Is belief in God Logical?

[McCulloch]

[Beto]

It doesn't take a divine intellect to realize the god concept is broad enough to warrant different approaches in different contexts. An extremely limited perspective, such as the Abrahamic god, more than warrants positive claims of non-existence. With more sophisticated conceptions (majorly abstract) claims of non-existence may not be applicable. Labeling people who understand this difference as "liars" is a display of asinine understanding, at best.

[Illusion]

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

Really? If so, then the NT is a lie since it is a change in the story. A person who has one opinion and then learns something new and changes their story, is a liar.

Which means anyone who learns and expresses a new fact is a liar?

This seems a horriby closed-minded approach to education.

Now, I wonder, are you going to stand by your misology or change your story?

Misology is defined as the fear or distrust of reason or logic. In that sense, it is the hatred of argument or debate or even speech. It is also defined sometimes as anti-intellectualism.

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

Please explain how this is a misology?

A person who has one opinion and then learns something new and changes their story, is a liar.

That is not what I'm trying to say. I never tried to imply that learning is a lie. Or new knowledge is a lie.

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

When someone says different contradictory stamtments depending upon the circimstances that is a lie.

Either he claims that god doesn't exist or he makes no claims about god.

If so, then the NT is a lie since it is a change in the story.

A person who has one opinion and then learns something new and changes their story, is a liar.

That is not what I'm trying to say. I never tried to imply that learning is a lie. Or new knowledge is a lie.

I do however believe that not just the nt but the whole bible is lying because of.

When someone says different contradictory statments depending upon the circimstances that is a lie.

Which the bible clearly does on numerous occasions.

[Illusion]

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

Or poor communicators.
I make no claims regarding the attributes or the definition of God. I do claim that God as defined by most theists cannot exist.
I regret any confusion that my miscommunication has caused. Thank you for pointing out my failure.

at·trib·ute
A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated: He attributed intelligence to his colleagues.

Existance is a attribute.

I make no claims regarding the attributes or the definition of God.

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

[Cathar1950]

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

Or poor communicators.
I make no claims regarding the attributes or the definition of God. I do claim that God as defined by most theists cannot exist.
I regret any confusion that my miscommunication has caused. Thank you for pointing out my failure.

at·trib·ute
A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated: He attributed intelligence to his colleagues.

Existance is a attribute.

I make no claims regarding the attributes or the definition of God.

I make no claims about God.

We claim that god does not exist

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

I see a few problems with your thinking.
I would never go so far as to call you a liar.
But the argument seems rather foolish to me as existence and not existence maybe attributes but something that doesn't exist doesn't have any attributes unless we are talking about imaginary or imagined attributes. Tell us what kind of attributes does a non-existent thing have beside non-existence?
Do you really think Mac is lying?
Even if you say something foolish doesn't make you a fool any more then someone that makes a statement that you play word games with is a liar.

[daedalus 2.0]

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

Since this thread is about logic I will ask you, Illusion, is this a Necessarily True or Contingently True statement?

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

There are a 100 different ways I can see this as not being true.

I just want to know if you stand by this as an absolute statement, or if you see times when changing one's story is not considered a lie?

People who keep changing their story are know as liars.

People who don't change their story are know as liars.

This statement is a lie.
I always lie.

[McCulloch]

at·trib·ute
A quality or characteristic inherent in or ascribed to someone or something.

to consider as a quality or characteristic of the person, thing, group, etc., indicated: He attributed intelligence to his colleagues.

Existance is a attribute.

Existence is not an attribute to my way of thinking. Attributes are qualities or characteristics inherent in or ascribed to someone or something. These someones or somethings are presumed to exist.

If, however, you wish to state that existence is an attribute, then that would explain our misunderstanding. If existence itself is an attribute, then my statements would have been better stated as

I make no claims regarding the attributes or the definition of God except that God as defined by most theists cannot exist.

I still regret any confusion that my miscommunication has caused. I don't feel that presuming deception when miscommunication is a possible explanation is neither civil nor good debate. Do you?

[Furrowed Brow]

Existance is a attribute.

There is a general philosophical school of thought that says existence is not a predicate.

