2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant Singh ji,
I respectfully disagree.
You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on.
I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".

Bhagat ji,

Guru Fateh.

It is OK to disagree. There is nothing wrong with that. It is part and parcel of the educational process.

It is not up to me to make any argument. It is up to you to define each God in each religion mentioned by Caspian so these qualities can be qualified how they are defined by the individual religion.

I have no idea why you are reluctant to doing that. We all have opinions. You have expressed yours and I have expressed mine which is fair and square.

I will leave it to that.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Lee]

Tejwant Singh ji,
If I may step in between the two of you... I am a bit confused by your responses. All Caspian ji is saying is that the Gods of these religions all happen to share three characteristics.

Are you saying that the Sikh God isn't "omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing) or omnipotent (all-powerful)"?

Let us all remind our selves of something important to this discusion.

'Ek okar'

One God people, only the one. Bareing this in mind then we can say that any attribute that any religion gives to God is merely as a result of our lack of understanding of the totality of God.

 

[Caspian]

Tejwant Singh ji,
I respectfully disagree.
You have just made a bunch of statements, neither of them are supported with anything, no examples... nothing. You haven't shown how, for instance, how other qualities of God can affect the omni-qualities. So I'll take them as your opinion and move on.
I cannot analyze your argument until you make one. Till then this is a game of "No you didn't. yes I did".

Could not have said it better myself. Tejwant, im not "mis-analysing" you and me and bhagat are defintly not setting up road blocks. We seem to differ on one very important issue and that is whether or not you can analyse part of something. You feel we must define everything inorder to analyse part of it but both me and bhagat feel that is unneccessary and does not allow for broad comparison. So like bhagat, I'm going to respectfully disagree (even if that puts the discussion at a standstill) until you provide examples for your reasoning outside of broad statements such as: Of course things can be studied independently but before doing that we have to define the thing,don't we — because there is nothing innately true about that sentence (even if it was true, simply saying it doesnt make it true without providing reasons/examples) and even then, i have defined the sikh God as "omnipotent, omnicient, omnipresent" if you find fault with my definition then by all means show me the fault in my definition? Perhaps then we can move on?

 

[Lee]

I'm essentially saying the concept of God is illogical—and if he exists, he exists as an illogical entity (both me and you can agree that the SGGS does not deal with this issue).

How so?

What exactly do you mean by this?

I ask because I simply cannot see how a seemingly intelegent person as yourself could belive such a thing.

Let me offer this. We humans are questers, we are interested (on the whole) in learning about things, the world around us, how things work, we ask questions and we posit possiblities.
Amongs the biggest of the questions we ask are the intertwined: 'What is it all about?' and 'How did we get here?'

Science started as a means to answer these questions, ahhh but it was not the first sphere to attempt such a thing. God answers both of these questions, and science arose out of religion. So you see I can see some clear logical reasoning why the concept of God may have arisen, can't you?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Caspian,

Guru Fateh.

I will give you a hand to come out of your own trap where your logic dictates that ends justify the means, which itself is illogical.

Ik Ong Kaar is described very well in the Mool Mantar in Sikhi. Other Scriptures that you have mentioned in your argument also define their Gods in their ways. Study them and then share them with us your logic. Only by taking this logical step you can define what each charaterstic means in each religion. This is my last post if this discussion does not move forward. Means justify the ends in logic. The other way around as you have done is simply illogical as mentioned above.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Caspian]

So you see I can see some clear logical reasoning why the concept of God may have arisen, can't you?

IMO The concept of God arose from biological roots I would love to explain if you want me to, but in a different post! Cuz that has nothing to do with philosophy and more to do with biology, psychology and neurology.

 

[Caspian]

I will give you a hand to come out of your own trap where your logic dictates that ends justify the means, which itself is illogical.

