Atheists: which is more logical, there is a God or there is no God?

Question

i wonder if atheist know what logic is...

Answer 1

You, fmko, dare to talk about logic?

The logical stance on the matter would be to assume there is no God until further evidence is available.

Answer 2

Well it's definitely a SCIENCE.

Logic = 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

Well I guess the joke's on you now.

Answer 3

I bet you apply this "logic" to all gods, dontcha?  Like Thor, Ra, Kokopelli, Krishna, Freya, Cthulhu, the FSM, etc.

Answer 4

Out of the thousands of gods that have been made on this planet, there has yet to be proof of any of them.

Answer 5

No God is more logical, since there is no visible evidence whatsoever of anything resembling a God.

He may exist but one would have to base that purely upon speculation or faith, which is by definition not logical.

One does not speculate that there is a parachute in your pack or gas in your car. You check the pack and read the gas gauge.

I have read the universe's gas gauge and the God tank is empty.

Answer 6

yes there could be a god

but not the one from the bible

god would not be so illogical

Answer 7

i was hoping there's be details... sigh *

if u know the oficila definiton of logic then u must know theres more than one,,,

Answer 8

Without evidence supporting any god, I would say that it's more logical to believe that there aren't any gods.

Answer 9

i believe in god...

just that he didn't snap his fingers and everything magically appeared.

im not religous at all and like i still believe in evolution and that stuff.

does that make sense

?

Answer 10

You are misunderstanding logic.  What you are really engaging in is a tautology.  You place two statements, side by side, A and Not A, and then you say the odds are fifty fifty, but that ignores Bayes Law and it ignores that you have failed to define what you mean by a god.

If you mean the Christian God of the bible, then there is substantial evidence against and no evidence for, except second hand stories that would fail to meet journalistic standards, let alone scientific standards.

To super simplify this, let us pick the God of the Christian Fundamentalists.  To do this correctly, we would have to go through all the 5000 denominations versions of what a god is, and that leaves out the other Abrahamic religions and the non-Abrahamic religions.

Let us take two passages out of the bible and test them.

Ezekiel 29-30 prophesies, even dating when the prophecy will happen, that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Pharaoh's armies, drive all Egyptians from the land, and even the Nile would stop flowing.  Well, as Ezekiel said, the battle did occur, but it was Pharaoh who won and indeed, Nebuchadnezzar never returned.  No aspect of the prophecy can be fulfilled because all the people are now dead.

Now consider the miracle of Joshua.

Joshua 10:12-13

Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

Consider all the problems with this story.  Ignoring that God does not know that the Earth goes around the sun, even though the Egyptians had already discovered this, the Earth has tremendous rotational momentum.  To stop the Earth would shatter the tectonic plates due to the force required.  All non-microbial life on Earth would die.  Further, by the time of Joshua the world was literate.  Imagine a day that never ended, a sundown that remained in place for 24 hours.  It would have been in all the literature.  Far less dramatic events from that period are well recorded, the stopping of the sun should rank above most anything in human history.

I have chosen just two and a minor two at that, but the major ones would take significant writing.

I have not disproved a god just now, what I did was show the record was not credible and so the evidence supporting the affirmative claim is at least untrustworthy.  Yet the claims are very incredible, they are not claims that someone found a pink polka dotted tomato, they are that a god created a child in a virgin, her husband saw an angel and was okay with it, he preached an inconsistent message that believers gloss over, he himself makes factual errors in the record (which is hard to explain for someone who is a god), he is killed and then rises from the dead.

The gospels say that not only did Jesus rise, but the graves opened up and the dead rose.  Why did pagan Romans not note this?  Why did Jews who had long awaited the resurrection not jump up and in one quick stroke overtake the Romans and go on the jihad they had been expecting for a long time?  Why do Jewish records not mention the earthquake that tore the temple vale?

Bayes Law, certainly an element of logic, says that if you have substantial evidence against, like the rules of physics requiring a god to have either/both energy or mass to alter things and the conservation laws prohibiting a being to enter and leave, and your evidence for is obviously false, then rejecting Christianity, or at least the Fundamentalist version I just used, is more than logical.  To attack the ancient churches, the Catholics and the Orthodox would require far more effort, which is why I chose the shallow belief system, but they are just as problematic, just better defended.

Under tautology, anything can be logically true, but empirically false, but Bayes law certainly allows you a way to judge the two statements.  Indeed, logic alone does not permit a decision between A and Not A without more information.

Simply having two statements does not create a 50-50 situation.  Saying that Mickey Mouse is really a ferret has an exceedingly low probability of truth, but in your eyes, there would be a fifty fifty chance merely because it was uttered.

Answer 11

It's clearly more logical to believe that a Magical Sky Fairy magicked everything, and then because a woman ate some fruit, had to d**n all of her offspring, but since he killed his kid, if we buy that, an invisible magical part of us gets to live in Super Happy Funland, forever, when we die.

As opposed to thinking this is a natural world, which built on successes over billions of years.

Answer 12

What kind of answer are you seriously expecting here...

