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.

[McCulloch]

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 because there are lesser beings than "It" doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

But where is IT come from? If the created things are necessarily less complex than their creators, there must be an unending chain of more and more complex entities.

Turtles all the way down.

Atheism Fallacy:

"There's evolution and physics, therefore theres no God/Designer"

More like, there's no evidence or reason to believe that there is a God, therefore it is reasonable not to believe. Evolution provides the mechanism where more complex entities can emerge from less complex ones.

[Fallibleone]

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.

Atheism is not 'based on faith' at all. It is based entirely on observable evidence. Atheists see no reason for a god to exist and therefore they don't believe in one. Before you were told about God, you had no reason to believe in him either, unless you are the first person in recorded history to be able to prove that you became spontaneously aware of God with no human intervention whatsoever. God, to an atheist, is a superfluous interjection which does nothing but push back the big questions even further. 'why are we here?' 'God put us here.' 'But who put God here?' or 'where did the earth come from?' 'God created it.' 'But who created God?'

[Jester]

Atheism is not 'based on faith' at all. It is based entirely on observable evidence. Atheists see no reason for a god to exist and therefore they don't believe in one. Before you were told about God, you had no reason to believe in him either, unless you are the first person in recorded history to be able to prove that you became spontaneously aware of God with no human intervention whatsoever. God, to an atheist, is a superfluous interjection which does nothing but push back the big questions even further. 'why are we here?' 'God put us here.' 'But who put God here?' or 'where did the earth come from?' 'God created it.' 'But who created God?'

I'll jump in on this one, if you don't mind.

I'd say that no evidence for or against God would logically lead to agnosticism. Atheism, on those terms is as arbitrary as theism. Beyond that, I would add that many people have a sense of God which goes beyond education. If we don't allow for anything else, we cannot account for the rise of religion in the first place. Moreover, I would say that the "big questions" would be much closer to being answered if it were established that God exists. Mainly, I'd say that "who put us here?" is not so big a question as "what is the purpose of life?".

[C-Nub]

I'll jump in on this one, if you don't mind.

I'd say that no evidence for or against God would logically lead to agnosticism. Atheism, on those terms is as arbitrary as theism. Beyond that, I would add that many people have a sense of God which goes beyond education. If we don't allow for anything else, we cannot account for the rise of religion in the first place. Moreover, I would say that the "big questions" would be much closer to being answered if it were established that God exists. Mainly, I'd say that "who put us here?" is not so big a question as "what is the purpose of life?".

Boy am I glad I wore my floaties, I'm jumping in too.

Agnosticism, as a term, is often taken to mean that we're divided on the issue, unsure to the point that we accept an equal chance that there is or is not a God. This is not the case at all.

In much the same way that you, I would hope, disbelieve in dragons and giants and those flying monkeys from the wizard of Oz, we disbelieve in God. We do not feel that there is a chance of God existing because, if God existed, especially if it was the Christian God (or any other god worshiped by members of an organized faith) it would be obvious he existed.

We disbelieve not only because there is no evidence, but because the God of the Bible is an incredibly unlikely being who's existence would violate the laws of physics and lead to a significant number of paradox. This isn't faith, this is a rational conclusion based on logical analysis and deductive reasoning.

A being who is all powerful would require infinite energy, something that physics say simply cannot happen.

Some atheists approach this with a little more certainty than others, but when cornered on the issue, most non-theists will admit to being tooth-fairy agnostics, in that they're unsure of God to the same extent that they're unsure of the tooth fairy.


It isn't rational to think God is a coin flip, that's not how probability works out, and it isn't faith to disbelieve in the massively unlikely.

[QED]

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?"

Note that you have used a key word here: disbelief. Wherever we find sufficient explanations (e.g. evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of intelligent design) we have one less reason to believe in an intelligent designer. We only rack-up reasons to believe when we find a necessity for a God. This is why atheism is so often associated with deeper scientific understandings of the physical world.

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.

In short, as already pointed out; the design argument. Your deliberate emphasis on "coincidence", "chance" and "nothing" suggest to me that you haven't understood the refutation of the design argument*. Numerous alternative selection effects with the same power to present us with apparent design, fine-tuning etc. have been presented by Biologists Physicists and Cosmologists leaving us with no clear necessity for God (Note that I'm talking about logical necessity here; the kind of necessity you refer to in your argument. No doubt there is a great deal of emotional necessity for believing.)