Ik Ong Kaar is described very well in the Mool Mantar in Sikhi. Other Scriptures that you have mentioned in your argument also define their Gods in their ways. Study them and then share them with us your logic. Only by taking this logical step you can define what each charaterstic means in each religion. This is my last post if this discussion does not move forward. Means justify the ends in logic. The other way around as you have done is simply illogical as mentioned above.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Just for example's sake (because you have no provided me with one) lets assume that I was beggining this debate in a Christian thread instead of a Sikh thread (because I don't have time to go over the Mool Manter and all that right now). Now, i would start off my debate in the very same way—posting my argument and on that christian forum, a "Christian-Tejwant" would ask me to define the christian god in specific. Now aside from the omni-qualities i did define the christian god with (omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresance) I know that the christian god is suppose to be Loving, Jealous, Vengeful (at times), Part of the holy trinity (and i can go on and on about his other characteristics). Are any of these characterisitics important to my argument ? Of course not—but if any of the christians felt like they were important to my argument, its their duty to bring them up. For example, a 'Christian-Tejwant" might want to use an argument about God's capability for infinite love to dispell my argument (lol just an example). But it is not my duty to distincly define any other characteristics of god that I find unneccsary to my example, it is your job to attack my definition if you see it as unfit and so far i have no seen you say "your definition is wrong" instead you keep asking me to include the entire definition of the sikh god but like my example of the christian god, there are many unneccesary qualities that arent needed for my argument.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Just for example's sake (because you have no provided me with one) lets assume that I was beggining this debate in a Christian thread instead of a Sikh thread (because I don't have time to go over the Mool Manter and all that right now). Now, i would start off my debate in the very same way—posting my argument and on that christian forum, a "Christian-Tejwant" would ask me to define the christian god in specific. Now aside from the omni-qualities i did define the christian god with (omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresance) I know that the christian god is suppose to be Loving, Jealous, Vengeful (at times), Part of the holy trinity (and i can go on and on about his other characteristics). Are any of these characterisitics important to my argument ? Of course not—but if any of the christians felt like they were important to my argument, its their duty to bring them up. For example, a 'Christian-Tejwant" might want to use an argument about God's capability for infinite love to dispell my argument (lol just an example). But it is not my duty to distincly define any other characteristics of god that I find unneccsary to my example, it is your job to attack my definition if you see it as unfit and so far i have no seen you say "your definition is wrong" instead you keep asking me to include the entire definition of the sikh god but like my example of the christian god, there are many unneccesary qualities that arent needed for my argument.

Caspian ji,

Good start.As Jesus is considered God in Christianity then if he was omnipotent then why did he die in the first place? I am just taking your argument and please be specific in your answers. I have not even touched the other parts because when you have the time to study the Mool Manter, you will notice what kind of Ik Ong Kaar Guru Nanak talks about. Did Guru Nanak call himself God? Did he call himself the Prophet as Mohammed claimed?

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Caspian]

Caspian ji,

Good start.As Jesus is considered God in Christianity then if he was omnipotent then why did he die in the first place? I am just taking your argument and please be specific in your answers. I have not even touched the other parts because when you have the time to study the Mool Manter, you will notice what kind of Ik Ong Kaar Guru Nanak talks about. Did Guru Nanak call himself God? Did he call himself the Prophet as Mohammed claimed?

Thanks & Regards

Tejwant Singh

Thats a valid point...I dont no why jesus died if he was god (perhaps he was not God, perhaps it was part of God's plan)... unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument! That's why i had reservations about bringing up the other characteristics of god—there pointless for my argument. The fact that Guru Nanak did not call himself God or that Mohammed called himself a Prophet or Jesus's death and his claim to be god have nothing to do with my argument. Similarily, it is not my job to bring up these extra-characteristics. In my example above, it was the "Christan-Tejwant" that would try to bring up the other characteristics of God inorder to challange my definition. That is how debate works, I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities. Now for the debate to progress, you can either accept my definition or challenge my definition. And if you wish to challenge my defintion, you must substitute it with your own—you cannot say "Just read the Mool Mantar and you'll get it." It's YOUR job not my job to create a new definition if you see mine as being unfit.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Thats a valid point...I dont no why jesus died if he was god (perhaps he was not God, perhaps it was part of God's plan)... unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument! That's why i had reservations about bringing up the other characteristics of god—there pointless for my argument. The fact that Guru Nanak did not call himself God or that Mohammed called himself a Prophet or Jesus's death and his claim to be god have nothing to do with my argument. Similarily, it is not my job to bring up these extra-characteristics. In my example above, it was the "Christan-Tejwant" that would try to bring up the other characteristics of God inorder to challange my definition. That is how debate works, I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities. Now for the debate to progress, you can either accept my definition or challenge my definition. And if you wish to challenge my defintion, you must substitute it with your own—you cannot say "Just read the Mool Mantar and you'll get it." It's YOUR job not my job to create a new definition if you see mine as being unfit.

