Belief in God (Abrahamic) is Logical

To the readers, yes, I know I misworded this resolution, but it may still be salvageable. "Until you (prove God exists) the belief is not logical even if the belief provides potential benefits by hedging your bets." I don"t think proof of existence is necessary for logical belief. If somebody comes along with a closed box, and offers me a trillion dollars if I can guess what"s in it, I"m guessing. Sure, I don"t actually know what"s in the box. Heck, I don"t even know if there IS anything in the box, or if the guy is good for the wager. But it would be LOGICAL to at least venture a guess, as it costs me essentially nothing to do so, but could potentially reward me with everything. "Your next paragraph is essentially saying there too many religions for us to accurately choose the right one to worship." -Unless there were an infinite amount of religions (which there aren"t), then it"s still statistically favorable to pick one and believe, as you are gambling with infinite happiness/pain (heaven/hell). -This is a common fallacy, to assume that because we can"t prove any religion is true, then they are all equally false. If we are attempting to seek out the "best" religion to believe in, we could significantly narrow the field. Most religions have tenants/claims that are demonstrably false, as they clash with basic scientific laws that we know to be true. Assuming an omniscient God is logical, we can rule out religions that aren"t widely available/known, or those that simply don"t exist yet. -This "narrowing down" is actually not nearly as difficult as you portrayed, and would likely end with a choice among the major Abrahamic faiths. "Since there are so many Gods by accepting one religion you are statistically more likely to anger a God then please one." -You would be angering EVERY God by not believing in any religion. By choosing even a random religion, you have just decreased your chances that you have angered a "God", and will be sent to hell. Ergo, logical. -As mentioned earlier though, we can disqualify a significant number of religions almost immediately, and by choosing one of the more "reliable" ones, you can significantly increase the probability of success (not going to hell). "You frame religion as costing nothing" It has a NET cost of nothing. As you clearly state, being a religious believer entails a certain amount of time and studying, thought nothing to strenuous. The question is, would that time invested take away from something infinitely amazing you would otherwise be doing? Remember, this is a risk-free gamble to avoid eternal suffering, and achieve eternal happiness. Its safe to say the few minutes/hours a day devoted to religion isn"t robbing you of an everyday activity, that rivals heaven/hell. "Why are you convinced that belief is a matter of will?" Belief in religions, especially Abrahamic, isn"t so much a deep profound feeling for God, as much as its the following of written guidelines, something almost everyone is capable of. While the "feeling" of belief is certainly a part of it, and something that can"t be contrived, I don"t think a lack of this profound feeling would damn you. A common theme in the Abrahamic faiths, is "God" commanding his subjects to do the best they can, and leave the rest to the infinite mercy of God. Again, this tact doesn"t need to give you a 100% chance of getting to heaven (assuming you chose the correct religion, and it actually exists). As long as it has ANY chance (which based on scripture, it does), then its logically favorable to take up the wager, and try. "An argument that works for an infinite number of possible conclusions is not an argument that can be used to support any conclusion." I don"t see how that follows. I address your closing statement throughout the body of my response.