Proving god with logic?

[Alex K]

This was beautifully demonstrated by Lawrence Krauss in a debate between him and Bill Craig some time ago:

- All mammals exhibit homosexual behavior.
- William Lane Craig is a mammal.
- There William Lane Craig exhibits homosexual behavior.

Both premises are true in their own right, but the conclusion is false (at least as far as anyone knows).

Wow, I think this hits the nail on its head! This is exactly the type of implicit shifts in meanings of words that are exploited by many of those arguments.

[Mystic]

God can be proven with logic. Whether he has been proven by logic or not, is a different question.

[tor]

God can be proven with logic. Whether he has been proven by logic or not, is a different question.

And how do you know that eh?

[Rampant.A.I.]

There are no existing syllogisms that logically prove God exists. There are variations of Aristotle's unmoved mover, most notably the KCA, but all begin with premises that aren't supported by other logic, or are conclusions masquerading as premises.

Circular logic.

Not so. Modern analysis usually misinterprets archaic usage of certain terms of Aquinas' 5 ways.

Which ones

What are the proper archaic usage of each word in each argument and how are they logically any more consistent than the KCA?

---

God can be proven with logic. Whether he has been proven by logic or not, is a different question.

Some of the greatest minds who've lived have tried for 2000 years to come up with working arguments unsuccessfully.

The only arguments produced so far rely on presuppositions that aren't supported, i.e. begging the question.

[Modler]

God can be proven with logic. Whether he has been proven by logic or not, is a different question.

The funny thing is, that if anyone suggested that God could be disproven with logic, they would be met with all sorts of escape hatch arguments about how the nature of God is beyond human comprehension, etc.

The problem about proving the existence of God with logic is, that it requires God to have just a minimum of fundamental, unchangable properties, to which the logic can be applied.
And theists as well as deists have this notorious tendency of changing the description and properties of God's nature, according to their their own need and pleasure.
Which means that the logic that can be applied to God changes dramatically, all depending on which theist or deist you ask about the nature of God, on which day you ask them and what mood they happen to be in.

[Simon Moon]

God can be proven with logic. Whether he has been proven by logic or not, is a different question.

Not so.

The most that could be done using logical arguments is to prove the possibility of the existence of a god. But of course, most everyone can come up with a god that is logically possible.

Probability is much more important than possibility, and logic alone can't get you there.

[*Deidre*]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

OP: The term itself needs to be discussed. ''Logic'' can be as simple as reasoning something through based on your own understanding of it. It can also be defined in a more scientific way, which is probably where you're leaning. I think that's an important first step to define how the person you're speaking with is using the word ''logic'' to begin with. If the person is applying reasoning skills through his/her worldview and current knowledge, then that person yes, would be correct in thinking that a god can be proven through logical means. But, going further, providing evidence or a satisfactory list of observations to support one's assertions, which is another layer of logic, then no. There is no objective evidence to back up the assertion that a god exists.

Not to be a wet blanket, but faith isn't built on logic. If a god can be proven, faith would be unnecessary. If I were still a theist...I'd just throw that at you, and the discussion would be over. lol :p

[Minimalist]

Will do from now on. It seems impossible, and kind of a dick move to take in a discussion/debate,

My complaint with this logic shit is that no one ever insists that the premises be factual.

If someone claims God "x" they better be damned well ready to prove that 'god' exists.

They always want to skip that point.

[*Deidre*]

Will do from now on. It seems impossible, and kind of a dick move to take in a discussion/debate,

My complaint with this logic shit is that no one ever insists that the premises be factual.

If someone claims God "x" they better be damned well ready to prove that 'god' exists.

They always want to skip that point.

true, but that's only one aspect of logic. Logic has a few layers to it, and the person who is applying logic, might be viewing things through his/her set of knowledge and worldview.

[Minimalist]

Which is why jesus freaks go wrong right off the bat.