It’s claimed by believers that God can be proven to exist through logic.
Firstly there is the not inconsiderable question of what it means to exist; we’re left with the question of how logic makes metaphysical claims accurate in that they live.
Furthermore, there is also the other issue of logic. There is no such thing as ‘the logic’. There are different forms of reasoning; Buddhists and Jains have their own, so why does a claimant choose this logic over the other forms?
Putting all that aside, here are a few questions about the idea logic can prove the existence of an all-powerful God.
The way God is argued through logic seems to indicate God is small enough to fit inside the tiny minds that use sense.
Some say God is so unique, so vast; no rules can confine it, but God is small enough to be limited by the logic humans create.
Humans define God within the limits of their reasoning because God can’t be illogical; therefore, God must also have limitations.
Logic seemingly has become more important than God since logic is the method you use to demonstrate God.
Therefore logic is greater than God.
It’s trying to gift wrap God into an explanation whilst claiming God can’t be gift wrapped.
The claim logic can be used to prove a god smuggles in another claim; that logic can be used to prove supernatural or metaphysical. Where is the evidence logic can do this?
Apologists are ‘logicing’ god into existence. Showing gods are man-made.
Reasoning is used to postulate a god, and then the same reasoning is used to prove a god.
This is circular reasoning, Trying to use reason to prove the validity of reason.
No evidence exists to prove that logic can be used to demonstrate an ontology. (Say nothing of the problem that we can’t define what reality or existence is).
Logic doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it was developed in concert with our observations and evidence.
Evidence sits with theory or logic; think of it as two hands. When we have logic, it directs us to look for empirical evidence to support the reasoning. When we have empirical evidence, we can use logic to develop a theory that explains it. One hand washes the other.
It’s also important to remind ourselves how poor we are at reason and logic. We created logic to help us describe and navigate this reality. Its use is tied to its practical effects.
Logic is developed and tested in this empirical realm. Apologists tell us logic can be used in the mtaphysical domain just as well as this one. But where is the evidence for this?
A tool that works well in one domain doesn’t necessarily work well in another. We don’t use jackhammers for dentistry.
Realism or Not?
Logic deals with abstract concepts. It’s an unsupported claim that abstract ideas have a reality and existence beyond our thoughts, what’s called ‘Realism’
Reality doesn’t have to conform to our logic and reason; that is the fallacy of Reification. We are squeezing reality to fit our ideas and our logic.
To see if a map fits the territory, we have to be able to see both. So how can we do the same with our metaphysical beliefs where the supernatural is beyond our experience?
The conclusion that logic can prove God rests upon an unsupported and untestable premise; logic works just as well prooving metaphysical ideas as it does working in this empirical realm.
Where does it say such inductive reasoning can be used with the supernatural?
I’m seemingly using logic and other reasoning to summon a God into existence, then to prove it. It is circular in the method.