Is Belief in God logical?

[Daffydd]

There is a sense in which belief in God is not logical, but not in the sense the non-believers mean. The philosopher V. V. Doniela argued that logic is not (as is often claimed) about correct thinking, but is actually about the structure of the world, which is reflected in our thought processes. Strictly speaking, he argued that it concerned laws of non-temporal cross sections of the world when the latter is seen as process; in effect, what Einstein termed world tubes, but that need not bother us here! Doniela agreed with a student suggestion that this implied that logic is only applicable to the macroscopic world and may not be relevant to the quantum realm. The quantum realm does seem illogical - for instance, it does not seem logical that an electron can be both a particle and a wave. Doniela is an atheist and, as such, does not believe in a spiritual realm, but I believe in such a realm and suggest that it is no more governed by the logic of the macroscopic familiar world than is the quantum realm. I accept that an electron is both a wave and a particle (even though this is against familiar-world logic) and I can equally accept that God is both a Unity and a Trinity, even though this goes against the logic of the macro world. But because our minds have been formed by the logic of the macro world, the different logic of both the quantum realm and the spiritual world seems illogical to us. These realms transcend logic as we now it!
Another issue raised by skeptics is that belief in God is (in their opinion) so strange that it requires very strong evidence which, they assume, does not exist. But there are many, many, instances of people who have been directed by God to contact a stranger only to find that the contact has had vital consequences for either the person being directed or the one to whom s/he was directed. That such encounters could be random is of such low probability as to strongly imply genuine direction by an omniscient Intelligence. Indeed, it would be irrational to accept any other explanation. A true skeptic, to be consistent, should think deeply about this. If these experiences are considered with the seriousness they deserve, it is clear that belief, not unbelief, is the more rational position.

 

[cocoa]

Ummm.. this post is very technical, and I'm not at all scientific but, I can say that mankind has a natural desire to believe in something higher than themselves. Even if someone is an Athiest, they may deny a spiritual God but they often ascribe a god like authority to science.

 

[BibleLover]

There is a sense in which belief in God is not logical, but not in the sense the non-believers mean. The philosopher V. V. Doniela argued that logic is not (as is often claimed) about correct thinking, but is actually about the structure of the world, which is reflected in our thought processes. Strictly speaking, he argued that it concerned laws of non-temporal cross sections of the world when the latter is seen as process; in effect, what Einstein termed world tubes, but that need not bother us here! Doniela agreed with a student suggestion that this implied that logic is only applicable to the macroscopic world and may not be relevant to the quantum realm. The quantum realm does seem illogical - for instance, it does not seem logical that an electron can be both a particle and a wave. Doniela is an atheist and, as such, does not believe in a spiritual realm, but I believe in such a realm and suggest that it is no more governed by the logic of the macroscopic familiar world than is the quantum realm. I accept that an electron is both a wave and a particle (even though this is against familiar-world logic) and I can equally accept that God is both a Unity and a Trinity, even though this goes against the logic of the macro world. But because our minds have been formed by the logic of the macro world, the different logic of both the quantum realm and the spiritual world seems illogical to us. These realms transcend logic as we now it!
Another issue raised by skeptics is that belief in God is (in their opinion) so strange that it requires very strong evidence which, they assume, does not exist. But there are many, many, instances of people who have been directed by God to contact a stranger only to find that the contact has had vital consequences for either the person being directed or the one to whom s/he was directed. That such encounters could be random is of such low probability as to strongly imply genuine direction by an omniscient Intelligence. Indeed, it would be irrational to accept any other explanation. A true skeptic, to be consistent, should think deeply about this. If these experiences are considered with the seriousness they deserve, it is clear that belief, not unbelief, is the more rational position.

Very well put! The quantum world has certainly made some people, e.g. skeptics, do some serious thinking about their weltanschauungen.
God bless you.