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities.

Well, I have just proved one of your omniqualities wrong with the Jesus' death. So, you better start all over again because it has everything to do with your argument. Your premise of the argument has been proved wrong. It is not my duty to give other definitions. It is your argument and your premise. So, stop passing the buck.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Caspian]

Well, I have just proved one of your omniqualities wrong with the Jesus' death. So, you better start all over again because it has everything to do with your argument. Your premise of the argument has been proved wrong. It is not my duty to give other definitions. It is your argument and your premise. So, stop passing the buck.

Regards

Tejwant Singh

Lol. No your wrong (BUT YOUR RIGHT TOO! were gettin somewhere ).

Your wrong in thinking that you proved my argument wrong because both me and you have come to the same conclusion (i have a few other conclusion as well). That omnipotenance cant exist (albeit, your way is not as logically sound because one could say "Jesus was not god" like a muslim for example).

The whole point of my argument was to suggest that God cannot be truly "Omnipotent." So you proving omnipotenance ot be false through "Jesus death" is supporting my conclusion. (I proved Omnipotence couldn't exist, but through different means). I'm beggining to think you didnt even read my argument, you just stopped at the premises. So now we are both in agreeance, God cannot trully be Omnipotent without becoming illogical (in my argument, the illogical is shown by God making 2+2=5 and in your "counter example" Jesus's death contradicts omnipotenance and that is illogical).

The only problem is. Your argument ONLY applies to christianity. My argument applies equally to christianity as it does to islam, judaism and sikhism

Explantion: (very stripped down explanation)

Your argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God cannot die, Jesus is god, Jesus has died
Conclusion. If God cannot die as a result of his omnipotenance then Jesus is not god or omnipotenance cannot exist.

My argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God is logical, God can make 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is illogical
Conclusion: If god can make 2+2=5 then he cannot be logical (he is illogical) or he cannot make 2+2=5 and thus he is logical (but not omnipotent).

So both of our conclusions are consistant

Thank you.

Regards,

Gurinder Singh

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Lol. No your wrong (BUT YOUR RIGHT TOO! were gettin somewhere ).

Your wrong in thinking that you proved my argument wrong because both me and you have come to the same conclusion. That omnipotenance cant exist (albeit, your way is not as logically sound because one could say "Jesus was not god" like a muslim for example).

The whole point of my argument was to suggest that God cannot be truly "Omnipotent." So you proving omnipotenance ot be false through "Jesus death" is supporting my conclusion. (I proved Omnipotence couldn't exist, but through different means). I'm beggining to think you didnt even read my argument, you just stopped at the premises. So now we are both in agreeance, God cannot trully be Omnipotent without becoming illogical (in my argument, the illogical is shown by God making 2+2=5 and in your "counter example" Jesus's death contradicts omnipotenance and that is illogical).

Thank you.

Regards,

Gurinder Singh

LOL... You are wrong again. Your premise was not your conclusion. Your premise was the foundation of your whole argument. You have to define what God is in your premise to give any qualities to the definition of that entity. That is the reason I asked you to define Ik Ong Kaar in Sikhi which you have not been able to and you have lumped all the gods together in your premise. If all gods were the same then there would not be any need for more than one faith/religion. You have no logic but you claim to have one which has been proven wrong. Now, you claim to know more than I do that I have not read your posts.

As asked before and you did not respond. Do ethics breed logic?

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Caspian]

You have no logic but you claim to have one which has been proven wrong. Now, you claim to know more than I do that I have not read your posts.

As asked before and you did not respond. Do ethics breed logic?

