is it logical to believe in god?

Question

is it logical to believe in god?

Answer 1

Yes, , there is a God, but of course simply saying that God exists does not mean there is one. The existence of God has been debated for centuries. Atheists deny him, or say they “lack belief in God.” We Christians, of course, not only believe in God but also claim to have a relationship with him through the person of Jesus Christ who has been revealed in the four Gospels of the New Testament. These four Gospels are historical documents that tell us who he was and what he did. They let us know that he claimed to be God in flesh. Consider Exodus 3:14 of the Old Testament when Moses asked God what his name was, God responded with, “I am that I am. Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I am has sent me to you.” In John 8:58 Jesus said, “...before Abraham was, I am.” Whatever you might think of Jesus, according to the Gospels he claimed to be God. So, if you believe Jesus, then God exists.



Proving that God exists is another matter. But, you see, proof is for mathematics and logic. How do you “prove” there is a Great Being outside of our universe? Do we look for footprints in a riverbed? Do we examine evidence under a microscope and say, "A ha! There's God!"? That would be the wrong approach. If God exists, he would be beyond our universe, non-material, and transcendent. So, we would have to look for evidence that is consistent with a non-material and transcendent being. (See the article Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence).

http://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god



Some have proposed that the Transcendental Argument for God’s existence (TAG) demonstrates that God exists.

http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

Others have stated that the Cosmological Argument is sufficient. Check out the links and judge for yourself.

http://carm.org/cosmological-argument



Whatever argument you might accept or deny, it seems that your presuppositions are what determine if you believe in God or not. Atheists, of course, presuppose that God does not exist - by faith. They can't "know" he doesn't exist, nor can they prove that in all the universe (or outside of it) there is no God. But, their atheism means they will deny any evidences or explanations used to affirm his existence. On the other hand, Christians who claim to have an encounter with God rely on the revelation of Scripture to tell them who Christ is and who God is.



I have to ask, how could there not be a God? Look around you. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). Consider the vastness of the universe, the perfection of the balance of life, and the incredible complexity of the information structures in DNA. Are we to believe that the super-complex information structures in the DNA molecule are the result of chance? Is life an accident? What about beauty? Is it nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain? What about morality? Are there any moral absolutes such as, “It is always wrong to torture a baby to death merely for one’s personal pleasure”? Or, is such a moral absolute nothing more than the result of chemical reactions in our brains? If so, how does one chemical reaction which leads to another chemical reaction produce moral absolutes or even logical absolutes? Is it easier to conclude that such truths are the result of chemical reactions and brain wiring, or that they are authored by God? Is morality merely the situational-based whims of people’s preferences? Is the beauty of a sunset and the wonder of a new born baby's precious life a byproduct of the survival of the fittest?



Read More: http://carm.org/does-god-exist

Answer 2

YES, provided you play the ODDS game. Pascal, a famous mathematician, came up with a truth table with 4 outcomes based on two coins:

coin 1: Heads-I believe in god, tails-I do not believe in god

coin 2: heads-there is a god, tails-there is no god



The 4 possible outcomes of the two coin toss are:



I believe in god + there is a god = GOOD thing, benefit!

I believe in god + there is no god = neutral, I wasted my time

I do not believe in god + there is no god = neutral, I wasted my time

I do not believe in god + there is a god = NOT a good thing, eternal damnation!



Note there is only ONE BAD outcome. Odds are 1 in 4 that I am damned for eternity. Of the other 3, one is good and the other 2 are nothing significant. Playing odds means believing there IS a god (or at least faking it), to make your odds 3 out of 4 for NOT suffering eternal punishment. So, YES, it IS logical to play the odds to avoid the 1 of 4 BAD outcomes.



Pascal's wager 101 in a nutshell...



The fallacy is this: if there IS a god, god will know you hold a false belief, and thus will be doomed anyway, which brings the odds to 50-50 if there IS a god as claimed by religion.

Answer 3

Depends on what you base your logic on.



Would it be worth while to save money now, for a better life later, even if I do not know if I will be alive later on? Should I spend the money now, enjoy what it brings me, and take whatever comes along later in life as my punishment?



Choices such as that, are what we must face daily. We must plan for what is possible, ahead of us. Or not plan at all, and take whatever consequence is given us when the time comes.



So should we then prepare for a possible AFTER LIFE, or just shrug it off and hope for the best?



Personally, I will try to save my money and have something to live on later on, IF I live that long. If not, my saving will be for nothing. But if I live, I will then have money to live on.



