Thanks Rabbit (If it's ok for me to use that for short),
The outlook of Theological noncognitivism is very good.
I looked it up earlier today because I'd never heard of it, and I have to agree with it for the most part; only I can't justify refusing to accept everything because of lack of provability, that's where I think it goes too far.
Adrian,
Then why did you use that argument in my other thread so arrogantly? with your "God exists and you can't prove it!"? It was you who gave me the impression that the statement: "god exists" is a theory which needs to be disproved.
So . . . . put that in your _____ and _____ it.

TruthWorthy,

There is a different between proving something, and proving something scientifically. You can prove things logically without resorting to science at all (for instance, the proof that 1 = 1).

Throw out this notion that all "proof" means "scientific proof", it is a faulty view. Science can only test the observable reality. It has nothing to do with proofs in mathematics and in logic. God is usually put somewhere outside of the realm of the observable reality, and thus is untouchable by science.

"God exists" is a theory in the non-scientific sense of the word, as it is an idea. It has no need to be disproved, but many have sought to do so, and many have sought to prove it. These proofs and disproofs have taken the form of logical arguments, not scientific ones. For there to be a scientific proof / disproof, there would have to be a good idea of what God is, how to observe God, and how to repeatedly test for the existence of God. So far, there is no such information.

This is where I don't understand logic (so it might sound equally irrational as earlier in the thread): "god exists" doesn't look like a proper logical statement because you can't add anything to it. All this statement does is hinge "god" on to "being there". Isn't logic meant to allow for another input statement, eg. "god is water"; "man is mostly water"; therefore: "man is mostly god".
I don't see how the logic works if you're using "exists", when everything exists, is a given but how can you say this ambiguous "god" which by definition claims existence, to exist as a logical statement.

As I was wondering, doesn't the very act of saying "god exists" mean that he doesn't? because by proper logical statement where relationships are proposed (such as "god is water") existence is assumed because there is a relationship?

I'm really trying to understand what I'm missing.

(January 1, 2010 at 7:28 am)Tiberius Wrote: TruthWorthy,

There is a different between proving something, and proving something scientifically. You can prove things logically without resorting to science at all (for instance, the proof that 1 = 1).

I disagree. Math itself is science, empirical science even is heavily dependent on math and logic. Do you mean there's a difference between logical and mathematical proof on th one hand and empirical proof on the other?

---

(January 1, 2010 at 6:54 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: Thanks Rabbit (If it's ok for me to use that for short),
The outlook of Theological noncognitivism is very good.
I looked it up earlier today because I'd never heard of it, and I have to agree with it for the most part; only I can't justify refusing to accept everything because of lack of provability, that's where I think it goes too far.

If you look closely enough, you'll see that it does not deny the sentence "god exists" but only the claim of theists that this is a meaningful sentence to evaluate. So it is denial at the meta level of the proposition, i.e. it addresses the question whether it a proper proposition.

I did get that, I think that's why I liked it

(January 1, 2010 at 6:26 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: fr0d0 already has denied the sentence "god exists".

..and Rabbit comprehensively supports that

(January 1, 2010 at 7:42 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: This is where I don't understand logic (so it might sound equally irrational as earlier in the thread): "god exists" doesn't look like a proper logical statement because you can't add anything to it. All this statement does is hinge "god" on to "being there". Isn't logic meant to allow for another input statement, eg. "god is water"; "man is mostly water"; therefore: "man is mostly god".

So:

P1: God exists.
P2: Gods that exist are made of cheese.

C1: God is made of cheese.

I just added something to it. As I said, saying "God exists" is the same as saying "God is real" or "God is an existing being". Please explain how this is different from your statements in that format, that "God is water", etc.

Quote:I don't see how the logic works if you're using "exists", when everything exists, is a given but how can you say this ambiguous "god" which by definition claims existence, to exist as a logical statement.

If you think everything exists, you are either stupidly gullible, or you don't know what "exist" means. So, the Loch Ness Monster exists? Is there also an elephant in your living room? Does he exist too?

If something is defined as claiming existence (which I doubt God's definition does, but let's say it does for sake of argument), it does not mean it actually does exist.

For example:

Flahawowow: A creature who exists in my kitchen, eating towels.

This creature is defined as existing, but it does not make it so. Defining something into existence is a fallacy, as has been called the Ontological argument in the past. Flahawowow either exists in reality or not. If it exists in reality, its definition is true. If it doesn't exist, its definition is not true.

Quote:As I was wondering, doesn't the very act of saying "god exists" mean that he doesn't? because by proper logical statement where relationships are proposed (such as "god is water") existence is assumed because there is a relationship?

I'm really trying to understand what I'm missing.

Existence is never assumed in logic. The existence of an idea, maybe, or a definition, but never an actual physical thing. You are confusing the two.

To show a contradictory example again:

"The Loch Ness Monster is a mythical beast".

That is a logical statement in the form "X is Y", yet the relationship clearly shows that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist (since it is mythical). Existence isn't assumed in this statement, but the existence of the idea (The Loch Ness Monster) is, since it needs to be for the statement to make any sense to people.

(January 1, 2010 at 7:44 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: I disagree. Math itself is science, empirical science even is heavily dependent on math and logic. Do you mean there's a difference between logical and mathematical proof on th one hand and empirical proof on the other?

Yes, I meant empirical science. When proving something in mathematics, I hardly refer to it as a "scientific proof", but a "mathematical proof". Mathematics is a science, but it differs from the empirical sciences which demand physical evidence.

I honestly think that logically "god exists" becomes "god does not exist".
Let me explain,
Nothing is nonexistent so everything must exist.
(in some shape or form, be it a thought, if you like)
If you're familiar with the "Nothing is not not impossible" paradox - lol
And with mathematical double negatives where the two are cancelled out to become a positive:
ie. that minus, minus actually becomes a plus.
You'll notice that the "god exists" logical statement actually translates to "god (exists) exists"
which is a double affirmation, or double positive, which also cancels out to become a negative.
So that: "god (exists) exists", logically becomes "god doesn't exist".

I think that about wraps up the logical argument for "god exists".

Do I even have to point out the obvious contradiction here?

You first claim that nothing is nonexistent, and therefore everything exists (which is wrong, but stick with it for now).

Then you say that God doesn't exist.

Erm...contradiction much??? If everything exists, nothing can not exist. If God doesn't exist (as your argument), then you contradict the first logical step you used to prove that God doesn't exist. Ergo, your entire argument in is pieces.

Not only that, but just because a double negative becomes a positive does not mean a double positive becomes a negative. Only a fool with a very low understanding of logic or mathematics would say so.

1 - - 1 = 1 + 1

but 1 + + 1 =/= 1 - 1

1 + + 1 = 1 + 1

Please, go read some elementary mathematics, and LOGIC, before you continue to argue this ridiculous point.

Just to finish with, if you still think you have some kind of point here:

Truthworthy exists. <= By that logical statement, and by your argument, you don't exist. Q.E.D (I can ignore you now, you non-existent being).

Quote:1 - - 1 = 1 + 1

but 1 + + 1 =/= 1 - 1

1 + + 1 = 1 + 1

This is true.

Quote:Nothing is nonexistent so everything must exist.

This is a very interesting statement, and could possibly be true, but you use of logic in this circumstance is illogical. Hence, the example above