There is/can be a True Religion

Con, you are forgiven. To quote, Con, believes, ""logical proofs of God" is a complete contradiction, as God goes beyond our current understanding of logic. Can you spot the problem here? We are using logic to address the impossibility of using logic. If Con is right then we know at least one absolute truth about God: We cannot know anything about Him. Hence, the religion of the agnostic. However, if logic truly doesn"t apply to God, as Con believes he has proven, then nothing"literally nothing"is impossible for God. Which would mean He could be logical and illogical, existent and non-existent. This may or may not be Con"s position, but in my mind such beliefs are untenable. Which leads to my next point: God cannot be illogical. Otherwise, there would be no problem of evil, and God would be able to make a square circle. But the human mind recoils at such egregious breaches of reason as "God can be both good and evil" and "God can make a hexagonal square." Since God created man"s logical mind, he must therefore be both more intelligent and more logical than man. But going beyond that, why must God by beyond our understanding? John Shook, an avowed atheist, argues that humans will never have any proofs for God. His argument"s first premise is that, "Humans will never have the cognitive capacity to directly understand anything with infinite powers or qualities." This also is also flawed, as I will demonstrate. Shook"s first premise is incorrect. To begin with, he is right in that we cannot hold in our heads the complete set of infinity. However, that does not mean we cannot understand the existence of infinity and what it consist of, as well as whether something is infinite. For example, a line is mathematically understood to be infinite in length. So, there is nothing to prevent us from accrediting a concept with certain infinite qualities. Therefore, premise 1 falls. I, for one, understand that a line is by definition infinite in one quality. There does not seem to be any reason why I cannot rationally credit God with infinite qualities also. Shook"s second premise seems to be that natural evidence never requires a being with infinite powers. Shook claims that even miracles are not adequate proof of God and that they are probably just a new natural law we don"t know about yet. This leads to my next point: Even if the sphere of the supernatural were illogical, we are not in the sphere of the supernatural. We live, think, and write in the sphere of the natural. Therefore, there is nothing that prevents us from rationally and logically investigating God from our perspective in the finite. To give an example: Some physicists believe that the laws of physics break down in a black hole. One could ask how they could believe in a black hole since the laws of physics break down there, but the reality is simple. A black hole is something that scientists can see evidence for; the gravitational effect on the speed of gas clouds is evidence, for one thing. The point still should be clear: Evidence for that which appears to transcend laws of science can exist. It is not a contradiction to state that we use science to postulate a suspension of certain laws of science. Science (as a process) is the human study of phenomena and the attempt to explain those phenomena by formulating hypotheses concerning, generally, natural causes. There is a difference between the laws that science constructs and the process of science itself. The former are the results of the latter, and the latter can at any point, overturn the former. That is why it is not unscientific to postulate a failure of the laws of science. The theory that best explains phenomena should be accepted, regardless of the other scientific laws that may be overturned or suspended. By the way, this is the reason atheists complain there is no "evidence" for the supernatural: that which appears to be supernatural can be evaluated as scientifically as the completely natural. Black holes have evidence. Regardless of whether scientific laws break down IN a black hole, OUT of the black hole they are still in effect. Therefore, the effects of that which transcends the laws of physics can be evaluated in a plane where the laws of physics still apply. We know black holes exist because their effects on the universe cannot be explained otherwise. My point: The supernatural (or infinite) can be proven based on its interactions with the natural (or finite). If the natural laws of science were unable to address particular phenomena, then we are still able to use the process of logical induction to arrive at a conclusion regarding a potentially supernatural explanation. Suppose, for example, one afternoon I was sitting in front of a movie when suddenly a portal opened and I was sucked into the fantasy world of the movie. After a decade of exciting adventures, I returned and was surprised to find the real world exactly as I left it. To my parents and friends I am now much older, have a long beard, gold rings, a video recording of selected interviews with elves, and in addition have the power to transform my least favorite relatives into members of Class Amphibia. Now, my biology-major parents are shocked. Their understanding of the immutability of natural law is shaken. They have a number of options: Believe I faked the whole thing or someone else did. Or believe me, and necessarily believe in another world, complete with elves and magic, that may presumably be accessed through certain televisions. Now, my example is fanciful. However, I am pointing out that the scientific method could still be used. Even in support of an alternative realm of reality. In the above example evidence was found in our scientifically investigable world that another world exists. In the above scenario, most people would take option 1). However, such an answer would be necessarily unscientific, as it would put theory before facts. To say God is independent of natural laws does not mean He is independent of logical ones. Induction can still be used to investigate God. I believe that Con is confusing the laws of science with the process of science. I furthermore contend that supernatural evidence could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the supernatural exists. Regardless of the efficacy of logic elsewhere, it works here, and can be used to investigate phenomena with only a supernatural solution. Con"s second argumentative paragraph seems to confer with the above. I think Con and most atheists would reasonably reconsider their non-belief in the supernatural if given evidence to the contrary. In passing, non-belief is also a belief: the belief God isn't. I agree that supernatural does not equal natural. But again Con is confusing logic and induction with the laws the former have formulated. In fact, both atheists and creationists have formulated syllogisms that address God. The existence of God, as seen from this realm, can be proven or disproven, which is all I really need to assert. Now, if evidence were found for the supernatural, then naturalists would have to admit that supernatural phenomena would be possible. I need only say that quite a few naturalists HAVE found evidence for the supernatural based on logic and evidence, and as a result believe in it. To conclude: 1.The laws of science are distinguishable form the inductive investigative process of science itself. 2.As a result, God can be beyond natural law but still within logical law. 3.Logically, God cannot violate logic. 4.Even if God were illogical, the effects of His intervention in the natural world could still be logically judged insofar as they were impossible to explain using "natural" laws. 5.Supernatural events or claims can be scientifically investigated Summary: supernatural phenomena can prove God (to the open minded). And supernatural evidence can be judged objectively. Ergo: we can know if God exists. Thanks for the debate.