It's worth repeating that your theist argument rests on there being a demonstrable necessity and science refutes this.

The Logic for Atheism could be:

1.- "The Coincidence/Chance/Luck and The Nothing are intelligent" or

2.- "Complexity and Intelligence are based in luck"

Overall you have two choices:

1.- Believe that it's easier to have intelligence/logic based in luck. or

2.- Believe that it's easier to have luck based in previously stablished logical/ intelligent laws.

And I personally take the second one, which leads to the Theist logic.

Here's where you seem to struggle piecing together the scientific explanation into a credible explanation. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, for example, operates on the established principle that random input can be filtered into non-random output by suitable selection effects. Biological investigation clearly shows that life has all the necessary mechanisms required to operate on this principle.

Experimental Cosmology is a much younger science than Biology (only really beginning in the 1960's with the discovery of Microwave Background Radiation) but is already producing experimental tests of prior theoretical work confirming the possibilities for the kind of cosmic selection effects that would account for the apparent order supporting our existence. Some of this prior theory relates to the Anthropic Principle which alone serves to demonstrate the deep-rooted ambiguities inherent in not knowing the actual context for the space-time delineated by our past light-cone.

One by one, these alternative selection effects eliminate a necessity for the belief in God and add a positive justification for disbelief. In any instance of a selection taking place among a number of possibilities, we can either imagine it happening as the result of a deliberate act or not. Unfortunately, most theist's citing logical reasons for their beliefs seem poorly versed in the wide variety of selection effects that exist.

*Refutations of the Design Argument:
Blackwell Companion to Philosophy of Religion
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[QED]

I'd say that no evidence for or against God would logically lead to agnosticism. Atheism, on those terms is as arbitrary as theism. Beyond that, I would add that many people have a sense of God which goes beyond education. If we don't allow for anything else, we cannot account for the rise of religion in the first place. Moreover, I would say that the "big questions" would be much closer to being answered if it were established that God exists. Mainly, I'd say that "who put us here?" is not so big a question as "what is the purpose of life?".

This is mostly an emotional necessity for a belief in God. The rise of religion might well rest on both the emotional and the (invalid) logic that Tdmasta uses.

[Fallibleone]

Atheism is not 'based on faith' at all. It is based entirely on observable evidence. Atheists see no reason for a god to exist and therefore they don't believe in one. Before you were told about God, you had no reason to believe in him either, unless you are the first person in recorded history to be able to prove that you became spontaneously aware of God with no human intervention whatsoever. God, to an atheist, is a superfluous interjection which does nothing but push back the big questions even further. 'why are we here?' 'God put us here.' 'But who put God here?' or 'where did the earth come from?' 'God created it.' 'But who created God?'

I'll jump in on this one, if you don't mind.

Not at all.

I'd say that no evidence for or against God would logically lead to agnosticism. Atheism, on those terms is as arbitrary as theism.

I would disagree. Atheism: no evidence for God is seen, and therefore God is not introduced. God is not a possibility, because there is nothing to suggest that he is. I know tales of unicorns and goblins are tiresome to believers, but it's the best way to make my point. People don't generally assume a position of agnosticism about unicorns or goblins. They don't decide that there is a possibility that they exist, because neither has produced a shred of an impression on our world. They can safely decide that until some evidence for their existence becomes known, there is no reason to believe in them. As soon as God becomes a possibility, by way of evidence for his existence, then one becomes an agnostic, pondering the evidence for or against, but resigned to probably never knowing. So an agnostic would say 'I don't know whether God exists or not, but it's a possibility', whereas an atheist would say 'I've no reason to think that God is a possibility, therefore he isn't'.

Edit: these are my own inadequate opinions of what 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are by the way - there are shades in between and people who oscillate.

Beyond that, I would add that many people have a sense of God which goes beyond education. If we don't allow for anything else, we cannot account for the rise of religion in the first place.

I disagree with this also, and ask how you came to the conclusion that many people have a sense of God which goes beyond education. I believe that we can account for the rise of religion in other ways, for example it is a possibility that it was manufactured to meet a need in us for answers, comfort and 'togetherness' for want of a better term, among other things.