And so it is with the After Life. It IS logical to believe in God, because IF God exists, and there is an AFTER LIFE, then I would want to be part of it.



And being foolish enough to throw it away, simply because..." I do not believe in god", can bring some misery later on, possibly. And no after life, no being with God, possibly.



So, Logically, I will Believe in God, and the After lIfe, and be ready for it.



You see, logically, if I am Right, I will be okay, be with God, be in the After Life. And if I am Wrong.?

I will simply be where others are, who do NOT believe. What would I have lost, really?

Answer 4

Absolutely.



It would be illogical not to.There is just too much information available today to ignore God. There is also much conflicting information coming from those who find interest confusing the truth.

Stick with bona fide denominations of Christianity that have been around for 300+ years. There are some new groups that are good, but most are cult like at best.

At the present Calvary Chapel is a very good safe place to start (or stay). Southern and Independent Baptists churches, Presbyterian, Churches of Christ (not United!), Bible Church, many Independents and some Pentecostal churches will be good. Some of these groups will be very tightly wound, others more loose. But my first recommendation for someone seeking is Calvary Chapel.

Answer 5

For me, yes.



Reasons:



1. I know the difference...not believing, and believing...no comparison...and that

..means something...means a lot to me



2. Even water responds to words, thus there is a spiritual component to things,

...and anyone can pray, and there are results...this has been shown



3. the brain undergoes amazing and good changes with belief in God

...(there's a book showing brain scans on this)



4. being led...when you're not actually looking for THAT thing, but

...seeing it, you know it, know it is true...how come? like someone who

sees their true love and they say 'love at first sight'...this happens, and

it happened to me re: meeting the Lord



5. seeing how things are on this planet, and then extrapolating beforehand...

...saying that how things are here is how they always were (logical to me)....



...

Answer 6

What I know is this- the best choices are not always the logical one/s to make!

I don't know of a more practical solution or one that works in life to the real problems we face.

Answer 7

Aristotle and Plato developed logical proofs of the existence of God back about 300 B.C. These were then reworked by a Moslem scholar named Averroes in the early middle ages. They were then perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas around A.D. 1250 or so. They can get a bit complex if you aren't familiar with philosophy, but this is a good video that explains them in everyday terms.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBodUcshdFg







Another logical proof was developed by St. Anselm and is called the Ontological Argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument . Now I'll be honest, I can't quite wrap my head around this one, but other people can. (Interestingly enough, St. Thomas Aquinas did NOT like this proof and thought it invalid. ) One of the people who did like it was the famous philosopher Renee Decartes, and another was a great mathematician named Kurt Godel.



This leads to the Mathematical proof. Godel actually used higher maths to prove the Ontological Argument. The math is beyond me, but you can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof. I'm including it because, as a demonstration of the ability of the new MacBook, a team of researchers recently did the math and proved God's existence http://zeenews.india.com/news/science/researchers-use-20th-century-theorem-to-prove-gods-existence_886172.html here is the original article http://www.scribd.com/doc/180747536/Formalization-Mechanization-and-Automation-of-Godel%E2%80%99s-Proof-of-God%E2%80%99s-Existence

Answer 8

"The Bible teaches us to treasure knowledge. (Prov. 10:14) Jehovah wants our faith in him to be built on evidence and sound reasoning, not on human philosophy or religious traditions. (Read Hebrews 11:1.) To build strong faith in God, we must first be convinced that Jehovah exists. (Read Hebrews 11:6.) We arrive at that conclusion, not by wishful thinking, but by examining the facts and by using our “power of reason.”—Rom. 12:1."



Further, the Bible provides examples of people who followed such a process.



"Luke wrote that the Jews of Beroea were “more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:10, 11) Did those words reflect unfavorably on the ones in Thessalonica who had embraced the truth? Not at all. Paul later wrote to them: “We also thank God incessantly, because when you received God’s word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God, which is also at work in you believers.” (1 Thess. 2:13) What, though, made those Jews in Beroea so noble-minded?



Though the Beroeans were hearing something new, they were not suspicious or harshly critical; neither were they gullible. First, they listened carefully to what Paul had to say. Then, they verified what they had learned by turning to the Scriptures, which Paul had opened up to their understanding. Moreover, they diligently studied the Word of God, not just on the Sabbath, but daily. And they did so with great “eagerness of mind,” devoting themselves to finding out what the Scriptures revealed in light of this new teaching. Then, they proved humble enough to make changes, for “many of them became believers.” (Acts 17:12) No wonder Luke describes them as “noble-minded”!"