 

[LearningToLetGo]

Generally speaking, people are very poor observers and equally poor thinkers. We see what we want to see and think what we want to think, and ignore evidence to the contrary. When forced to examine contrary evidence, we grow offended and treat such evidence as an attack on our person. Honestly, it's amazing that we get anything done at all.

It seems to boil down to this: If someone does not want to see God then they won't, and if someone wants to see God, they will.

 

[thenami]

Personal spiritual philosophies are not scientifically explained through logic, but faith based from the heart.
I believe as mankind we can try and apply logic to scripture, which in turn causes many to lose their faith.
Therefore, while we might scientifically approach the studying of biblical texts, there is no way to truly define faith scientifically.
Tangible, indisputable proof that God exists is currently unavailable to the non-believing world.

I think sometimes people have too much time to think. If we took that time to love one another, what a world we would have.

 

[Cosia]

I was doing a survey some years ago, and i asked a lady if she believed in God. She answered "No, I don't. But, I never do anything that will hurt someone - just in case."

 

[bobinfaith]

There is a sense in which belief in God is not logical, but not in the sense the non-believers mean. The philosopher V. V. Doniela argued that logic is not (as is often claimed) about correct thinking, but is actually about the structure of the world, which is reflected in our thought processes. Strictly speaking, he argued that it concerned laws of non-temporal cross sections of the world when the latter is seen as process; in effect, what Einstein termed world tubes, but that need not bother us here! Doniela agreed with a student suggestion that this implied that logic is only applicable to the macroscopic world and may not be relevant to the quantum realm. The quantum realm does seem illogical - for instance, it does not seem logical that an electron can be both a particle and a wave. Doniela is an atheist and, as such, does not believe in a spiritual realm, but I believe in such a realm and suggest that it is no more governed by the logic of the macroscopic familiar world than is the quantum realm. I accept that an electron is both a wave and a particle (even though this is against familiar-world logic) and I can equally accept that God is both a Unity and a Trinity, even though this goes against the logic of the macro world. But because our minds have been formed by the logic of the macro world, the different logic of both the quantum realm and the spiritual world seems illogical to us. These realms transcend logic as we now it! Another issue raised by skeptics is that belief in God is (in their opinion) so strange that it requires very strong evidence which, they assume, does not exist. But there are many, many, instances of people who have been directed by God to contact a stranger only to find that the contact has had vital consequences for either the person being directed or the one to whom s/he was directed. That such encounters could be random is of such low probability as to strongly imply genuine direction by an omniscient Intelligence. Indeed, it would be irrational to accept any other explanation. A true skeptic, to be consistent, should think deeply about this. If these experiences are considered with the seriousness they deserve, it is clear that belief, not unbelief, is the more rational position.

Personal spiritual philosophies are not scientifically explained through logic, but faith based from the heart. I believe as mankind we can try and apply logic to scripture, which in turn causes many to lose their faith. Therefore, while we might scientifically approach the studying of biblical texts, there is no way to truly define faith scientifically. Tangible, indisputable proof that God exists is currently unavailable to the non-believing world. I think sometimes people have too much time to think. If we took that time to love one another, what a world we would have.

Hello Daffydd;

I read your thread and was hoping you would follow up. I have never heard of V.V. Doniela. I did find Dr. Vytautas Doniela, an associate professor of philosophy. Is this the same person?

There is a sense whether belief in God is logical or illogical. My belief in God is logical. It's complicated, but my belief, life experience, deeper study of the Bible and my story enables me to explain the logical.

There is a world full of people whose belief in God is illogical. There's no sense to things that happen because of a deity that cannot be seen versus things that happen by chance. This is why we share the Gospel to a non-believer. Again, it's complicated.

V. V. Doniela, Einstein, macroscopic world particles such as photons and electrons, quantum realm explained by an atheist, world scientist, philosopher, etc...mixed with God's Word can further deepen away from the main verb with sub-contextual thought.

