer to both questions is yes and no: depends on what input you have received to create your "logic."

My debate question is simply to quote a claim that you have made in the form of a question. You have made the claim that belief in God is logical and that denial of the existence of God is illogical. Do you stand by your claim or do you withdraw it?

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. Logic does not depend on the truth of the premises.

It would be illogical for you to pray to a God that you do not believe is there. It would be illogical for me to not pray to a God that I know is there.

This is off topic. Of course if you already believe in the Christian God, it would be quite reasonable for you to pray to him. But you have made the claim that to believe in this god is logical. Then, provide the premises that you believe are true and the logic you have used to derive the truth of God's existence from those premises. If you cannot do that, then your claim that your knowing that God exists is logical is invalid.

Or if that is too difficult for you, provide the true premises and the logic you have used to conclude that the antithessis of there being no God is totally illogical.

Or withdraw your claims.

[twobitsmedia]

Your debate question does not have to have any premise of truth, and thereby, it can go wherever it would want. The answer to both questions is yes and no: depends on what input you have received to create your "logic."

My debate question is simply to quote a claim that you have made in the form of a question. You have made the claim that belief in God is logical and that denial of the existence of God is illogical. Do you stand by your claim or do you withdraw it?

I made the claim that God is logical "to me" and then I explained the "to me." But No I do not withdraw it in context.

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. Logic does not depend on the truth of the premises.

It would be illogical for you to pray to a God that you do not believe is there. It would be illogical for me to not pray to a God that I know is there.

This is off topic. Of course if you already believe in the Christian God, it would be quite reasonable for you to pray to him. But you have made the claim that to believe in this god is logical.

You are conveniently leaving out the "to me" part.

Then, provide the premises that you believe are true and the logic you have used to derive the truth of God's existence from those premises.

I already did. But for some reason or other when I type the word "spirit" it does not seem to show up on your side of the internet, or you are ignoring it.

If you cannot do that, then your claim that your knowing that God exists is logical is invalid.

I have done it ad nauseum and very time you asked keep repeating myself: spirit.

Or if that is too difficult for you, provide the true premises and the logic you have used to conclude that the antithessis of there being no God is totally illogical.

The premise (AGAIN) is spirit. "God is" comes from that and everything related. The difficulty is in getting you to acknoweldge that I have told you over and over again: spirit.

Or withdraw your claims.

That would be illogical.

[McCulloch]

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As such, there is no to me involved. Either it is a valid inference that God exists based on the well established principles of logic or it is not a valid inference. Logic is not subjective. But then you already know that, don't you? I understand logic just fine. If it is a valid inference that God exists to you and that you understand logic just fine then you should be able to demonstrate to us the validity of your belief (sorry, knowledge) that God exists.

[Rathpig]

This is a question which amounts to using a chainsaw to make toothpicks.

"Logic" as defined in the OP as formal deduction could be applied to a metaphysical claim once it is accepted as a valid premise. Deductive logic is a system of relations rather than an arbiter of truth. Logic determines valid relationships and conclusions. A specific premise, say "God", is merely a statement. Where logic would be applied is in the deduction and conclusion from that premise. These would could be valid or invalid whether you begin with "God" or "pickle". It simply doesn't matter in this context.

Therefore "God" as a stand-alone is neither logical or illogical. It is merely an unsupported statement. Replace "God" with the variable "x" and nothing changes.


Now in the larger metaphysical discussion of a specific Christian "God", the premise becomes invalid through the logical law of self-contradiction evidenced through the various claims about the nature of the premise, but this is a completely different discussion from the outline of the OP.

[twobitsmedia]

Logic is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration. As such, there is no to me involved.

So you are denying the definition you submittted? Is this why you started a new thread on a totally different and unrelated forum?

Either it is a valid inference that God exists based on the well established principles of logic or it is not a valid inference.

What, pray tell, is a well established principle of logic? The one that is most popular? Is that how logic is decided for you? By the most votes?

Logic is not subjective.

Then why did you submit the definition which said it did not have to have a true premise? It's is very subjective. It is based on your input and your input only. Or is this one of those things you "defer" to the experts? At any rate, the choice to defer is yours.

But then you already know that, don't you?

I have already said I do not buy that. Logic is a form of reason.

I understand logic just fine. If it is a valid inference that God exists to you and that you understand logic just fine then you should be able to demonstrate to us the validity of your belief (sorry, knowledge) that God exists.

You stiill blindly refuse to see the word spirit. S-P-R-I-T. Are you reading that yet????

Would reading it mess with your self imposed idea of logic wouldn't it? Or it would mess with which ever of the authors you listed that you accept. At any rate, it would be your faith in the source of the information that would create your logic for you. I would be more interested in your personal ability to reason, but, I see little evidence of that.

[Nick_A]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

[Rathpig]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

This is a question without meaning.

Logic is a system of analysis. If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, a logical approach to maintaining hydration and discovering water will prolong life. Logic doesn't deal with supporting ideas. Logic examines methodology. The most systematic approach to discovering water will not create water where none exists. Much like emotion and desire will not create that for which evidence is lacking.

[bernee51]

If a person is alone and thirsty in the desert, does logic support the idea that water exists?

How long is a piece of string?