Answer 9

It is salvation to believe in God. Logic is the enemy of faith.

Answer 10

Nimrod, in the bible goes over the logical points. And such became gabala So yes it is logical to believe in Catholic religon.

Answer 11

It's very logical. Just looking at how complicated life is makes it hard for me to believe that there isn't one.

Answer 12

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Richard Dawkins



“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.” ― Sam Harris



No.

Answer 13

Yes

Answer 14

Well it is dependent on the standpoint. Scientifically, there are numerous opposing theories that do not disqualify each other. Of the many scientists working on either side, there was George Robert Price (October 6, 1922 – January 6, 1975) who was an American population geneticist. George Price had developed a new interpretation of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection, the Price equation, which has now been accepted as the best interpretation of a formerly enigmatic result. He wrote what is still widely held to be the best mathematical, biological and evolutionary representation of altruism. He also pioneered the application of game theory to evolutionary biology, in a co-authored 1973 paper with John Maynard Smith. Furthermore Price reasoned that in the same way as an organism may sacrifice itself and further its genes (altruism) an organism may sacrifice itself to eliminate others of the same species if it enabled closely related organisms to better propagate their related genes. This negative altruism was described in a paper published by W. D. Hamilton and is termed Hamiltonian spite.



Price’s 'mathematical' theory of altruism reasons that organisms are more likely to show altruism toward each other as they become more genetically similar to each other. As such, in a species that requires two parents to reproduce, an organism is most likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological parent, full sibling, or direct offspring. The reason for this is that each of these relatives’ genetic make up contains (on average in the case of siblings) 50% of the genes that are found in the original organism. So if the original organism dies as a result of an altruistic act it can still manage to propagate its full genetic heritage as long as two or more of these close relatives are saved. Consequently an organism is less likely to show altruistic behavior to a biological grandparent, grandchild, aunt/uncle, niece/nephew or half-sibling (each contain one-fourth of the genes found in the original organism); and even less likely to show altruism to a first cousin (contains one-eighth of the genes found in the original organism). The theory then holds that the further genetically removed two organisms are from each other the less likely they are to show altruism to each other. If true then altruistic (kind) behavior is not truly selfless and is instead an adaptation that organisms have in order to promote their own genetic heritage.



On 6 June 1970, Price had a religious experience and became an ardent scholar of the New Testament. He believed that there had been too many coincidences in his life. In particular, he wrote a lengthy essay entitled The Twelve Days of Easter, arguing that the calendar of events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth's death in Easter Week was actually slightly longer. Later he turned away from Biblical scholarship and instead dedicated his life to community work, helping the needy of North London.



As part of an attempt to prove his theory right or wrong Price began showing an ever increasing amount (in both quality and quantity) of random kindness to complete strangers. As such Price dedicated the latter part of his life to helping the homeless, often inviting homeless people to live in his house. Sometimes, when the people in his house became a distraction, he slept in his office at the Galton Laboratory. He also gave up everything to help alcoholics, yet as he helped them they stole his belongings.



He was eventually thrown out of his rented house due to a construction project in the area, which made him unhappy because he could no longer provide housing for the homeless. He moved to various squats in the North London area, and became depressed over Christmas, 1974.



Unable to prove his theory right or wrong Price committed suicide on January 6, 1975, using a pair of nail scissors to cut his own carotid artery. His body was identified by his close colleague W.D. Hamilton. Friends said he committed suicide because of despondency over his inability to continue helping the homeless.

Answer 15

Im sure it is easy to deduce that God exist just by looking around you for a few days.

Answer 16

It's illogical to not believe in God. Look just yourself. How could you be there without a supreme process.

Answer 17

Honestly ….in some ways.. it defies logic …but so do the results

Answer 18

It depends on what you consider logical

Answer 19

Of course. This world didnt come from nothing, just like a big bang didnt make your automobile.

Answer 20

Yes. The evidence is all around you. God does miracles and His Word is true.

Answer 21

It would be logical to be skeptical.

Answer 22

Impossibly huge and invisible bloke floating about in the sky? Not exactly logical.

Answer 23

You want to believe no harm..but don't lie to impose on others..

Answer 24

Only if you're an ignorant fearful caveman.

Answer 25

Yes.



http://www.rationalchristianity.net



Jesus loves you!

Answer 26

A creator? I suppose..

Answer 27

it is illogical not to