I welcome sub-contextual thought in my discussions that can be productive. God's Word and His Ways are so much higher, therefore, we could never master Him in a lifetime and never will. This is why the Bible is the easiest way (according to God) to teach and learn us more that He does exist, His Word is truthful when the main verb is in the central context of our belief.

But I also feel when we combine God's Word and Truth mixed with sub-contextual sciences, philosophical objectives that can take away from the main verb of belief.

Putting all human logic or illogical beliefs aside, either we believe or we don't believe in God.

God bless you, Daffydd and your entire family.

Bob

 

[Big Moose]

For something to be logical, one has to have enough understanding. I have some understanding of God, so to me belief in God is logical.
Once upon a time, it was common knowledge that the world was flat. It was not logical to those people that the world was round. After proof and understanding, now it is logical that the Earth is round.
Again, at one time man being able to fly was not logical. Until the Wright brothers figured it out and showed how it was done. Now we understand lift, and voila', flying is now logical.

Understanding is the key. If God doesn't seem logical..........then gain some understanding.

 

[Major]

There is a sense in which belief in God is not logical, but not in the sense the non-believers mean. The philosopher V. V. Doniela argued that logic is not (as is often claimed) about correct thinking, but is actually about the structure of the world, which is reflected in our thought processes. Strictly speaking, he argued that it concerned laws of non-temporal cross sections of the world when the latter is seen as process; in effect, what Einstein termed world tubes, but that need not bother us here! Doniela agreed with a student suggestion that this implied that logic is only applicable to the macroscopic world and may not be relevant to the quantum realm. The quantum realm does seem illogical - for instance, it does not seem logical that an electron can be both a particle and a wave. Doniela is an atheist and, as such, does not believe in a spiritual realm, but I believe in such a realm and suggest that it is no more governed by the logic of the macroscopic familiar world than is the quantum realm. I accept that an electron is both a wave and a particle (even though this is against familiar-world logic) and I can equally accept that God is both a Unity and a Trinity, even though this goes against the logic of the macro world. But because our minds have been formed by the logic of the macro world, the different logic of both the quantum realm and the spiritual world seems illogical to us. These realms transcend logic as we now it!
Another issue raised by skeptics is that belief in God is (in their opinion) so strange that it requires very strong evidence which, they assume, does not exist. But there are many, many, instances of people who have been directed by God to contact a stranger only to find that the contact has had vital consequences for either the person being directed or the one to whom s/he was directed. That such encounters could be random is of such low probability as to strongly imply genuine direction by an omniscient Intelligence. Indeed, it would be irrational to accept any other explanation. A true skeptic, to be consistent, should think deeply about this. If these experiences are considered with the seriousness they deserve, it is clear that belief, not unbelief, is the more rational position.

"Is belief in God logical"?????

IMHO---The fact that human beings think of “logic” at all also supports the idea of God as a rational belief.

I say that because if If God does not exist, then there is no intelligence, purpose, or meaning in anything.

Intelligence, purpose, and meaning are simply illusions created by physics and chemistry.

However, if there is no God, it would also mean our reason, intellect, and learning are mere illusions of physics. Lacking God, there is no logic. There is no reason to think our thoughts are meaningful or that they actually reflect reality. Our thoughts may be good for survival or simply the results of randomness, but they can’t be relied on as true. In short, the only way to believe that there is such a thing as logic is for one to believe in some kind of God.

Then, by reading the Bible We can also know that God Himself is logical, based on His words and His actions. First and foremost, God acts in a logical way: He plans, communicates, discusses, and acts. Those are all logical conclusions.

 

[john14six]

Generally speaking, people are very poor observers and equally poor thinkers. We see what we want to see and think what we want to think, and ignore evidence to the contrary. When forced to examine contrary evidence, we grow offended and treat such evidence as an attack on our person. Honestly, it's amazing that we get anything done at all.

It seems to boil down to this: If someone does not want to see God then they won't, and if someone wants to see God, they will.

