Thank you Meow Mix (what a wonderful name) for your question and chance for me to explain beliefs. My definition of God is that God exist as what many philosophers have called mind stuff. God is pure thinking,pure logic,and the final absolute.
It is because God does exist in the pure form of existence and never changes from the substance of existence, men can depend on his eternal essence that never changes.For example science and logic are always science and logic.
The highest forms of knowledge are primal stuff,which is eternal, like logic and science, mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry, etc. These are things that are self evident and do not depend on man but these come from God ;and, the sophisticated use of these eternal tools, which never change, enables man to make great discovers, think strait, and improve the quality of life. Actually the Bible confirms this philosophy for Christians but does nothing for atheist in search for evidence.
The recognition that these tools do exist, that the laws of science are the same throughout the universe,is recognition that God (logos for Greek philosophers and Christians) does exist. God becomes the final premise for all correct reasoning. To reject God means the rational reasoning and logical processes of the mind are interrupted. This is also confirmed by the Bible.
However, I disagree with this. It's rational to cognize the ontological necessity of something like logic without ever having to bring god(s) into the picture. What you seem to be saying here is that the collection of all ontologically necessary things "are" God, but this is just a romanticized version of pantheism.
No logical contradiction is entailed in agreeing that ontological necessity exists yet denying belief that god(s) exist -- this should be impossible if what you're saying is true; yet here I am: an atheist which agrees logic is ontologically necessary. I haven't contradicted myself, so I'm still not understanding exactly what your point is.
That's why I mentioned it seems like pantheism to me: pantheists will say that the whole universe is God, but that's just sort of defining God into existence if you ask me. They call it God, I call it "the universe." Likewise in this scenario, you seem to be calling it God, while I just call it "logic."
Furthermore, do you assign further attributes to your God than just the known attributes of ontologically necessary things like logic? For instance, logic is not a creator-being, nor is it omnipotent or omniscient or anything like that. This is further evidence if you ask me that God is
not just a collection of ontologically necessary things. It seems they are separate concepts, and it's wholly rational to acknowledge the necessary existence of logic while lacking belief in god(s).
Debunker said:
By using the eternal tools, used by man's mind, he sees God as a self evident and that God is (existence). Christians believe that atheist, who do not recognize God as a premise are uninformed in the use of logic and reasoning. Another thread on this forum points out the Bible considers those who do not believe in God as fools. Paul taught that atheist did not like to entertain God in their minds and suffered from delusions sent by God himself (Epistle of Romans).
I bet most atheists were not even aware that Christians had a complicated and complex philosophical position like this, all based on natural theology (reason and logic) and confirmed by reveled theology (Bible). In fact, most Christians are not aware of their own philosophy.
Debunker
I disagree that god(s) are self-evident and I reject
impromptu pantheistic definitions of god(s) -- it seems to me that I might as well define God as my socks and then declare that therefore God exists (since my socks exist).
Yes, identity exists and exists necessarily, but nothing about identity justifies the existence of god(s). The only way you can turn it around so that it does is by doing the equivalent of defining God to be my socks (by just asserting that God is defined as logic, math, the rules of thought, etc.); but as I've pointed out, doing so is absurd and circular... nothing but a definitional and hollow "victory."
To summarize, I think in order for your position to be justified you would need to demonstrate a few things:
1) Why is the existence of logic, mathematics, reason, etc. congruent with the existence of God
without simply defining God as those things?
2) How do you know those things are aspects of God?
Essentially, I'm just asking the basic epistemic stuff: what do you know, and how do you know it?