Is God a logical contradiction?

[Lek]

Trying to use science to disprove God is like using philosophy to solve a mathematical equation.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, whereas God is supernatural and is not bound by natural laws.  We can bring forth philosophical arguments for God's existence, but the only reason I believe is that God has put that belief in me.  I've been through all the arguments ad nauseam and still believe.

In a way we do sometimes use philosophy to do maths ...

And yes you'll believe no matter the evidence to the contrary. Good for you bud.

Like I said, there is no effective evidence to the contrary.  And you will continue to ignore arguments from philosophy and metaphysics.  I've tried and so far I can't do anything but believe.

[GrandizerII]

In a way we do sometimes use philosophy to do maths ...

And yes you'll believe no matter the evidence to the contrary. Good for you bud.

Like I said, there is no effective evidence to the contrary.  And you will continue to ignore arguments from philosophy and metaphysics.  I've tried and so far I can't do anything but believe.

What arguments have I ever ignored [willingly]? I've had debates about all sorts of arguments for God with theists more educated and more intelligent than you.

Again, good for you bud that you believe. But do you have anything productive to say here?

[Lek]

Supernatural is above or beyond natural.  Something not confined to natural laws.

Yeah, but what is it?  If it exists, you should be able to provide me with positive descriptors. The simple negation of “natural” isn’t going to cut it. If it’s real, you should be able to tell me more about it than what it’s not. You should be able to tell me what it is.

Once I tell you what it is, you'll ask me to support it with tangible evidence.  I'll respond with non-scientific arguments and tell you that I believe God instilled it in me.  You'll say that my evidence is not provable, and on and on.  We've both been there.  But I do perceive God as being the one infinite existence who manifests everything we are and perceive.  In actuality, though, I don't know totally who or what God is.  I think it is an innate quality in humankind to seek God, because we realize there is something beyond the physical universe.  Do you believe in ghosts?

[GrandizerII]

Yeah, but what is it?  If it exists, you should be able to provide me with positive descriptors. The simple negation of “natural” isn’t going to cut it. If it’s real, you should be able to tell me more about it than what it’s not. You should be able to tell me what it is.

Once I tell you what it is, you'll ask me to support it with tangible evidence.  I'll respond with non-scientific arguments and tell you that I believe God instilled it in me.  You'll say that my evidence is not provable, and on and on.  We've both been there.  But I do perceive God as being the one infinite existence who manifests everything we are and perceive.  In actuality, though, I don't know totally who or what God is.  I think it is an innate quality in humankind to seek God, because we realize there is something beyond the physical universe.  Do you believe in ghosts?

Arguments for Gods are fine to an extent, but if you have nothing substantive to back up the extraordinary claims in these arguments, you cannot ever say you have evidence. You just have arguments, and people will either find them compelling enough on their own or they won't. Most atheists here won't find argumentation alone compelling and understandably so. It's easy to make arguments for anything you want to argue, and God believers over the centuries have had plenty time and opportunities and privileges to come up with all sorts of arguments. The interesting thing is that they could never produce any consolidating evidence for that God, and have come up with creative ways to excuse God's hiddenness. But I guess as long as it's logical, it's good enough, right? Well, not for me it is.

[LadyForCamus]

Yeah, but what is it?  If it exists, you should be able to provide me with positive descriptors. The simple negation of “natural” isn’t going to cut it. If it’s real, you should be able to tell me more about it than what it’s not. You should be able to tell me what it is.

Once I tell you what it is, you'll ask me to support it with tangible evidence.  I'll respond with non-scientific arguments and tell you that I believe God instilled it in me.  You'll say that my evidence is not provable, and on and on.

What I would probably say is that you don’t have enough evidence (or sound reasoning for that matter) to justify belief in supernatural “things”.

We've both been there.  But I do perceive God as being the one infinite existence who manifests everything we are and perceive.  In actuality, though, I don't know totally who or what God is.

I sincerely appreciate your honesty; thank you.

I think it is an innate quality in humankind to seek God, because we realize there is something beyond the physical universe.

I definitely disagree that “we all realize” there is something beyond the physical universe.

 you believe in ghosts?

Not presently, no.

[Lek]

I've talked to enough people, who I know well enough to know they are same and believable, who have experienced supernatural phenomena. I don't know about you, but I think most people believe in the reality of certain things strictly due to personal experience and testimony.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sane people have experiences all the time.

[Abaddon_ire]

Usually, when people deploy a circular argument they try to conceal the circularity.

But "I believe because I believe" is not merely circular, it is proudly circular.

And hurling in the ghosts red herring? It is to laugh.

[Succubus]

Trying to use science to disprove God is like using philosophy to solve a mathematical equation.  Science only deals with natural phenomena, whereas God is supernatural and is not bound by natural laws.  We can bring forth philosophical arguments for God's existence, but the only reason I believe is that God has put that belief in me.  I've been through all the arguments ad nauseam and still believe.

This very much sounds like NOMA. Which is all fine and lovely providing religion stays on its side of the fence, as in:
'God loves you and wants you to be happy with him forever'. OK.
But religion refuses to stick to the rules when it makes claims that science can investigate, as in: 'God can raise people from the dead'.
And science says: No, fuck off! That's impossible.
And now the religious introduce the one size fit's all fallback, 'supernatural'. Which explains exactly fuck all unless you can describe what the supernatural actually is, and you can't.
If you can't explain it, don't invoke it.

[Sal]

Yeah, but what is it?  If it exists, you should be able to provide me with positive descriptors. The simple negation of “natural” isn’t going to cut it. If it’s real, you should be able to tell me more about it than what it’s not. You should be able to tell me what it is.

Once I tell you what it is, you'll ask me to support it with tangible evidence.  I'll respond with non-scientific arguments and tell you that I believe God instilled it in me.  You'll say that my evidence is not provable, and on and on.  We've both been there.  But I do perceive God as being the one infinite existence who manifests everything we are and perceive.  In actuality, though, I don't know totally who or what God is.  I think it is an innate quality in humankind to seek God, because we realize there is something beyond the physical universe.  Do you believe in ghosts?

I think we have this quality because of a past evolutionary advantage of attributing agency where there was none, but this is just a blame game and an excuse for hiding god(s). What arguments are there, is the true question.