Moreover, I would say that the "big questions" would be much closer to being answered if it were established that God exists. Mainly, I'd say that "who put us here?" is not so big a question as "what is the purpose of life?".

I would say that they are inextricably linked, certainly for theists, for some of whom the answer would be 'God did, so that we could worship him' in the case of humans. However since we can apparently never hope to know the mind of God, assuming that God will communicate the purpose of life is arguably pointless. On top of that, we are still left with the problem of who created God. This is why I say that claiming God simply pushes big questions back further.

[Jester]

Boy am I glad I wore my floaties, I'm jumping in too.

Now we've got a party goin!

Agnosticism, as a term, is often taken to mean that we're divided on the issue, unsure to the point that we accept an equal chance that there is or is not a God. This is not the case at all.

I would say that indecision is where lack of evidence logically leads. I'll definitely agree that this may not reflect the actual opinions of most agnostics, but feel that this is beside my point.

In much the same way that you, I would hope, disbelieve in dragons and giants and those flying monkeys from the wizard of Oz, we disbelieve in God. We do not feel that there is a chance of God existing because, if God existed, especially if it was the Christian God (or any other god worshiped by members of an organized faith) it would be obvious he existed.

This describes atheism, however.
As to the actual point, I don't tend to believe in fantastic creatures (though they are fun to watch in movies). The difference being that the idea of such things are (false) scientific claims. A physical creature is something for which we can search with our eyes. The idea of God's existence references a different subject, and I would not be so quick to say that we've looked into it in this way.

We disbelieve not only because there is no evidence, but because the God of the Bible is an incredibly unlikely being who's existence would violate the laws of physics and lead to a significant number of paradox. This isn't faith, this is a rational conclusion based on logical analysis and deductive reasoning.

I would argue that this is an excellent refutation of a very specific understanding of the Christian God, with which I disagree. I don't personally see how God contradicts the laws of physics or leads to significant paradox at all.
As to the idea that there is no faith in it, I'd actually also disagree. I believe that there is a certain amount of assumption (we could call it faith) in all beliefs. Here, it is not only in the idea that the God concept you argue against is a correct understanding a certain assumption, but also the warrant for the logical deduction you list. Simply, all logic is based on assumption. The most base assumptions, therefore, cannot be proved.

A being who is all powerful would require infinite energy, something that physics say simply cannot happen.

My hair-splitting response: I wouldn't say "case closed" simply because scientific study leans away from it. I'd probably go with study (I personally assume that science is generally very accurate), but realize that changes are always happening.
My more actual response: as God is defined within Christianity, he resides outside the universe, meaning that this point does not actually apply to those findings.

Some atheists approach this with a little more certainty than others, but when cornered on the issue, most non-theists will admit to being tooth-fairy agnostics, in that they're unsure of God to the same extent that they're unsure of the tooth fairy.

Do you have a study on this one, I've actually been dying to know for sure. I definitely agree that this is the case on this site, but the opposite is the case in those I know personally (and numbers are about equal). I'd love to see some research on it if you know where I might look it up.

It isn't rational to think God is a coin flip, that's not how probability works out, and it isn't faith to disbelieve in the massively unlikely.

Neither does probability work out that one idea is far more likely to be true than another until we have some understanding on which to base that judgment. Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this point (that we start from a 50/50 assumption before we examine the evidence). If the existence of God were a scientific claim, I would agree that we have reduced the odds a great deal. It is the idea that God's existence is a matter for science to investigate, however, that I question.

[Goat]

Atheism is not 'based on faith' at all. It is based entirely on observable evidence. Atheists see no reason for a god to exist and therefore they don't believe in one. Before you were told about God, you had no reason to believe in him either, unless you are the first person in recorded history to be able to prove that you became spontaneously aware of God with no human intervention whatsoever. God, to an atheist, is a superfluous interjection which does nothing but push back the big questions even further. 'why are we here?' 'God put us here.' 'But who put God here?' or 'where did the earth come from?' 'God created it.' 'But who created God?'

I'll jump in on this one, if you don't mind.

