> Everyone comes to this from the angle of their own beliefs.

Sure. I guess I was trying to move from the issue of our beliefs about Gods nature to possible candidates for Gods nature, however.

> Whether that be that God is perfect and infallible and omnipotent etc or whether that be following the rules of rational logic.

I think it is strange to set those notions up as being inconsistent, like we have to choose between them. I would have thought perfection would entail consistency. Logicians and Mathemeticians often say they are attracted to their subject because of the beauty / perfection they find there. Current logics and Mathematics are imperfect though because of our finite cognitive capacities and because we are only just getting started on investigating them (in the big scheme of things). I'm pretty sure that God (if he exists) has a grasp of logic and mathematics that is perfect (ie where the logic and mathematics that he grasps is free from contradiction).

> Who is to say that the rules of rational logic are perfect or even accurate for example.

Current logics do have problems. What is it for Mathematics or Logic to have problems? It is when you can deduce a contradiction from the axioms. There are contradictions that can be deduced by the axioms of classical logic and that has led to the development of new logics such as intuitionist logic, fuzzy logic, quantum logic etc. The crucial thing here is that our finding a contradiction is what forces us to admit that classical logic is imperfect and that is what inspires us to develop more perfect logics that do not entail contradiction. Similarly if we find our conception of god is contradictory philosophical wisdom is that we should admit that our conception of God is imperfect and that should inspire us to develop a more adequate conception that does not contain contradiction.

Of course our cognitive capacity is limited and as such it is likely that even if we work on this... We will never hit upon a completely adequate conception of God in our lifetime. But then the same thing can be true of logic or mathematics. That doesn't mean we should give up and accept contradiction, contradiction (cognitive dissonance) is supposed to be what encourages us to progress forward to a more adequate conception.

> ...in one argument it was stated that if God allows evil to exist, which causes suffering then he can't be all loving. Or he doesn't know about it so he's not all knowing etc.

Yes, that is known as the 'problem of evil'.

> But honestly, who is to say that if evil things happen that means God is not all loving.

Indeed. So here one would be using the problem of evil to contemplate how an all loving being could allow evil to exist in the world. (This is how one can use the problem of evil to contemplate Gods nature).

> Many a child would say their parents are not all loving because they ground them for a week. Maybe evil, or suffering are a necessary component to our existence and a loving God allows them to happen for our ultimate benefit.

Yes, maybe. There is the 'character building' defence that states that God allows us to suffer because it helps us build character. We are better people for building character and hence the most loving thing that God could do would be to have suffering in the world so that it makes us better people.

There is also the 'free will' defence that states that God gave us free will because he loves us and having free will is a great good indeed but that an inevitable consequence of free will is that some people will use it to do bad.

There are responses to each of the above theodicies (or defences), and then there are responses to each of the responses etc... Theologians and Philosophers often contemplate these arguments, however, because they find it helps them better understand the different reasons as to why there might be evil in the world even though there is an all loving, all powerful (though that continues to be problematic), and all knowing God.

I guess it is important to distinguish between individual arguments which may well be fallible and the logical principle of non-contradiction. Individual arguments might be invalid or their premises might be false in which case we don't have rational grounds for accepting the conclusion. The problem of evil is interesting in the sense that it raises a problem. People have attempted to solve the problem in a variety of ways but in order to solve the problem one needs to face the problem first. I think that both believers and non-believers struggle with the problem of evil on some level. Why does God allow so much suffering in the world? Coming to some sort of understanding can help one find peace...

If we set things up so that there is faith on the one hand and reason on the other and one must choose between them then I really believe that it is this move that results in the hostility between religious people and scientists. I really do believe that there is a middle way but in order to find it one needs to accept the role (rules) of reason and one needs to accept the role (and scope) of faith.

IMO
Scientists need to see that they rely on faith more than they think they do and that religious faith is not different in kind from faith in unobservables such as quarks and the number seven. There is no hard line to be drawn between reason and observation (thanks to Quine) and faith.

But religious people need to accept the role of reason and observation (the deliverances of science) and stop seeing these things as 'the enemy'.

If a middle ground is not found then there will be many hostilities in the future as Gods of different religions clash and scienctists increasingly start to think of religions as being irrational...