Well, the last sets of replies sure went south in this thread.
Logic and reason indeed cannot explain God, for there is no there there! It is such a vacuous and useless term. 
See the thread the ignostic and Occam arguments [the ignostic-Ockham] , where I detail all that.
Hey Griggsy! Is this your quarterly ILP drop-in on your journey though cyberspace?
''The Existence of God
The following is a except from pages 82 through 86 of Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality by William S. Hatcher.
Copyright 1998 by William S. Hatcher
Posted with the permission of the author
Chapter 3, section 4
The Existence of God
In the foregoing, there has been much talk of the causality relationship and the fundamental role it plays in the whole process of moral and spiritual development. We need now to take a closer look at some of the general logical properties of this relationship, as well as the logical connections between causality and a few other fundamental relations. Our purpose in undertaking this study is to establish the existence of God on a totally objective basis, as a necessary logical feature of the overall structure of reality itself.
By the term reality we mean the totality of existence, everything there is. A phenomenon is some portion of reality, and causality is a relationship between two phenomena A and B, which holds whenever A is a cause of B (symbolized A → B). This means that A contains a sufficient reason for the existence of B. More generally, everything B that exists must either be preceded by a cause A different from B (A → B and A ≠ B), or else contain within itself a sufficient reason for its existence (B → B). In the former case, we say that B is caused or other-caused and in the latter uncaused or self-caused. The principle that every existing phenomenon must either be caused or uncaused (and not both) is the principle of sufficient reason.
Another basic relation between phenomena is the relation of part to whole: we write A ∊ B whenever the entity A is a component of the system (composite phenomenon) B. Notice that A may also be composite, but must be an entity (not just an arbitrary system) in order to be a component of another system B (whether the latter is an entity or not). Two systems (whether entities or not) may also be related by one being a subsystem of the other. We write A ⊂ B whenever A is a subsystem of B. This means precisely that every component E ∊ A is also a component E ∊ B. For example, a single leaf would be a component of a tree, but all the leaves together would constitute a subsystem of the tree. If E is either a component or subsystem of B, then E is a part of B.
From the strictly logical point of view, the defining or characteristic feature of an entity A is that A can be a component of some system B, A ∊ B. In other words, entities are components while systems have components (they are composite phenomena). Moreover, some systems also are components. Thus, with respect to composition, we have three distinct categories of phenomena. A phenomenon may be noncomposite (have no components), in which case it is necessarily an entity. A phenomenon may be a composite entity, in which case it both has components and is a component. Or, a phenomenon may be composite without being an entity, in which case it has components but can never be a component.
Causality and composition are related to each other by the obvious potency principle, which says that if A → B, then A must also be a cause of E, where E is any component or any subsystem of B. In other words, to be a cause of B is to be a cause of every part of B – its components and its subsystems. This means that our notion of causality is that of complete cause (philosophy recognizes several different notions of “cause”).
Finally, the existence of a whole system obviously cannot precede the existence of its components (rather, the constitution of a whole obviously supposes and depends upon the prior or simultaneous existence of its components). We thus have the principle of limitation, which asserts that, for every composite phenomenon A, A cannot be a cause of any of its components.
It follows immediately from these principles that no composite phenomenon can be self-caused, for suppose A → A where A is composite. Then, by the potency principle A → E, where E is any component of A. But this contradicts the limitation principle.
In fact, from these valid principles of causality and composition, we can logically deduce the existence of a unique, noncomposite, self-caused, universal cause G. This entity, whose existence we prove, is God (by logical definition). This God is not some abstract figment of our imagination but the actual, ultimate cause of all existing phenomena and entities, the origin of all being.
Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God) can safely skip the details of the proof without diminishing his or her understanding of the subsequent sections of the course.
Let V be the collection (universe) of all existing entities. Since V is composite it cannot be self-caused (see above) and so must have a cause G (different fromV itself). Thus, G → V, G ≠ V Moreover, every existing phenomenon A is either an entity, and thus a component of V, or else a system all of whose components are in V – in which case A is a subsystem of V. Thus, G is either a component or a subsystem of V. But, in either case, G → G by the potency principle. Thus, G is self-caused and hence noncomposite (no composite can be self-caused as shown above). Finally, since G → V and every phenomenon A is a part of V then by the potency principle, G is a universal cause (the cause of every existing phenomenon, including itself).
