You know absolutely nothing, nothing! It seems logical for you to think that the big bang actually happened, but, you could be dreaming for all you know, or the world could just be a bunch of robots tricking you into think its really, but you don't know that. I dare you to try to prove anything exists, other than yourself "I think therefore I am." DeCartes.
It depends on what you mean by "logically" whether it is logically plausible.
But it is possible to non-erroneously state that:
There is an absolute. OR
There is a God.
And leave it at that, or even explicate "to define the concept further would be to destroy it."
Human beings and our symbols can never ever perfectly represent the absolute and attempts to do so are detrimental to ourselves. We should recognize God (or not, it depends on what the word "God" means to you) but without further defining the concept.
Is it possible for us to even know anything? Does it sound logical that a species that came along billions of years after the universe and earth originated could actually claim to know anything? Our species have been recording and predicting for .0004% of earths age paradoxically so according to our species. But we don't know if that's true or not we don't know if gravity has been constant in the past or will be in the future. The point is, since we cannot know what we know or don't know its impossible to claim that something is impossible because we don't know what is really true and if this is true it is also false.
On the other hand we may know everything we claim to know but I would bet my life that there is much more to learn before we jump to conclusions. Believe what you want but you might as well make it a good thing.... What is good?
Brilliant people by definition are able to take facts given to them and arrive at a realistic conclusion, however, when the facts given to them are altered or omitted, it is only logical to assume that they will not come upon a reasonable end. It was for this reason that the scientific method was created, to remain open minded if more evidence should happen to appear. I have studied most atheistic viewpoints including Darwin, Hawking, Marx, and Adams, the biggest piece of the puzzle that they are missing is that if there is a GOD, he will be beyond anyone's comprehension, that is the definition of a GOD, therefore, you cannot apply simple limits to him as these scientists have
I interpret logical plausibility as meaning that there are no contradictory implications of the thesis.
As a strong agnostic I do not believe that gods existence would have any impact on my life however, I do not see any contradiction in a theist's conception of the universe. Many of the standard arguments involve contradictions in the conception of omnipotence, involving his inability to create something he cannot destroy or other such paradoxes. I dispute the traditional definition of omnipotence as capable of any action. I would rather define it as capable of effecting any change 'in this universe'. From my on readings of Christian teachings, I've never once seen any mention of his powers to control himself or the stuff beyond 'this universe'. I take this as being analogous to the way that set theorists solve Russell's paradox, the set of all sets is too large to be a set and so is a 'proper class', god is too powerful to be a member of this universe and so must exist 'outside' it. This resolves any of the traditional paradoxes of gods existence.
I would also mention that some may argue I am not using the 'traditional' or laypersons conception of god. Surely though, it should be a learned religious scholar's point of view that we should be testing? I would be very interested to see what one of those has to say on this issue.
There is absolutely no possible way to disprove him as there is no way to 100% way to prove he exist. Albert Einstein said himself there had to be a god for the universe to be in existence. Those who don't believe in god don't because they don't want to. It is not plausible for there to not be a god.
The alternative to not having a theistic god, is highly improbably. The random likelihood of the big bang leading to planets followed by the random formation of prebiotic soup followed by billions of years of evolution leading to the pinnacle of evolution (humans) is beyond non-existent. It is more plausible that these developments of planets and life had some guided direction (a theistic god) that lead to the formation of the galaxy and life as we know it today.
Since there is absolutely no evidence of a theistic god, and the only every argument used to support the existence of such a god relies on bare assertion and logical fallacy, I would not consider it plausible. The lack of evidence is particularly glaring since theistic gods are said to affect the physical world.
The idea of any form of absolute truth embodied by a God tends to not be logically consistent with reality, as the very idea of absolute truth is in itself a contradiction. For more information, see Godel's Second Theorem, which disproves the idea of absolute certainty in the realm of logic. QED
The existence of a theistic god, at least like the one described in the Bible, is highly illogical.
The Bible describes God as a benevolent, forgiving, and loving being, who also happens to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Yet, if he does exist, he is clearly not loving, or benevolent, or the case is that he is not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. This is the case because in the world that he supposedly created and cares for, suffering, torture, rape, murder, and horrible things continue to happen everyday around the world at alarming rates, surely such a powerful, loving being would not allow for this to be.
Here is the Wikipedia definition of "theism":
1. "Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
2. "In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe.
3. "Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe."
I personally believe that the first (1) one is logically possible, and the second one is barely logically possible. But the last is not even arguably true (despite the fact that so many debate about it).
Nno noonon no no no no no no no no on n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o oo