How can theism be defended using logic and not faith?

Can't you understand the essential truth of this:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.

(2) The universe exists contingently.

Therefore:

(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.

(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.

Therefore:

(5) God exists.

HTH

Charles

[Late edit]

This *IS* my theism. You asked for reason, not faith. So, you either spend the time to look for defeaters in the reasoning process (you attempt to provide counter reasons to the steps others provided, or that I provided), rather than saying "Well, that is *general* theism (whatever *that* is supposed to mean), and I didn't mean that. I meant some specific brand of theism." So, you have the same choice that faces the religious folk: stop reinterpreting away the problems and address the issue directly. Look, there are no bible verses here, no quotes from people most properly understood within the context or their own religious communities of reason giving and taking. It is *exactly* what you asked for.

HTH

Charles

I like your question and how you state it. I'm impressed with your critical thinking skills, and good job putting this out there.

To answer you, I do see logic and truth in Roberts' statement. However, "essential truth" may be simple human perception.

First of all, this sounds to me like a defensive statement; Roberts appears to be deflecting some perceived criticism or judgment. Based on the emotion behind the statement, it sounds as if Roberts has chosen atheism as a result of some hurt or fear.

Second, Christianity teaches love for all humanity and that each person is equally valuable in the eyes of God. It would be inaccurate to assume that all theists hate other varieties of theism or atheism. I have been able to learn compassion and understanding of other people because of Christianity.

Finally, my own experience is that life without faith is empty. After eight years of no God in my life, I concluded that there was a deep benefit in religious faith. It gives me a resource when I am facing crisis. It makes me a nicer person all around. It helps me see that humans are all valuable and deserve mercy--even when they directly hurt me. It gives me unending hope and peace.

Most of all, I see amazing things happen in my life when God is part of it. God has proven Himself to me.

If I were wrong and the atheists were right, what would I have to look forward to? What would I lose by believing in God?

If theists are right and atheists are wrong, what do the atheists lose?

Let's see if I can help you understand from my point of view. I have "faith" because He has warranted such from me. We use faith every day (you sit in a chair believing it will hold you, you turn the key in your car believing it will start, etc...). Faith is a verb...putting into action that which we believe in. As I Christian, I believe: in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I exercise those beliefs by having faith that they are real. During my 42 years, I have had many experiences with God, some good, some great and some not good, I call that a relationship. This is where the "warranted" comes in. God has proved to me that He is worthy of my belief and faith much like my marriage relationship. I do not believe in God because I am not logical or irrational, quite the contrary. Can I explain or understand all there is to know about God, certainly not nor would I want to do so. Why would I worship or praise a being I can completely and totally understand. That would be pointless.

No, I think not.

Because it has to do with truth.

Is there truth?

What is truth.

John 18:38

Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?"

And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.

Either there is truth or there is no truth. By the logic law of the excluded middle, there is or is not such a thing as truth.

For your (or my) words to be comprehensible, they must have meaning; true, actual meaning. So the fact that you and I can communicate indicates that we both believe in truth.

The question now before us is this:

What is the source of the "truth" we agree that we believe? Where do we derive the definition of truth? Truth must be that which comports to reality.

1. There must be an objective, universal moral law, or else no ethical judgments make sense. Nothing could be called evil or wrong, and there would be no reason to keep promises or treaties.

2. This moral law does not originate with us. In fact, we are bound by it.

3. The source of this law is more like mind than matter, and it cannot be part of the universe any more than an architect is part of the building he designs.

4. Therefore, there exists a Moral Law Giver who is the ultimate source and standard of all right and wrong.

The reality that there is a God is visable in nature. Where did our world come from? Chance? The odds against a habitable world occuring by chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 300,000,000th power. In essence, you would need an infinite number of chances for creation to be created by chance.

Look at the design of the universe; no, no, just something as simple as the human eye. Could chance produce something as complex/ simple as the eye? How would chance design something that is photovoltaic and convert that energy into coded signals that are decipherable by a different part of the organism? The odds against that are incalcuable.

You say that we are both athiests, and you just believe in one less god than I do?