Existence is not a predicate
Existence

Definition of predicate – Logic: something which is affirmed or denied concerning an argument of a proposition.

It is difficult to see how one might talk about the attributes of any deity without first making the deity the argument of the proposition and then affirming or denying the attribute belongs to the deity. For most attributes (e.g. has a beard, resides in heaven, does not have a beard etc) this is not a philosophical problem; but to talk about existence as an attribute is skewing the philosophical terrain to suit the point I feel.

[twobitsmedia]

Dennett and others have shown that ideas, like genes can operate in an environment with replication with mutations and survival of the fittest. It is not difficult to see that ideas evolve.

The base of most of this study that I am seeing so far seems to suggest that the foundation for the study is that "religious truths cannot be tested", so Dennet theorized basically that it could be, and then wrote his theory, but did not really offer any example of a test. Unless you have other information, I am not seeing the logic between the assertion "yes it can be tested" to "this is what it means" without the "test". It is also not clear what "religious truths" were considered testable or actually what "religious truth" even means.

[Thought Criminal]

Dennett and others have shown that ideas, like genes can operate in an environment with replication with mutations and survival of the fittest. It is not difficult to see that ideas evolve.

The base of most of this study that I am seeing so far seems to suggest that the foundation for the study is that "religious truths cannot be tested", so Dennet theorized basically that it could be, and then wrote his theory, but did not really offer any example of a test. Unless you have other information, I am not seeing the logic between the assertion "yes it can be tested" to "this is what it means" without the "test". It is also not clear what "religious truths" were considered testable or actually what "religious truth" even means.

Ok, I give up: what are you talking about?

TC

[Play_Dough]

edited...

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

Quick answer - "No"

Howsoever, the existence or non-existence of 'God' (?) cannot be either proven nor disproven.

It is, nevertheless, 'reasonable' ('logic' is a sub-set of reason) to either believe or not believe in 'God'. However, either stance (belief or non-belief) is typically supported by a personal bias, direct knowledge, training (brainwashing), an unprovable intuition, or simple faith.

The first step in analysis is to eliminate cultural descriptions of 'God' so that the 'argument' is not juxtaposed (contra) against cultural (i.e., the bible) descriptions of 'God'.

An additional item (re: logic) is the question, "Is absence of proof 'proof of absence'? ... and the answer must be (logically speaking) "no".

After examining all 'evidence' (?) and arguments the only 'logical' conclusion that one can make is "If 'God' exists then 'God' is (seems to be) a paradox".

It is illogical to embrace the stance that believes that 'in order to determine that something exists we must first have some evidence'. It is 'reasonable' to require some evidence but the lack of evidence is not conclusive. In other words, can something that is undetectable and leaves no traces of its existence 'exist'?
The answer must be (logically) 'yes'. It is 'reasonable' to believe otherwise, but, nevertheless, illogical.

'Logic' is a superior tool to assist in the elimination of bias and emotionally charged beliefs but 'reason' (reasonable) still allows for emotional components (i.e., I feel that it is true) but any 'reasonable' determinations cannot withstand the scrutiny of pure logic.

Belief in 'God' can be deemed to be 'logical' on a personal/individual level but not on a universal level. It is all a matter of one 'premises'.
For instance:
Premise A - If my silent prayers are answered (requests manifested into reality) then it is 'God' (as a mysterious power) who answers them.
Premise B - Most (97%) of my prayers are answered
Therefore: God exists

This (above) is a 'personal' 'proof' but without universal application. The problem with Premise A is equating a 'mysterious power' to 'God'. But! Perhaps 'God' is (also) a mysterious power.

Summary:
Both belief and non-belief in 'God' is 'illogical'. Both stances can be 'reasonable' but neither is 'logical'. 'Absence of proof is not proof of absence'.

If 'God' is a multi-dimensional paradox then it is quite possible that 'God' exists.
Considering the nature of 'paradox' then we have come to the end of rational inquiry.
So... the answer must be 'if 'God' exists then we don't know for sure'.

Belief and non-belief are both, at first glance, illogical..... 'reasonable', yes, but nevertheless, illogical.

Both sides of the argument will use at least one (arguably) 'faulty premise'.

.