Yes, I agree.
Several years ago, when I was just learning how to post on forums, I was drawn into a debate with an atheist. Not knowing their tactics in drawing believers into an endless debate, I replied to a question about Christianity. I told her that before I became a believer, I had serious doubts that the bible was true, or that God existed. I went on to explain that when I became desperate to know the truth about God that I asked Him to show me the truth about Himself and about His Word. Then I explained that I began to read the Gospel of John, and that God Himself showed me that the Bible Is true and that He is real. Her reply was, "that is circular reasoning." I assume that she meant it is not logical. She continued to say that she had read the Gospel of John more than once, and she never found God there. After I answered several of the atheist's posts, I realized that I was involved in a debate that would not end unless I stepped away from it immediately. I could see that the atheist was well experienced in debating Christians, and that her goal was to show her contempt for Christians and for their God. She had an answer for every scripture I referred to.
I ended the debate by replying to her circular reasoning comment that the Bible says in Jeremiah 29:13, "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall seek for me with all your heart." Then I suggested to her that she did not find God when she read the Book of John because she was not looking for him, but that I found Him because I was desperate to know the truth about Him and about believing in Him.


John

 

[LearningToLetGo]

the Bible says in Jeremiah 29:13, "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall seek for me with all your heart." Then I suggested to her that she did not find God when she read the Book of John because she was not looking for him, but that I found Him because I was desperate to know the truth about Him and about believing in Him.

I find debate of limited value when the two so oppose one another. Rather ask, "What do you want to be true?"

I want God of the Bible to be true. Would an atheist want there to be no God? That's an absurd proposition. More likely, an atheist wants to not be judged by the God of the Bible. That's a rational position. One can debate that.

 

[Cosia]

God is love, and our creator How did we come about without God?
If we evolved from monkeys, fish or lizards, where did they come from., and how cone they are still around yet not human?

If there was no God there would be no reason for humanity, or even the earth.

 

[BibleLover]

I find debate of limited value when the two so oppose one another. Rather ask, "What do you want to be true?"

I want God of the Bible to be true. Would an atheist want there to be no God? That's an absurd proposition. More likely, an atheist wants to not be judged by the God of the Bible. That's a rational position. One can debate that.

I don't debate atheists. When I encounter one attacking the Bible, I very kindly inform them that the Bible is self-authenticating to God's Elect, so if they have a problem with biblical authenticity, we're wasting our time discussing the subject for obvious reasons. That ends the debate quickly and sends them in search of another victim.

 

[Dave F.]

I had an atheist want to debate me, he said I could not use the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. I agreed to the terms and then added that he could not use his trinity of luck, chance, and happenstance... there was no debate.

 

[john14six]

I find debate of limited value when the two so oppose one another. Rather ask, "What do you want to be true?"

I want God of the Bible to be true. Would an atheist want there to be no God? That's an absurd proposition. More likely, an atheist wants to not be judged by the God of the Bible. That's a rational position. One can debate that.

Hey, when I engaged in a conversation with that atheist, I was not looking for a debate. I was simply answering a question that she had posted. At the time I was not experienced in posting on forums and was easily drawn in to her debate. After we exchanged several posts, I realized that her purpose was not getting an answer to the question in her original post, but to engage in an endless debate in which she could show her contempt for me and for God. When I saw her motive, I ended the debate.

John

 

[LearningToLetGo]

I realized that her purpose was not getting an answer to the question in her original post, but to engage in an endless debate in which she could show her contempt for me and for God.

Contempt for God... I realise these are your words, not hers, but imagine all the layers of meaning in that one phrase. Is this another way of her saying "don't judge me" even as she judges you?

I feel for the most part there are no atheists, just desperate fear of judgement.

 

[bobinfaith]

Hey, when I engaged in a conversation with that atheist, I was not looking for a debate. I was simply answering a question that she had posted. At the time I was not experienced in posting on forums and was easily drawn in to her debate. After we exchanged several posts, I realized that her purpose was not getting an answer to the question in her original post, but to engage in an endless debate in which she could show her contempt for me and for God. When I saw her motive, I ended the debate.
John

Contempt for God... I realise these are your words, not hers, but imagine all the layers of meaning in that one phrase. Is this another way of her saying "don't judge me" even as she judges you? I feel for the most part there are no atheists, just desperate fear of judgement.