I say that we are both theists. The truth is that there are some things which you can't NOT know, i.e. you must know certain things. For example, you and I would agree that murder is wrong, lying is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. The difference is that I acknowledge the source of that knowledge, while you deny that knowledge and even more so, the source of that knowledge.

The problem becomes "truth" again. Major world religions are not variations of the same thing; each, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, all make "truth claims" that are mutually exclusive. Again with the law of the excluded middle: they cannot all be true; some must be false if one is true.

For example, Jesus said:

John 14:6

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."

But Islam says that Jesus was a good man, a prophet of God, but not the Son of God, and certainly not divine.

Judaism says that Jesus was a good man, possibly a miracle worker, but not the Son of God, and certainly not Divine.

Is Jesus spoke the truth, the others are false; both opinions about Jesus cannot be true. If Islam and Judaism are correct, then Jesus is a liar.

C.S. Lewis said that either Jesus was a liar worse than any other deceiver in history (Jesus said He was the Son of God), in which case He would not be worthy of worship; or, Jesus was deceived, thinking Himself to be something He was not, (Son of God) on the level of the person who says he is a poached egg; or else Jesus was who He said He was: the Son of God, in which case the only logical response is to fall at He feet and call Him Lord.

If I dismiss Jesus as Lord, I must find another rational reason for the existance of the universe, the meaning in Truth, and the morality that decides what is good or evil, and which gives us an understanding of right and wrong that cannot be denied in our own lives.

John 20:31

but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

1 John 5:13

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.

1 John 5:20

And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

Many ask is there evidence of God’s existence? The Bible says that there is a builder for every house but he who built all things is God. ( Hebrew 3:4) This Biblical statement can be proven by the following logical argument.

Premise 1. Outputs = Inputs + process

Premise 2. For premise 1 to come about someone has to have the resources and power to do the process. Let him be called the Great Cause.

Premise 3. For every rule there is an exception.

Premise 4. The rule on exception can not be applied to any of the components on Premise 1 because it would be non-sense.

Premise 5. The rule on exception must therefore be applied to premise 2.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Great Cause ( the one w/ resources and sufficient might) was the one who caused Premise 1. Further He was not subject to Premise 1 by reason of premise 3.

Sorry homie, but if you need logic to define your faith, you dont have any. The whole premise of theism is faith that surpasses the logical. That is why so many atheists win these shouting matches. Because these uneducated christians are trying to prove the supernatural using natural worldly standards. Sorry guys, youll never win that way. Your faith is proof that God exsists, and if your faith is not strong, then maybe He doesnt really exsist to you. All it takes is a mustard seed people.

I understand the assertion in the above question; I disagree with the conclusion. I also realize in the US, many 'Christians' presently are arguing from a similar spiritual viewpoint, that atheist are. Several terms in scripture are 'different', when scripture is properly divided (2 Tim.2:15). Accepting & acknowledging Genesis-Malachi as 'old testament' is wrongly dividing the scriptures. (The scriptural old testament is the law of Moses).

This error is compounded by man being as a 'god' (Gen. 3:5-6).

Stephen H Roberts seems to have confused hentheism with monotheism. Monotheism says 'by concept and definition there can be at most one God, and that God exists.' Hentheism says 'many gods might exist, but I am only interested in one of them'. His argument works against hentheism, but not monotheism.

when you say "some of the premises I have seen in answers so far look distinctly "iffy" to me" are you referring to answers here or answers that have been made in the history of humankind? You might not agree with some of the historical answers to your question, but that doesn't mean people haven't tried. for example, if you look at Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae, you are hard pressed to say that he is not using logic (and faith, true, but also logic) as it was understood at the time. In fact, one of the criticisms raised against Catholicism was and is its 'scholaticism', that is, its reliance on logic and natural law instead of solely on faith.

And there are many other philosophers of the modern period of European history who have argued for theism based on philosophy alone, Catholic and non-Catholic.

Theists = illogical.

There is no way to believe in any god using logic. Look at the answers these xians are giving. It is laughable how they think.

I am not a theist so I have no answer to this question. But I will take my hat off to you. It is an excellent, excellent question.

I look forward to the answers.

Update: So far it seems no-one even understood the question. Doh.

(Tapping foot)