Is it possible to argue for the existence of god without using faulty logic?

These are irrational behavior not illogical.
In fact, they all have very logical explanations/theories to why they happen.

Illogical things are like 1 + 1 = -5.

 

Well, in some cases I suppose you are correct but in other cases it is open to debate whether a persons emotional responses or phobias are logical or whether psychology is still trying to impose logic onto a disorder where there is none. I am not a psych major but I think you have had some classes Why do some women cry at weddings? Why do people cry when they are happy as well as when they are sad? Why does winning an argument make you feel good? Why do people become schizophrenic? There are plenty of theories but none proven. There are things which obviously agitate some mental disorders but are they the cause or just the trigger? Is it all biological or is it more of a mental thing than that?
I think psychology is extremely important to the world but I also think that many aspects of it fall short of what can be considered science.
Then of course there is the question of your definition of irrational and illogical. They both mean faulty reasoning to me although I do see the distinction you are making, I think. Unless you are talking about math. Then they have different meanings.

Edit: I like your blog!

 

I will say it again hoping that, after the fourth time of saying it, it may make it's way in to your brain. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROVING THE EXISTANCE OF GOD, I'M TALKING ABOUT PRESENTING A LOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

I don't know if your religious brain took that in so i'll say it in blue, For a fifth time. I'm not talking about proving the existence of god, I'm talking about being able to present a logical argument for the existence of god. regardless if it exists or not, a logical argument for it's existence is impossible, And as such any argument for it's existence can be dismissed.

let me know if you are starting to grasp this simple concept and perhaps i can stop repeating it.

 

On a side note, it's interesting that most of the people who voted "no" in the poll are yet to post in the thread.
I guess even though they believe a logical argument for the existence of god is possible they are incapable of presenting it, Either that or they are cowardly liars who didn't realise the poll was public.

 

Did I say that I was religious? Why do you jump to insults so quickly? That is your style isnt it. You just want to try to get someone going by your ignorant insults. I never said anything about being religious did I?

To be honest I do not care what you think. Simple concept? I simply said "Dont you realize that religion/faith is NOT logical so how can it be explained or proven logically?" and then you go on completely illogically and call me a religious brain - talk about ignorance and stupidity. Do you know what "explained" means?

Believe me, I understand your simple concept. I am not stupid but you just go ahead and enjoy yourself inferring that I am am. I also think that I understand your motivations. It is the same in most every thread I see with you involved. Your main purpose seems to be to try to get people angry and stirred up. You cannot discuss an issue without resrting to insults and name calling. That is exactly why a lot of people here dont bother with arguing with you - it is pointless.

 

your intelligence made you appear religious. What with you not understanding, After i had explained it many times, That i wasn't talking about proving the existence of anything. Your ability to read something and understand it was obviously below that of the average human.

 

If someone comes to me and says that something exists, then it is not my responsibility to prove him wrong. It is clear that religion is on a downward nose dive to its demise. The internet has made more children atheists than any other medium in the history of mankind...

 

That is bullsh#t

I understood your question fully well. I posed a question for you, but as usual you ignored it - that is what you always seem to do.

 

what if i start a thread

Is it possible to argue for the inexistence of God without using faulty logic

my point is.. you can neither prove existence nor inexistence coz religions / atheism mostly turn out to be blind towards human logics and conclusions..

 

As i have been saying all along. Life which is so structured, the universe and its amazing laws which are so structed with purpose could not in our wildest dreams come from random selection. Its physically impossible, too many variables and the odds are almost impossible. I have said this a million times. How can structure, purpose and fundamental cosmic laws arise from random chance?????????????????

 

does magic make much more sense?

 

I am sure the OP knows this and only started this thread as a game.

 

Just as i know e=mc squared i know there is a god. Even einstein who was a scientist himself believed in god and he was one of the greatest minds ever.

 

The burden of proof lies on the one making claim. If you claim God exists - prove it or it'll stay just your belief.

Well explained at wikipedia:

 

You can't know there is a god any more than a muslim can know there is allah or an atheist can know there is neither. The most you can do is believe it.

As for Einstein, He didn't believe in god. You are using what he said dishonestly.
He did at times say "god" when talking about the universe but it was in a metaphorical sense, In a poetic sense. He was at best an agnostic. There is something innately christian about lying about the dead, It's not a very nice thing to do on such a regular basis.

But that aside, Nobody really cares what you think you know. the thread is about your ability to make a logical argument supporting the existence of this god. regardless if you can prove it or not.

 

Argument from design.

Appeal to probability

Argumentum ad nauseam

You have finished on a triple whammy. Argument from ignorance, Straw-man AND Plurium interrogationum.

Consider your flawed argument discarded.... next!

 

God Begins Where Knowledge Ends

 

You ask of us to make logical arguments for the existence of a God, and there is none. Then you fire down their attempts. You are asking of the impossible, and why? So you can wave your big philosophy dick around by pointing out each fallacy? I hope you feel smart that you can find flaws in answers to your impossible question.

 

That's kind of the point. If no logical arguments for the existence of god can be made then people shouldn't argue for the existence of god. And if they do argue for the existence of god their argument should be dismissed as being logically flawed.

In what other arena would people be allowed to make arguments that are logically flawed and get away with it? none. In every other area of discussion an argument can be dismissed simply for not making logical sense. the arena of theological discussion should not and, intellectually, can not be an exception.

If i were arguing for something that you disagreed with and made as many errors in logic as pingpong made would you let me get away with it? Or would you pull me up on it? People don't deserve special treatment and concessions just because the thing they are arguing for is inherently illogical. What they do deserve is to be told about it and told that their arguments are worthless.