does logic support you NOT believing in a god?

Answer 1

Logic by definition is the use of language to prove what you want to prove. Obviously, we can use language equally well to prove that God exists as Descartes did in his famous gamble or to prove He does not exist as many modern philosophers have done.

I believe that God exists but that is my business and if you believe the contrary that is your business but logic has nothing to do with it.

Although you do use logic to decide what you believe but that is a personal matter, not some obvious principle.

Answer 2

Yes, but I could use logic to disprove my own existence. Logic is no guarantee of anything. We use logic all the time and it is often used to disasterous results. Once upon a time we used logic to prove the world is flat.

You need to reframe the question. Perhaps a better question is, if there is a god or gods for that matter, can that god or gods be known and how can we be sure? Actually I like that i might just ask that myself.

Answer 3

The following is what I have understood about the 'Logic'
component of mind after reading through some books.
The logic component supports a person in not believing
in a god. But, can we understand the divinity with our
limited logic?

Manas (Reason & logic) :

Even after seven decades of research, the seat of
reason in the brain still remains a lively subject of
debate for researchers. This should necessarily be so
because the seat of reason is the lungs which is a
spread system that includes skin of the body. This is a
slow acting component of the mind. We know that most of
the people are quick to act on desires, but are slow to
learn something consciously. The working of this center
can be termed as the rightist or positive thinking
part. On the contrary, some philosophers say that such
a method based on reason alone is a 'mechanistic view'
of thinking about a problem. This center handles
convergent thoughts using single-channel integrated
processing of information and provides a holistic view.
Manas is the conscious component of mind which will do
active exploration, grasping of the essentials, tries
to solve the problem using simplification, and provides
an abstract model. It is the seat of the element Air.
Manas means reason, logic, synthesis, and rationality.
The nature of Manas changes with each and every
perception and it's understanding. Manas center deals
with defence against physical attacks from other
persons. Manas helps a person to speak correctly and to
do complex mathematical calculations. This center is
connected with conscious thoughts like doubting,
examination, foresight, interpretation, common sense,
general structures, coherent ideas, holistic approach,
planning, tactics, strategies, ambition, jealousy,
sacrifice, cunning, morality, marital faithfulness,
disciplined systematic thinking, enveloping thoughts,
partiality to relatives, suspecting the presence of a
person though hidden, craving to do some physical work,
duty-mindedness, dislike for perfumes and swimming,
synthesis, combining, ethics, and the like. This center
stores Punya (virtue) of a person which affects the
present life.

This center is the seat of "collective unconscious"
described in western psychology. In Yoga terminology of
Patanjali, it is known as Adhi Atmika system (human
collective psychic energy). The other two systems in
the Yoga terminology are Adhi Daivika (higher
collective psychic energy) and Adhi Bhoutika (lower
collective psychic energy). Jnaana center and the
Chitta center are the seats of these two systems
respectively. A simplified way to understand these
three systems is through the connection of Manas center
with psychology, Chitta center with para-psychology,
and Jnaana center with philosophy. If a person suffers
suffocation due to some reason, say accidental exposure
to harmful gases in an industry, then normal working of
this center gets affected. Similar effect is observed
in drunkenness state of a person. Some disturbance in
the working of Manas is found in persons who work in
rooms filled with pure oxygen. Manas can be compared to
a large concave lens - it deals with the gross to
provide overall view. It's working is similar to
Integration in mathematics.

Although every other sense organ has a particular
location in the physical body, the organ of touch has
no particular location. If the thin 'skin' of the lungs
is spread on ground, it will approximately occupy the
area of a tennis field. It is the largest reservoir of
energy in the body. Manas which is connected with lungs
also has these qualities; it will consider only the
gross aspects, neglects minute details and aims at long
term planning. The skin is the extension of that which
is formed first in an embryo. This center was given the
highest importance in ancient Yoga texts. Psychologist
say that the majority of scientists and engineers are
non-creative and non-inventive because they use the
logic of Manas. Using the reason and logic of Manas
center in all our mental activities appears to be
highly scientific. Are there any arguments against it?
Yes. In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved
a theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory. When a person cannot determine
whether an object is this or that, or whether to
perform a particular action or not, the Manas is said
to be functioning dominantly.

Answer 4

Logic is a process of the MIND. May I suggest that GOD exists outside of the limitations of the MIND. Since logic is dependant on the empirical evidence accumulated through the six senses coming into contact with mind and matter, GOD would not exist through logic, however, it does not prove GOD does not exist, only that GOD can not be contemplated in mind through logic.

Answer 5

I think this is an interesting, but very subjective question. I, myself, believe that logic (with a solid basis in scientific and mathematical reasoning and providing evidence to prove or disprove things) does not disprove the existence of a "higher power" (because no measure for its identification has been developed to date) however, makes it highly improbable that - for example - the earth was created in 7 days and that man basically came to be because it was God's will.
Scientific logic provides alternate and (in my opinion) more reliable reasoning for the way things are - see the "Big Bang" theory in Wikipedia - than the Bible ever could.
So basically, to answer your question, I agree that if you see the logic in a certain set of beliefs (for example Evolution of man from apes and the Big Bang theory) that happen to dispute or refute the likelihood of the existence of God or at least what the Bible tells us God says and did (which again in my opinion is nothing more than hearsay and political propaganda designed to insight fear and therefore submission in the uneducated and illiterate masses of early AD civilians - making the Bible nothing more than an interesting, fictional story), then who's to say you're wrong?! After all, it can't be proved or disproved... that's what makes it a "belief"...

Answer 6

Believers entertain the question of the existence of God: the faithful following their faith either - as atheist believe there is no god- or -as religious followers believe in God. Agnostics make no leap of faith: the issue is not logical, rational, or in any way approachable by reason. The 'fundamentalists', who want to argue logic (say in the case of evolution or in a proof of the existence of God), reveal their fundamental lack of faith by turning to logic or reason. Either you have the faith or you don't -- may God continue to forgive those who don't believe, but want logic to save them.

Answer 7

Welll...if you want to use logic....try this:

There are two views....there IS a God....there is NOT a God

Let's start with NO God

If you believe and there is not a god....no problem
If you don't believe and there is no God....no problem

NOW.....if you believe and there IS a God....you're ok
If you don't believe and there IS a God....you might have a problem

Therefore...it is logical to believe in God

This was in my Philosphy/Logic class in college....seems basic but gets the point across

Answer 8

Logic will show the classic proofs of God's existence are flawed, but it also shows that assuming God therefore does NOT exist is also a fallacy (called argument from ignorance).

Answer 9

No. Deitary existence is neither proveable nor disprovable, so neither can be supported by logic.

Answer 10

if there is no god, than there would be no "right and wrong". There would be no moral standards. Everybody could do whatever they wanted, which would be cool, until you get shot.
But that would be okay, because there is no right and wrong.
If there is no god, what are the standards. Are there none? So could i shoot you (hypothetically, i really wouldn't)?