I think logic is part of science. Logic is included in science. — some logician

Then the theist is free to use the cosmological argument and others like it to support their conclusion that there is a God.

Cosmological arguments include scientific concepts such as 'causality'. However, it does not follow that cosmological arguments provide reasons for theism.

Cosmological arguments include scientific concepts such as 'causality'. However, it does not follow that cosmological arguments provide reasons for theism. — some logician

You said that logic counts as science. Therefore, if one has a logical explanation for something then one has a scientific explanation for that thing. The cosmological argument provides a logical explanation for God. Therefore the cosmological argument provides a scientific explanation for God.

Clearly you can't make up your mind about whether or not logic is science. When it suits you, it seems to be that you only count the empirical to be scientific, but when it doesn't you also include pure reason.

Logical explanations are scientific explanations. However, cosmological arguments are excluded in logical explanations. Wrong arguments are excluded in logical explanations.

The list of logicians who support the claim that logic is part of science includes: Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, Willard Van Orman Quine, and so many others. — some logician

Hmmm... nope, no scientific explanation here either.

It ought to be easy.

Wrong arguments are excluded in logical explanations. — some logician

How come no one thought of that before, eh?

I find people funny. It is funny to have people here say something like – logic is science, but only logic that conforms to certain rules is proper logic. In other words – I approve logic – but only logic that I approve. Is this good logic? It does not sound logical to me. There is good logic and faulty logic. Both good and bad logic exist – is this logic good or bad?

The list of philosophers who support the claim that cosmological arguments are wrong includes: Immanuel Kant, Alvin Plantinga, Elliott Sober, and many others.

Premise 1. If there is no scientific explanation about God, then there is no reason to believe in God.
Premise 2. There is no scientific explanation about God.
Conclusion. There is no reason to believe in God. — some logician

There's also a thread on here about the idea of philosophy being stupid. This is a prime example.

The idea that there's any more weight to an argument like this simply because it's systematic in form is extremely stupid.

Here's a valid argument for that:

Premise 1: If an argument contains the phrase "scientific explanation," then it's stupid.
Premise 2: Your argument contains the phrase "scientific explanation."
Conclusion: Therefore your argument is stupid.

Yes, my argument above is very stupid. That's just the point.

(And I'm an atheist by the way, so I'm not criticizing your post because I have a problem with the semantic content.)

Alvin Plantinga — some logician

Really? I am not trying to be mean, but you just listed a theist who came up with the modal ontological argument and believes we are justified in believing in God for other reasons. Unless you we can use his authority on various issues, I don't see how listing him helps your case.

What if I don't agree with your definition of belief??? — some logician

Then:

That's your opinion. Go ahead! — some logician

I agree that science is a continuously expanding domain - gobbling up other disciplines, even art and music, like a hungry shark in the middle of a shoal of fish. Its rational basis and clever use of math has turned it into a formidable tool to understand our world, the universe itself. So, to some degree I'm in agreement with the OP that lack of scientific ''explanation'' does pose a serious problem for theism. — TheMadFool

I think this is a very nice point, but I would say science is a problem only for a certain sort of theism.

Here's a story: I recently had a used copy of Kant's first Critique with the occasional "I hate you Kant!" "Idiot!" etc. written in the margin by a frustrated undergraduate. This commentary was not related to, say, fathoming the transcendental unity of apperception--it wasn't related to Kant being hard. It was where Kant makes fun of the man who claims to know that God exists, and a few other places. (I wondered if these folks would hate Kierkegaard too.)

We all know Kant's deal--to set limits to reason and leave room for faith. But there is a certain sort of young Christian--I can't make claims about anyone else--who claims to know that God exists, that the Bible is His word, that Jesus is our saviour, and so on. I was raised a Roman Catholic and we never talked like this. It was always faith, not knowledge. You could talk intelligibly about a person's faith being tested, and so on.

So I would say that science is only an issue for you if see your religion as a matter of knowledge rather than faith. (Whether that's a recent or regional or denominational phenomenon, I can't speak to.) And not just knowledge by acquaintance--however your religion comes down on whether you can "know God" directly--but propositional knowledge. If you see your religion this way, you see it as on par with science, in competition with it, and these are the people, I believe, who see science--correctly!--as a threat.

On the other hand, @TheMadFool seems to be right about the broader cultural point, that the expansion of science in the last several centuries puts endeavors such as religion and philosophy both back on their heels, but mainly as matter of cultural prestige or something.

Premise 2. There is no scientific explanation about God.
Conclusion. There is no reason to believe in God. — some logician

This does not follow. You must show that only a "scientific" explanation is a reason to believe in something. There are other reasons for believing in God that are not "strictly scientific", like personal experience, theological demonstrations, etc. God, by definition, is usually thought to be supernatural, or "transcendent" and cannot be studied "scientifically" - to demand that God be subjected to "scientific" inquiry is to sneak in a naturalism of sorts, a naturalism that may be defensible but certainly has not been defended here.

It's also not clear what "science" even is. It's a buzzword - everyone apparently "knows" what science is, but as soon as you actually ask them what the hell science is it's never quite straightforward or clear. Probably because there is no self-evidently obvious definition of science.

Premise 1. If there is no scientific explanation about God, then there is no reason to believe in God. — some logician

Here is the worm in the middle of your rotten apple. I can't think of any reason, at least any reason you've presented, why this might be true.

Premise 1 is false. Not all good reasons for belief are scientific reasons. They can't be, otherwise there would be no basis for science. — Chany

Yeah, what he said.