Finally, we show that G is the only uncaused phenomenon, for suppose there is another such phenomenon G’. Then G → G’ (since G is a universal cause). But since G’ is self-caused it cannot be other-caused by the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, G = G’ and the uniqueness of G is established.
This clear, logical proof of God’s existence and uniqueness is due in its essentials to the great Muslim philosopher Avicenna (ibn Sina, 980 - 1037). By making use of a few notions of modern logic, our presentation here somewhat simplifies Avicenna’s exposition.
The relationships of causality and composition, and the logical connections between them, give us the knowledge of God’s existence. This naturally raises the further question of God’s nature (what is God like?). To answer this, we need now to consider the value relation ≥, mentioned in chapter 1, and which only holds between (i.e., is meaningful for) entities. To say that the entity A is as valuable as the entity B, A ≥ B, means that A is either more refined (higher) – or at least no less refined – than B.
For example, in the physical world, humans are higher (more complex) than animals, animals higher than plants, and plants higher than minerals (inorganic substances). In the spiritual world, the relationship of higher to lower is the relationship of universal to particular (e.g., the relationship between the form of the human in the mind of God, embodied in the Manifestations, and any particular individual human soul).
The fundamental logical connection between causality and value is given by the refinement principle: where A and B are entities,
if A → B then A ≥ B. This means that any causal entity must be at least as refined as its effect. Since God is the unique universal cause, God is also the most refined entity in existence.
In particular, humans have the positive qualities of consciousness, intelligence, feelings, and will. Moreover, although each human soul has these qualities to a specific, finite, and limited degree, there is no limit to the degree that these qualities can exist generally in human beings. (For example, no matter how intelligent a given human being may be, it is possible for another human to be more intelligent.) Since God is the unique cause of every human being, God must have these positive qualities (and undoubtedly others) to a degree greater than every limited (finite) degree, thus to an unlimited (infinite) degree. Hence, God is infinitely conscious, infinitely knowing, infinitely loving, and infinitely willing (all-powerful). In fact, since God is the only Being whose existence is absolute (i.e., uncaused), God has these qualities to an absolute degree.
Thus, the logical answer to the question “what is God’s nature?” is to say that “God is like us except for possessing none of our limitations and all of our positive qualities to an infinite degree.” Of course we cannot really imagine what it means to possess such qualities as consciousness or will to an infinite degree, but the refinement principle does nevertheless gives us at least a minimal, purely logical notion of God’s nature.
Footnotes:
-
We have already observed (cf. chapter 1 above) that an authentic relationship with God constitutes the very basis of authentic morality. However, there is a widespread conception that knowledge of God’s existence can only be based on subjective emotions or an act of “blind faith.” By establishing God’s existence in an objective and logical manner we seek to implement 'Abdu’l-Bahá’s definition of faith as. “…first, conscious knowledge, and second, the practice of good deeds.” (Bahá’í World Faith, p.383) Once we have attained to the conscious knowledge of God’s existence, we have fulfilled the first of 'Abdu’l-Bahá’s conditions of faith and can then proceed to the second stage, which is “good deeds,” i.e., the establishment of an appropriate (authentic), ongoing dialogue (relationship) with God.
-
For more on the proof of the existence of God, see appendix II, pp.139-141. Professional philosophers should take note here of my somewhat broader (and thus slightly nonstandard) definition of the term “phenomenon.” This usage is consistent throughout the present work.
-
For an extended discussion of this proof and its historical context, see The Law of Love Enshrined, pp. 19-42.
Excerpted from Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality by William S. Hatcher (Bahá’í Publishing Trust: Wilmette, IL, 1998) pp 82-86.
© Copyright 1998 by William S. Hatcher’
Are these excerpts forming your opinion? I appreciate the trouble you went to in using them to contribute to this thread, but I would be more interested to see how your thoughts springboard off the post. Thanks. 
This excerpt elucidates my opinion.
My thoughts would be that logic and reason do to explain God (although not fully).
I have not read through the full thread but will get back to you on this one after some much needed… zzz…
I’ve never been the type who has been good at winning friends and influencing people because I always state my views frankly and if anyone has a problem with that they can get lost.