Regards

Tejwant Singh

I added an explanation above, i dont think you had a chance to see it so ill repeat:

Explantion: (very stripped down explanation)

Your argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God cannot die, Jesus is god, Jesus has died
Conclusion. If God cannot die as a result of his omnipotenance then Jesus is not god or omnipotenance cannot exist.

My argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God is logical, God can make 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is illogical
Conclusion: If god can make 2+2=5 then he cannot be logical (he is illogical) or he cannot make 2+2=5 and thus he is logical (but not omnipotent).

So both of our conclusions are consistant

As you see, in both of our arguments "Gods omnipotenance" is a premiss. Along with other premises that through contradiction arrive at one of two conclusion. One of which for both of us is that "God cannot be omnipotent" (or god has to be logical in my case). The way your arrived at ur conclusion is the exact same way at which I arrived at my conclusion but my argument is more general then ur argument, thats all. My argument was meant to be general. In case your wondering if you can even do this kind of an argument in logic—yes you can, its called "proof by contradiction" where if u want to prove that God is illogical (or god is not omnipotent in ur case) then you start with the premis "God is logical" (or god is omnipotent in ur case). And you try to contradict that premis to come to the conclusion that god cannot be logical (or god cannot be omnipotent in ur case)

Having said that. Ethics (morality) does not breed logic. Logic can be used create morals. But morality is not absolute in the same sense that logic is.

 

[Sinister]

Having said that. Ethics (morality) does not breed logic. Logic can be used create morals. But morality is not absolute in the same sense that logic is.

I have a theory...Only those who hear the music, dance.

In the mammalian brain.

first comes sense (sensory reflex/autonomic responses..most primitive)

then comes emotion (emotional centers are located in older areas of the brain)

then comes purpose, strategy or higher level logic or reason and Morality. (all in the same step)

then it wiggles back...first sensory (skipping emotion)... realization and analysis of outcome from sensory centers which feedback to adjust emotion.

even something as simple 2+2=4 requires emotion to trigger purpose (intrigue/curiosity/Longing/Trust)... without these no human can solve 2+2=4.

Morality, like logic, is conceived through emotion because emotion gives birth to purpose. Realization and even Social communication of both morality and logic can impact emotion in a feedback loop.

Therefore I posit that just as those who emotionaly feel that they have to solve 2+2=4 are using the same emotions to give purpose in defining and constructing reality which innately constructs god.

In conclusion, god and logic are both bred from emotion and are both subserviant to purpose.

and like you said before...if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then its a. therefore god and logic are the same thing. therefore god cannot be illogical....because the illogical serves no purpose.

 

[Caspian]

Sinister. I enjoyed your theory (i do have a few issues with it) but I dont think the conclusion you drew conflicts with the conclusion one can draw from my argument. It's just I go one step further and say "a logical god is a pointless god." other then that, I dont agree that logic (or math for that matter) has an emotional underpinning. The pursuit of logic may have emotional underpinnings, but not logic itself which is wat i was arguing over.

even something as simple 2+2=4 requires emotion to trigger purpose (intrigue/curiosity/Longing/Trust)... without these no human can solve 2+2=4.

Im not talkin about " why humans solving problems" (for which their may be some emotional/moral underpinning). I'm talking about the logic itself. Furthermore, you do not need emotion to solve 2+2=4. A computer does so readily without emotion.

Morality, like logic, is conceived through emotion because emotion gives birth to purpose. Realization and even Social communication of both morality and logic can impact emotion in a feedback loop.

Therefore I posit that just as those who emotionaly feel that they have to solve 2+2=4 are using the same emotions to give purpose in defining and constructing reality which innately constructs god.

How does "reality" innately construct god? 2+2=4 is an innate (a priori) truth. If you want to argue that God is an a priori truth as well. Then their should be no way that god can contradict other a priori's. So a god that is limited by logic, math, science is a God that I can believe in. Your "theory" seems to be pointing at a similar version of god (i have problems with your theory, but correct me if I'm wrong—your idea of God, according to your theory, cannot make 2+2=5? If that's the case, I have no problem with it, I just find it pointless).

