It is not illogical to suppose the existence of God.

Argument 1. First of all which deinition are you representing?God is that which nothing greater is possible or God the creator of the universe? I don't see how God as the greatest possible being makes him the creator of the universe. Example: If there is a greatest representer of darwins theory, that doesn't neceserally make him the creator of the theory itself. However,I would't like to ignore the argument. Imainable: to believe or assume without foundation: he imagines he knows the whole story. Possible: Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances. 1. God the greatest possible thing IMAGINABLE.(Changing the definiton by using the similarity of Gaunilos Island argument only this time replacing the definition.) 2. It is at least possible for God to exist only in our mind and not exist in the real world,whether or not God actually exists in the real world, he atleast doesn't exist in some possible sets of circumstances.So god might have not existed in the real world and only in our minds. 3. If something only exists in the mind as an imaginary object, then that something might have been made up and not exist in reality because of being an imaginary object in the reality. For example: An majestic mountain existing only in the mind might have been made up:the mountain not existing reality. 4.Suppose God only exists in the reality and not mind. 5.Then God is the possible greatest being imaginable in reality , namely god is not existing in reality.(from 2.and 3.) 6.So it is possible for something not to exist since it is being made up/ imagined. 7.Since God is the greatest possible thing IMAGINABLE, then it's possible for someone to imagine that there is something greater that the greatest possible thing imaginable. 8. Premise 7 is not possible and therefore god exists- the gratest possible thing imaginabe(he exists only in the mind). Defining God as the greatest possible being imaginable has a number of interesting consequences. It doesn't matter if God is the greatest thing, if he is the creator of universe, if he likes me or not, if he would prefere you and not me, because god is the greatest thing imaginable and therefore he doesn't exist in reality, but only in our minds and so none of the preaviously mentioned possibilities matter in reality. Now you're going to say If God exists, then he necessarily exists. (And this premise is true in all possible worlds.) It is at least possible for God to exist. I agree. 1. Now when I have applied the new definition to argument I can say that God does necessarily exist. (It doesn't matter where God is imagined, because he is the greatest imaginable being in all worlds.) 2. It is at least possible for god to exist ONLY in our mind. Conclusion: God exists in our mind. The same can be applied to A Symbolic Logic Approach you just need to change definition of G. Argument 2.. It all boils down to that logical absolutes exist.Plus these Logical laws should not be able to exist without an author (God). I can think of only one logical absolute: You can't be 100% sure of anything. You can't even be sure that you exist in reality, in a physical world. This could be a dream or a supper advanced simulation that simulates what could have been if it where. Law of Identity: 1. Something is what it is,and isn't what it is not. When you are looking at your computer screen you can't really tell what it is and what it is not, or if it isn't what it is not.For example, you only know that you were dreaming when you get up in the morning. While you were dreaming you didn't know that the world you were dreaming of is out of this reality and that your mind suspended the laws of nature plus you didn't even notice (there wasn't a second world that you could compare the dream world to.) When you got up you knew that your dream didn't change the reality or the laws of it. The question is: When you compare the dream and reality how can you tell which one is true or is it what it is not? (Is the dream the reality though you think/ it seems that the dream isn't real.) When you dream, you dream of things that actualy don't exist at that moment in reality. The same can be applied to reality(reality is an TRANSLATION of information(untrue in a dream), putting together patterns of random information in one specific way to create a world that looks like ours.) But a dream is a generation of information(untrue in the real world.), but how can you tell if the real world is a just being generated and your dreams being translated by actual laws of reality or maybe in both cases you/somthing are/is just generating fake information and therefore not represanting the reality.(dreams don't represent the reality, they are a product of your imagination.) Conclusion: you can't say that this is the reality and therefore you can't be sure where you really exist or if you actually exist. Plus, the only logical absolute is: You can't be sure of anything(even this statement). For example, a cloud could be generated by your mind, therefore not actually existing and representing the reality.( It is just an simulation like the one you see in your dreams.) Something cannot be true or false at the same sense. I totally agree. However you can't know if that something is true or false. 2. There is no possible answer for the existance of logical absolutes with the exception that a highter mind conceptualised it. Logical absolutes wouldn't change if we didn't exist. A rock would be a rock (for the sake of the argument lets ignore my preavious point.) A star would be a star. The existance of universe cannot be explain the existance of something purely conceptual that doesn't require the universe to exist in order to exist. A rock is a rock is only true in the universe, because a universe is required to have a rock in the first place. The sun wouldn't exist if the universe didn't exist, everything about our universe wouldn't exist if the universe itself didn't exist. The logical absolutes exist because there is a universe/a place where they can exist. Logical absolutes require a universe or a place where they can exist they don't require God or a conceptualiser. Things to exist in a universe require rules, so that something could form.To get a rock you need a universe and those rules. To give an example of logical absolute you need a universe. So the logical absolute rests on the universe an its laws. The universe and its laws rests on the big bang. The big bang rests X(this is where the real mistery starts). Theorytically in the quontum world even nothing is unstable. There are theories being developed about how something can come from nothing. I say, that before you start assuming that God did it be more sceptical and replace it with an X. With so much that we don't undersand it is illogical to assume anything beyond the big bang, there is no reason to say that god did it. I personaly see it just like an nice idea. It is more likely to have started from simplicity(X) and then going on to complexity(universe).Just like life evolved. Simple cell organisms, more complex, even more complex organisms and so on to the present day. God is incredably compex, the most complex thing. It is more likely to start simple and get complex than to be complex before anything has even started. You don't invent a spaceship and then start inventing the things needed to get it. You first invent the things needed to get it(simple to complex) Conclusion. For a logical absolute to exist you need to be sure of it and a universe and laws are required (no universe, no rock, no nothing = no logical absolute). It is illogical to assume the existance of God. sources from previous debate: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... sources: http://carm.org... http://www.angelfire.com... also sources from my previous debate