I have never been the diplomatic type that can see the liberal/middle/friendly passage through things. Call it a character fault if you will. It probably is.
Logic and reason do explain God, or at least certain aspects of God.
The only purpose for logic and reason is to point us to God.
Logic and reason are signs of God.
If you log on to a forum and defend God with your words you are one of God’s people.
If people need you to convince them through logic and reason that God exists then they have the right to ask what your logic/reason is for your faith in God.
That is their God-given right, and it is your God-given duty to give them an answer, or anything else that they may need.
God has given us logic and reason so we can get to know Him better.
He is the Supreme and Ultimate Logic of Reason, the Ultimate and Supreme Reason of Logic, and then infinitely more than that.
Ultimately God is more than logic and reason and so cannot be fully explained with these terms.
God is something spiritual beyond Human understandings of logic and reason.
The finite Human mind cannot fully comprehend the infinity of His logic or reason.
The finite Human mind cannot comprehend anything about Infinity.
The reason we talk in human terms such as ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ is because these are the tools God has given us to know Him.
He would not then look down on us for using them to do so.
Likewise, words on a screen/in a book, etc, cannot capture the Infinity of God.
Some people have told me that they think the spirit of faith cannot be found in words. To me this depends on the quality of the poet.
The spirit of faith is in the words of Shakespeare.
You can feel the spirit of faith through words, and you can find manifestations of God in words.
This does not mean that you can fully explain the essence of the spirit of faith, faith, or God using words, but it does mean these powers can be felt through words.
Words are a sign of God, and point to Him. Spirit is a sign of God and points to Him. Faith is a sign of God and points to Him.
God is more than words, and cannot be fully comprehended or captured in them.
So logic, reason, and words point God out in a faceless crowd of the faithless, but they do not capture Him.
To get to know God you have to have faith. Faith is more than belief, faith is a type of understanding of God, it is when He breathes the Holy Spirit into your soul, it is when you can look at the world and see the Divine Purpose in everything, it is when you know something internally, and then find out later it is a fact proved scientifically. It is all these things and infinitely more.
So faith is required to know God.
Faith, spirit, and God cannot be fully comprehended or explained through logic, reason, or words, but logic, reason, and words are all signs of faith, spirit and God, and all hold a unexplainably mystical spiritual capacity in and of themselves.
Some people will never get it, no matter how much logic, reason, poetry you throw at them.
Some people just know all this from the second they are conscious of their own being.
I’m of the second category, my earliest memory is of looking up at the heavens and the stars and seeing God’s creation in everything.
Everything I have found in my religion later I already believed. This is why I have faith in it. I knew it before I discovered it. I knew it before I knew what it was called. I just thought everyone was like me.
God is all these things and more. More than we can ever know and then inifinitly more than that.
Just as soon as we think we know everything about Him He will change and morph into, out of, who knows what, something/somewhere else, or whatever, where-ever, ad infinitum…
It is bewildering to the point it twists your brain into positions it can’t go into, and then you realise there is no point even trying to understand it.
I think the best thing we can do is just get on with fixing the world in whichever way suits our talents and stop thinking so much. If our deeds are faithful, then faith will naturally find us.
As for the religious vs the non-religious debate this doesn’t really interest me, conflict resolution etc, this doesn’t really bother me. People will always fight over stuff.
With the spark of different opinions comes new knowledge.
No-one is perfect but thankfully God is and Christ died on the cross for our sins.
We can always ask for forgiveness and move onto the next stage.
It is good you are trying to help people Litnenbolt.
You sound like a good Christian to me.
If you are trying your best to represent your faith you are doing a good job either way.
If people judge your faith based on you or other Christians, the fault lies within them.
If you are trying your best there is nothing else you can do.
Sorry if this was a bit garbled, I am a bit busy at the moment and don’t have much time.
Bon chance amigo.
Unity1, I would not want anything else but honesty and frankness from people’s view on my posts. It serves no purpose to agree with someone if doesn’t coincide with your own thinking.
My assessment of ‘Logic and reason will not explain God’ points to a secular type of reasoning. Wherein empiricism would be used as the tool to provide proof of the existence of God.
It is my opinion that if one doesn’t seek God out using one’s heart and humbling the mind to accept other than what this physical universe can provide through our senses along with scientific as evidence, then God will not be found unless He so Wills it.