In conclusion, god and logic are both bred from emotion and are both subserviant to purpose.

and like you said before...if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck then its a. therefore god and logic are the same thing. therefore god cannot be illogical....because the illogical serves no purpose.

Lol, the "if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck" was an "inside joke" I forgot the context in which i said that quote, feel free to remind me. Buts it's generally considered an inside joke in response to the "Chinese Room" argument in cognitive systems (which is my major). But I agree with you. God cannot be illogical—but then that God cannot make 2+2=5 right? And for reasons listed in my original debate—a logical god is a pointless god. (which i find beautiful as I said a few posts above )

So... correct me if im wrong... but I dont think we disagree? Your conclusion is mostly consistant with the conclusion one can draw from my argument. I enjoyed your theory (i still dont think you need emotion for logic because without us the laws of logic, math and science still exist but "emotions" dont).

 

[Caspian]

Personally, I believe that both ethics and morality (along with the belief in god) have biological underpinnings. Im tempted to make a thread about it with recent scientific evidence from biology, psychology and neurbiology as i was telling Lee. I'll think about it.

 

[Sinister]

So... correct me if im wrong... but I dont think we disagree? Your conclusion is mostly consistant with the conclusion one can draw from my argument. I enjoyed your theory (i still dont think you need emotion for logic because without us the laws of logic, math and science still exist but "emotions" dont).

AHAHAHAHAHAAHHA (sorry...im not laughing at you...just that this is what it comes down to over and over and over in every discussion i have)

your computer argument is not valid because each computer is a reflection of human sentiment and input. (similiar to how a hammer alone cannot build a house). even AI could just be a series of logarythmic calculations that respond only to human input...even AI systems are not autonomous because the intiation of purpose must intially start from a human emotion.

a computer cannot solve 2+2=4 without human input...a computer has no purpose to solve (because a computer has no emotions) without a human a computer can only be Semi Human Instinctive.

does the existance of truth require belief?
what are the emotions associated with belief?

epistemological gridlock...the internalist vs the externalist....the end of reason because there is no right or wrong...just emotion, taste and dare I say Chaos

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I added an explanation above, i dont think you had a chance to see it so ill repeat:

Explantion: (very stripped down explanation)

Your argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God cannot die, Jesus is god, Jesus has died
Conclusion. If God cannot die as a result of his omnipotenance then Jesus is not god or omnipotenance cannot exist.

My argument
Premis: God is omnipotent, God is logical, God can make 2+2=5, 2+2=5 is illogical
Conclusion: If god can make 2+2=5 then he cannot be logical (he is illogical) or he cannot make 2+2=5 and thus he is logical (but not omnipotent).

So both of our conclusions are consistant

As you see, in both of our arguments "Gods omnipotenance" is a premiss. Along with other premises that through contradiction arrive at one of two conclusion. One of which for both of us is that "God cannot be omnipotent" (or god has to be logical in my case). The way your arrived at ur conclusion is the exact same way at which I arrived at my conclusion but my argument is more general then ur argument, thats all. My argument was meant to be general. In case your wondering if you can even do this kind of an argument in logic—yes you can, its called "proof by contradiction" where if u want to prove that God is illogical (or god is not omnipotent in ur case) then you start with the premis "God is logical" (or god is omnipotent in ur case). And you try to contradict that premis to come to the conclusion that god cannot be logical (or god cannot be omnipotent in ur case)

Having said that. Ethics (morality) does not breed logic. Logic can be used create morals. But morality is not absolute in the same sense that logic is.

Caspian ji,

Guru Fateh.

Wrong again.LOL.

I used your premise. I challenged your premise. Show me where I claimed the above in any of my posts. You claim to be logical but you distort what people say and I have no idea how logical it is.

Does denial breed logic?

I repeatedly said that you can not talk religions in general and bundle them to find some means to the ends you have already concluded, which is illogical to start with.

And for you to say that your premise- the foundation of your argument is your conclusion as you claimed in the other post is like saying," my basement is my penthouse".