Answer 13

i believe there is a god. first of all, look around! somebody had to make it all! there is no way it happened by chance. its so precise, for example, the precision of gravity is like this..... imagine a ruler all the way across every galaxy, star, planet, and all of space. the only way gravity could exist is it would have to be set on the ruler to the exact inch! if it was moved AT ALL, it would destroy gravity. and if you think about the universe, the "known" distance is like 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,

000,000,000,000,000,000,000, inches. try to hit a 1 in all that

and we have the bible, you may say someone made it up, not true, it was discovered. things that are in it are happening! research a little, pick your side, i wont pressure you, i promise being a christian isnt all what you cant do, if u think that you have the rong idea

Answer 14

Based on the evidence: There is no god, is more logical.

But atheists do not necessaraly believe there is no god, they simply do not believe that there is.

I wonder if christians can speak English, well enough to tell the difference.

Answer 15

As a logical person, that does believe in God, My head and My Heart is in a constant battle over my beliefs. Religion has forever damaged any chance of finding out the truth.

Answer 16

I think the answers to this question will be quite obvious, sweetie!

Every single atheist will say that the latter is more logical.

Otherwise we would be theists, not atheists. DUH!!

*Drinks*.

Answer 17

"You take the blue pill, the story ends, and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in wonderland, and I show you how far the rabbit hole goes."

Atheists believe that it's logical to take the blue pill, and believers are trying to inspire them to take the red pill.

Either you can accept that there is a God, or you cannot.

Answer 18

No, logic does NOT dictate that both views are equal.  It's not a 50/50 chance that there is a God.  That would be like saying it's equally as likely for *anything* the imagination can come up with to exist as it is to not exist.  It would be like, for example, if JK Rowling made up Harry Potter, and then says it's equally as likely for him to exist as it is for him not to exist, even though she had just made him up.  He is NOT just as likely to exist as not.

The more evidence FOR something's existence, the more logical it would be to believe that that thing exists. There is NO evidence to suggest that such a thing as "God" exists.   There is no reason whatsoever to believe that God is anything other than a fictional character, just as any other mythological being that have been believed in throughout history have been realized to be fictional characters.  Just like Harry Potter.

Answer 19

Theism is nonsense.Atheism is based on logic.

Answer 20

No evidence and no proof = no belief.  

Believing in something that has no verifiable evidence is not logical.  

Answer 21

Neither is more logical... God can't be proven or disproven... at least not yet...

Answer 22

There's no proof either way. It's hard to prove a negative, but the positive has not been proven either

Answer 23

Lack of evidence points to no god.

BUT the invisible made-up evidence says god exists. I'm torn. Rational thought promotes atheism and visa versa. But your doctrine says I should be stupid and just blindly believe.

I can't keep up this sarcasm any more. You're wrong.

Answer 24

Atheism is based on logic.

Also, what do you think were gonna say...that there is a god...????

Answer 25

What?

Obviously it's more logical that there is no God.

Why do you need to ask this?

What logic is there in an invisible misogynistic, capricious, jealous sky-god who kills himself but then reverses it, and wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood, all couched in Lord of the Rings jargon from the troglodyte, goat-herding Bronze-Age?

Answer 26

fmko, I hope your delusions make you happy but. . . .

Don't try to fight fire with fire when you have an imaginary match.

Answer 27

I am often called an atheist - I do not call myself one

I do not deny that there might be a god or many gods - or perhaps a host of goddess's with no god - or any combination thereof or something I have yet to think of  

What I have serious problems with is the claims of the bible and that particular "gods" expressed views and attributes it is those claims I find to be not logical

I further do not accept the Muslim version or their so called holy book or their version of apparently the same god - or perhaps it is a different one - really I reject their version either way

So it isn't that I deny god - No no

I reject the Christian Jewish Muslim etc etc version of god

All I am saying is that the rambling of an ancient text whch describes god as a primitive man is not a god to me and is in no way any sort of answer to how we got here or even if that god or any other is responsible for my existence

Logic ?

Then are these two statements congruent ?

I am - I have a begining - therefore I must have been created

God is he has no begining and therefore no creator ....

The paradox is one that presents itself outside logic

So if the christian beliefs are to be seen as logical - then the athiest who views god not existing must also be logical

The truth is neither are

Here is an idea - I am I have no beginning and therefore no creator and neither does god  I am simply energy constantly rearranging  itself - so is god

Am I defending that as my belief - No - it was just a thought - and thought being energy will exist for all time - but never again in this form



  

Answer 28

Since atheists are the only logical beings there ever was or ever will be: No God!

I use my noodle, unlike non-atheists!

I'm Atheist!

Answer 29

Logic would dictate that you could say the same thing about Zeus.

Do you believe in Zeus?  If not, why not?  When you figure out why you don't believe in Zeus, you'll know why we don't believe in the god of Abraham.

Answer 30

Atheists are people too, quit trying to put down other beliefs.

Answer 31

Because the fundamental nature of god typically includes a transcendent quality, which places it above,beyond, unrestricted by, the realm of knowledge and logic, god, by its very definition is illogical.

Methinks perhaps you need look more closely at logic, reason, and the acquisition of knowledge.  I would suggest, oh i don't know, picking up a few books or attending a few courses on the subject.  Logic does not, in fact, have anything to say about the equality of the theistic proposition, unless it is employed to investigate the validity of the claim.

You close by claiming that reason is subjective and is not an arbitrator of truth.  Please then, explain why you make this claim and what the arbitrator would be. Note that if you plan to use god as the arbitrator, we're going to end up right back at the beginning, so let's avoid that.