I’m afraid my words alone have not been able to provide any evidence atheists and agnostics alike can believe concerning God. The evidence that is needed for such a thing requires a true desiring heart so God may be able to let Himself be known.
Unfortunately, this highly improbable in venues of this ilk. I could see where it would be hard for people who feel betrayed by religion or hasn’t had prior knowledge of God. In my opinion, all people can do is plant the seeds of God’s Wonders and hope they get nurtured in those thoughts as they live their lives.
This is true. But the logic and reason I provide is by my faith in ‘Jesus the Son’ and ‘God the Father’ thus I hope my actions and deeds work as testaments for that end. It’s like that adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.
The reason and logic I possess apparently isn’t sufficient of providing evidence of God. Nonetheless, I will keep trying all the while hoping I don’t misrepresent God’s Will. I have prayed for strength and wisdom in how to deal in these situations. It seems the answers come incrementally through my discussions. This is how I’ve come to the realization that God is a subjective, personal relationship. Unless we conciously accept Him as Creator, Father and our Salvation, our lives won’t be filled.
I understand God is unfathomable to our finite minds. That is why we use faith as the underpinnings in that relationship with God. Faith is the connection we have when our minds can’t perceive His Reasoning.
Being an advocate for God means persecution may come into play. Christians are told this as a part of being apart of that Faith. When we are confronted about God, we must not be superfluous or condescending of nature in my opinion. I say this because we are in no position to sit in judgement of people. My thought is we must present the positive side of God and be good agents of Him in all things.
I appreciate your kind words as you perceive my position in my Christian faith. As it happens, I feel compelled to spread God’s Word for all who will listen. For no other reason than I feel people should connect with Him to add value to their lives in the now and the afterlife.
Like anyone else, I don’t take things at face value. I will ruminate on thoughts, filter it through my ‘heart’ and separate the wheat from the chaff. Those things I keep ‘I value’. They are the basis of my common sense and wisdom if you will.
We can either make God simple or hard to understand. If answers are sought it should be for our own benefit in my opinion. This involves prayer, study of the Bible or intervention through a pastor or elder. People who attend church should do so for worship, fellowship, understanding and spiritualness. This being a ritual as it may appear is necessary for reinforcement of spirit and of showing reverance to God.
I don’t view myself as a failure of God. Rather, one of not having the imagination to convey His thoughts and meanings for others to comprehend. My only line of defense is everyone has their own free will to make their own decisions about God. That like in the case of God, is beyond my control. Since it is beyond my control, I turn it over to God’s Hands.
This is my view following on from your view. Our views are actually very convergent.
Empiricism is secular in that it is only a section of reality and doesn’t provide the whole picture of reality, but true empiricism is the work of God and has a purpose as such.
Even though the existence of God is logically provable, this will not necessarily bring Faith into the heart of the searcher, nor will the searcher necessarily understand it unless he has faith.
The searcher will not find faith unless he opens his heart to God. He will not find faith in spiritual existence unless he opens his heart. If the searcher wanted to show pure love to his fellow man this is a positive step in the right direction.
Hearts can be filled with many selfish desires that stand in the way of finding God.
For me this is why Christ allowed himself to be sacrificed, He loved us.
The message of God cannot fail. God is indestructible.
It is the duty of the faithful to spread His message in whichever way they can and actions speak louder than words. The searchers can take it or leave it.
Praying is a VERY good idea.
It is our purpose to jump on the ‘bandwagon of destiny’ so I suggest people should do it sooner rather than later because it easier that way. No point trying to swim up infinity powerful streams. People need to go with the flow man, they need to give themselves away, give away selfishness, love their neighbours, etc…
No you can’t make the horse drink, but the more they know about the location of the water, the more chance they will start drinking it. If you are telling people about Jesus and God, you are leading them in the right direction.
Your faith is enough evidence for the existence of God. One sign of God is enough for proving his existence. As you said yourself it is in the hearts of the seekers whether or not they find faith. You are a good Christian.
You are right that persecution comes into play when talking about God.
You are right we shouldn’t judge God’s creatures, they are His creatures after all.
You are indeed not a failure of God. God doesn’t make mistakes.
Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, but not everyone knows what they are to work on them.
You have a lot of strength and you know your weaknesses so you can only win.