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[Caspian]

I wanna avoid telling you guys to "take a philosophy course and youll understand" because thats equivelent to telling me to "read the mool mantar and youl understand" But you did not challange my premis in the way you think you did. Even my own argument i challanged my premis. THATS WHY ITS CALLED A PROOF BY CONTRADICTION! :damnit: lol

So let me reiterate.
If i want to prove the validity of "God is not logical" (not A)I can do this through "proof of contradiction." I have to assume first that "God is logical" (A) and (so that becomes my first premis) and then i have to introduce valid premis's that may lead to a contradiction. The introduced premises are as follows

God is Omnipotent (B)
If God is Omnipotent Then God can Make 2+2=5 (If B Then C)
If God is logical then God can not Make 2+2=5 (If A Then not C)

So the argument follows the format:

A
If A then not C

B
If B then C

C and not C <---- Contradiction

Therefore in order to resolve the contradiction one of the premises has to be false. Either A (God is logical) or B (God is omnipotent). Its perfectly fine for me to contradict one of my own premises ( i know that you find fault with this, but thats how a proof by contradiction works). So if you find fault with this argument, please show me exactly where I went wrong. Dont just say "WRONG LOL" (makes you sound ignorant). Becuase your saying that you contradicted my premise, and ur using that to tell me I need to revamp my logic, but contradicting the premis is the whole point of the argument.

Proof by contradiction is often used when you wish to prove the impossibility of something. You assume it is possible, and then reach a contradiction. Heres the wiki link, read up on it before you tell me any of my premises or assumptions are incorrect. I know there incorrect, thats the whole point of a proof by contradiction you have to show them to be incorrect. Proof by contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you still cant see this, then I guess all i can say is "Take a philosophy class and you will see this" or :blowme: (lol i find that emotican to be a rather odd choice to include in a religious group )

 

[Sinister]

How does "reality" innately construct god? 2+2=4 is an innate (a priori) truth. If you want to argue that God is an a priori truth as well. Then their should be no way that god can contradict other a priori's. So a god that is limited by logic, math, science is a God that I can believe in. Your "theory" seems to be pointing at a similar version of god (i have problems with your theory, but correct me if I'm wrong—your idea of God, according to your theory, cannot make 2+2=5? If that's the case, I have no problem with it, I just find it pointless).

Well for someone who understands philosophy I would expect more than just a description of 'pointless'. (universal causation deems that impossible)

But what you say makes no sense what so ever.
<?"urn:<img src=" />
Because if a logical god is pointless, so is logic. And anyone can just reverse your argument and argue that logic is pointless and be just as right.

Of co{censored}, in a human biological system everything (belief) is dependant upon meaning and purpose, which are both derived and dependant upon the process of emotional satisfaction/well-being and survival/reproduction.

Therefore a variable, like god, is innately constructed within society, just like logic because they both play a role in constructing purpose. Read Rene Descartes “Meditations of First Philosophy-Sixth Meditation” which was a treatise written in 1600’s, in which he pondered the innateness of god:

‘Descartes asks himself where he received the idea of God. He “believes” (emotional basis) that his idea of God was innate in him just as the idea of him is innate in him”. Descartes dubs this the pre-containment principle. He then goes on to say that all things must have a cause and that all causes may affect another thing, (deemed the principle of universal causation). So using all this Descartes states that he has an idea of God, and the only possible cause for this idea is God himself, because only God contains enough formal reality to cause the idea with that much objective reality.’ (Cartesian circle)

Morality, a form of logical analysis is essential for survival. Religion is an exercise in morality that may just improve emotional self-being and chance of survival. (which would aptly explain the existence and long term perpetuation of such beliefs in an omnipresent deity…and the political organization of religion)

Pointless things are redundant and thus are energetically unfavorable to be perpetuated in a social medium. The perpetuation of pointless in society is not only detrimental/counterproductive one could logically argue that it is impossible and it would be rooted out through an evolutionary process such as natural selection. (or perhaps never have even come into existence)

The woman who looks at tea leaves to determine the future is illogical or maybe logical to others (emotion based)? But she is not pointless.

Likewise a logical god is not pointless. And god is innate.

Again

Does the existence of truth require belief?