God Versus Logic, Round Zero

There is no "God versus Logic." God and logic are not opposed. There is nothing in the universe to either logically contradict God's existence OR to logically establish God's existence. Logic cannot make that leap. If you claim otherwise, then: Wonderful! PROVE IT! That is what logic is for! That is what logic is all about; that is the great thing about logic: Logic can prove it. Logic can show its work. Logic can put up or shut up!

I love logic, for these and assorted other reasons.

Faith, on the other hand, can't put up (can't shut up either, really). Faith does not prove. That is why it's faith - you have to take it on faith. Care to call that circular logic? Sorry, the charge doesn't wash. Open a dictionary, read the ordinary, common, everyday definitions of the word. This is not a logical process. We do not need to argue this out: the word means what it means. Those who have a problem with the definition of faith need to take it up with the dictionary. Better start lobbying now.

A theist like me isn't claiming to base belief in God on logic. Further: any theist who does claim to base belief in God on logic is not a God-worshipper at all, but a logic-worshipper. Such a one has placed logic above God. They claim to believe in God "because"...and if they are even the slightest bit logical, they can even list the reasons why. But what becomes of their belief, once the "because" is invalidated? As it always is! None of the logical "proofs" of God can hold water under scrutiny. If such a "believer" truly did base their belief in God on logic, then their belief would perforce perish along with its supposed basis.

While I love logic, I don't place logic above God. It is no hypocrisy on the part of any intelligent believer, simply to point out the limits of logic. Logic's limits are its strengths. Logic can offer proof - but only if the evidence is there and the reasoning is sound. Without those limits, logic would have no rigor, and no probative value.

Hypocrisy is on the side of those who boast and claim to let logic reign supreme, only to abandon it when it comes to demonstrating their logic - to showing any shred of logical argument or proofs. A good example is the atheist who claims a contradiction between God and logic. The world is full of such atheists. They don't know what logic entails, they just like the sound of the word. What they really have is blind faith in logic, and in what they believe logic proves. They believe 100% that logic rules out God. Even though they can't show where, even though they haven't the slightest idea how. They just close their eyes and leap.

As do we all. Whichever way we leap: the atheist leaps one way, the theist another. OK, technically the agnostic doesn't leap. Chicken!

Skepticism doesn't rule out God, it just calls belief in God a sin. The best a skeptic can do is point out that the theistic premise is incompatible with the skeptic's high moral ideal, which could be expressed as: "It is wrong to believe in the truth of a proposition whose truth cannot be established by logical means." Should anyone be surprised that theism fails this test? There's no point disputing that this is a moral ideal, by the way. The moral component cannot be subtracted without rendering it a meaningless tautology: "It is illogical to believe in the truth of a proposition whose truth cannot be established by logical means."

No way: logic is supposed to be logical? Yippee, but we knew that. Logic is supposed to be logical. Complaining that faith is not logic-based is like complaining that English is not math-based, or that music is not chemistry-based.

Belief isn't a courtroom. Neither side has a burden of proof, here. But more important than that: neither side has even the ability to prove. I am not trying to change anyone's mind about the existence of God. I'm just pointing out what is obvious: the existence of God does not logically conflict with anything in the now known universe.

Theists. Atheists. Each side believes something about God's existence or non-existence. Neither is capable of logically undermining the other's position.

To debate would be absurd.