I'd say that no evidence for or against God would logically lead to agnosticism. Atheism, on those terms is as arbitrary as theism. Beyond that, I would add that many people have a sense of God which goes beyond education. If we don't allow for anything else, we cannot account for the rise of religion in the first place. Moreover, I would say that the "big questions" would be much closer to being answered if it were established that God exists. Mainly, I'd say that "who put us here?" is not so big a question as "what is the purpose of life?".

Well, no evidence for God might lead to agnosticism, however, if you look at the 'no evidence' categories on other items, no evidence often can lead to non-belief either.

It is totally reasonable not to believe in the Loc Ness Monster, or big foot, or many other things, based on the lack of evidence FOR it. It might be a provisional disbelief, but it is a disbelief. I can safely say that I don't believe that Thor or Zeus existed.. I can safely say that based on the current evidence, I don't believe in telekinesis, or precognition or reincarnation, or ghosts.

As for the purpose of life, if God put us here for his own reasons, who is to say that our purpose has to match his? Why should I accept someone else's goal for my own life?

[Sjoerd]

The thing is, Sjoerd, that voice in your heart is at the centre of evolutionary psychology. For example, the conscience of a parent is easily understood in cold, hard, genetic terms. Now that may sound just yukky, but we know too much about hereditary behavioural tendencies to confuse them with anything more mysterious.

Shame on you! Not reading 23 previous pages is one thing, but if you had read the last three pages you wouldn't have tried to used my own argument against me

I knew full-well that you had just qualified your statement by saying that "conscience" may be a better word for communicating the "voice in your heart". But let's not forget that we may also have an audience here, and they may be busily reading their own things into the debate.

That's not what I meant. I stated before that evolutionary theory would have something to say on the matter of religion, but that the kind of answers it gives may not be relevant for you.

Music cannot be reduced to merely vibrating air molecules, a painting cannot be reduced to merely light-absorbing pigments. Nor can their perception by humans be fully explained in terms of the physical properties of the ear, the eye or the electric potentials of the brain. I agree that the beauty of paintings and music is emerging from all these physical properties, but that doesn't explain it away.

I happen to disagree with this view because we can explore the origins of meaning in a systematic way. In a paper by Christophe Menant a simple living organism (Paramaceum) is used to illustrate the fundamentals of meaning . By focussing on a simple life-form we strip away all the unnecessary distractions that get in the way when trying to explore the issue of meaning in human subjects. You, however, might want to say why it has no value when considering the issue in higher life forms.

Anyway, the rough idea is that when an organism evolves a motor response e.g. backing off from an acidity gradient, it has ascribed meaning to acid. Although this can be labelled as a crude reflex, nonetheless, the meaning of acid gets hard-wired into the organism's genes. Much more complex evolved behaviour can still be identified as the natural extension of this process as further meaning becomes moderated by additional sensory input.

Of course this doesn't provide any conclusive evidence to force us down the pathway to a reductionist explanation, but it shows that what at first blush might seem like an inscrutable mystery can have a naturalistic mechanism.

You are confusing meaning with function. I agree that complex behaviors can be explained mechanistically, whether they be bacterial chemotaxis or human behavior. I also agree that certain proteins in the bacterium can be said to have the function of chemotaxis. However, function is a human construct. We assign a functional term to the bacterium's response, the bacterium itself is happily ignorant.

I don't know if you've read the Artful Universe by John Barrow, but a whole range of human-level meaning obtained from high-level abstractions such as painting and music can still be deconstructed in much the same terms.

Similarly, invoking evolution to explain the origin of religion or ethics is useful and valuable, however, claiming that this eliminates the mystery is unwarranted reductionism.

So you say. But I can't see the necessity to invoke anything beyond evolution. The mechanism is really quite straightforward all the way up to the point where we begin to bump-up against Cartesian Dualism. Here things tend to get a little distracted by very old (and increasingly irrelevasnt) arguments that, in the end, leave us with very little to say about the personal experience of, well, experience.

I am not arguing that they cannot be deconstructed or explained in evolutionary terms, I am arguing that this does not take away the mystery and beauty of it. A painting can be fully deconstructed into molecules and there is no part of the painting that is not molecules. However, the beauty of the painting is an emergent property, and laws/guidelines that make a painting beautiful or not are wholly unrelated to their molecular structure.