Hello John;

You expressed some good points and I want to respond.

I never had the art of debating especially when I don't agree. Many people are gifted and can hold a civil conversation during disagreements. I only express my view whether it be Christianity, finances, (the horrible failures of government in California,) sports, and when the other expresses their view I listen and let it go at that.

The purpose to "win" the discussion is not my goal.

Hello LearningToLetGo,

I also realized John's words and the layers of words in that one phrase. Are these layers of words between the two or are they my (speaking for myself) perception of what I was reading? She may not realize she could have been judging John with no clue of her own underlying motive, or hidden fear of, what if there is a God?

As far as "no atheists," I wish there were none. I meet some very nice people who do not believe in God or a god of any kind. Convincing them at that moment may not happen but listening carefully to why they don't believe earns me the respect to share my story while planting that seed for God to grow.

God bless you, brothers.

Bob

 

[john14six]

Hello John;

You expressed some good points and I want to respond.

I never had the art of debating especially when I don't agree. Many people are gifted and can hold a civil conversation during disagreements. I only express my view whether it be Christianity, finances, (the horrible failures of government in California,) sports, and when the other expresses their view I listen and let it go at that.

The purpose to "win" the discussion is not my goal.

Hello LearningToLetGo,

I also realized John's words and the layers of words in that one phrase. Are these layers of words between the two or are they my (speaking for myself) perception of what I was reading? She may not realize she could have been judging John with no clue of her own underlying motive, or hidden fear of, what if there is a God?

As far as "no atheists," I wish there were none. I meet some very nice people who do not believe in God or a god of any kind. Convincing them at that moment may not happen but listening carefully to why they don't believe earns me the respect to share my story while planting that seed for God to grow.

God bless you, brothers.

Bob

Bob, I'll provide some insight into the conversation with the atheist lady. That conversation was about 10 years ago, and the forum has changed since then; my account has been deleted, and I have no record of the conversation other than my memory which isn't what it used to be.
Her original post was something like this: "How can Christians commit crimes like murder, rape, stealing, etc. and still go to heaven when they die."
Without suspecting that I was being drawn into a debate I responded to her question by saying that not all who claim to be a Christian are one. She responded to my reply by accusing me of insulting every Christian in the world.
I did respond to that post by using Mathhew 7:21 to support my answer.
After several more posts in which she became very nasty towards me, and using the "circular reasoning" claim to my testimony of how God himself showed me that He is real, I stepped away from the debate.

John

 

[Matiro]

I had an atheist want to debate me, he said I could not use the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. I agreed to the terms and then added that he could not use his trinity of luck, chance, and happenstance... there was no debate.

Imagine if the atheist refused to give up using his trinity of luck, chance, and happenstance,
what would you say to challenge his trinity of luck, chance, and happenstance?

 

[bobinfaith]

Imagine if the atheist refused to give up using his trinity of luck, chance, and happenstance,
what would you say to challenge his trinity of luck, chance, and happenstance?

Good morning, Matiro;

I've been there when an atheist or satanic believer initiated a "one sided" discussion with me. I exercised my freedom to listen to their trinity of luck, chance, and "at that moment." Then I calmly told my story of why I believe in the Christ.

This is not a sugar and coat thing. To be honest, most of the time these kinds of face to face don't go smooth because I see an intensity coming from their side when they hear the Gospel.

2 Timothy 3:12,12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. - KJV

Then there are those very rare times when the unbeliever broke and gave their life when we did the prayer of acceptance. I'll immediately encourage them to meet me again for a cup of coffee.

What matters is I was willing reach out to anyone who stands opposite of our Almighty God. Ultimately, the result is His.

God bless you, Matiro.

Bob