If the God(/s) that a theist believes in is entirely metaphorical and abstract and they do not actually believe in a deity that exists in external reality apart from themselves... then I consider them an atheist... or a pantheist perhaps (which Dawkins describes as basically 'sexed up atheism'.

Those who don't believe that any deities exist in external reality, in actuality, in this universe ( and other possible universes) I consider atheists. I mean, I believe in the existence of the concept of God but that doesn't make me a theist. I mean - I also believe in the concept of the Easter Bunny for goodness sake!

EvF

(January 3, 2010 at 11:36 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If the God(/s) that a theist believes in is entirely metaphorical and abstract and they do not actually believe in a deity that exists in external reality apart from themselves... then I consider them an atheist... or a pantheist perhaps (which Dawkins describes as basically 'sexed up atheism'.

Those who don't believe that any deities exist in external reality, in actuality, in this universe ( and other possible universes) I consider atheists. I mean, I believe in the existence of the concept of God but that doesn't make me a theist. I mean - I also believe in the concept of the Easter Bunny for goodness sake!

EvF

So the argument between thinkers and followers is about what sort of existence "god" has.

Do you think this is a logical proposition to make (regardless of which sort of existence is claimed):

"God exists".

By implication god must exist, so to say it again straight after without defining the sort is pointless. Even then, if that were defined thereafter - the claim of existing would have been stated twice.

What do you think? Is "god exists" a logical proposition?

(January 1, 2010 at 8:10 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: If nothing is a paradox which is impossible then anything which doesn't exist is nonexistent, right?

I mean to talk about something like a dream which had to exist in the mind, or an idea you get while you're thinking, to be able to talk about anything ambiguous, or concrete, it has to exist in being remembered, right?

To talk about something means it exists as either a thought, physical object, quality about something or perception, etc. Everything exists (which includes things we don't know about) since it is a paradox to say that something doesn't exist.

So I wonder what other people think about "everything exists" as being a given (not needing to be said about anything whether ambiguous or not).

Yes, I agree, everything exist in some type of form.

(January 3, 2010 at 6:01 pm)TruthWorthy Wrote: So the argument between thinkers and followers is about what sort of existence "god" has.

Do you think this is a logical proposition to make (regardless of which sort of existence is claimed):

"God exists".

By implication god must exist, so to say it again straight after without defining the sort is pointless. Even then, if that were defined thereafter - the claim of existing would have been stated twice.

What do you think? Is "god exists" a logical proposition?

It is too short to have much meaning and according to theological noncognitivism there is no way to even understand such a sentence so it is a pretty poor start of a discussion. I DO think it is logical. It is the opposite of, "God does not exist." and, "God" is certainly not a logical proposition so the word "exists" is necessary so the listener knows what value is being assigned to, "God."

I think that if a theist walked up to you and said, "God exists." it would be very disingenuous to say back, "Yes he does!" without any follow up discussion.

Rhizo

Thanks for the replies, I find them all-helpful,
Now that we're able to say everything belongs to this "exists" catagory, including ambiguous items, like emotional experience; I wonder what dimention of existence is placed on "god", in this proposition (when made by the followers) . . .
What is the quality assigned in "god exists" and aren't there meant to be 'rules in the parameters' when formulating 'logical proposition'?

Ok, may I ask how you define the word 'god' firstly....?

Truthworthy,

This isn't to prove something but just a good read that I have just started because I too wonder what makes up a proper proposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

It doesn't seem to be very concrete as to what constitutes a "proper" proposition.

Propositions do not have to be logical to be propositions. Many propositions contain fallacies that make them illogical but they are still propositions. For example, "Truthworthy is a new member so therefore he is just like all other new members." is a proposition which is logically flawed.

To be honest I am new to these fallacies and have had to learn as I go along on these forums. I spend massive amounts of time on Google and Wikipedia.

Rhizo

Thanks again for the replies, very helpful,
Wiki's proposition link lead me to the premise of a statement.
The issue concerning the definition of both "god", and "exists", seems to be assigned to 'world differences'. Disparity between how a follower 'see's' "god" and the distinct differences in what is meant by exists, after that.
Here's something interesting which happens to the statement "god exists" when we take these two points into account (premise and world).
My idea was that by implication god already exists and so the assertion is already made and that god does exist albeit on disparate ideas. Now, the statement/assertion on the premise of exists should be missing (see premise), that's what would be logically correct if that statement were made amongst believer's! Apparently the statement has an intended audience.
Does this mean that it isn't actually a statement since it is fundamentally argumentative?!

I don't want to go too far with this, just want to tear the heart out of something which irritates my brain like an itch. It doesn't seem correct (lol), I mean beyond the ambiguous limitations.

Truthworthy,

I am having a hard time following what you wrote. What do you mean by world differences?

"God Exists" is usually the conclusion that is built off certain premises although once that is established as a premise there could be many conclusions that follow, like, "Humans should avoid sin" or, "atheism is a delusion.", etc.

Rhizo

I'm glad you're willing to understand Rhizo,
World difference can mean relevancy to differing groups. For instance the religious probably would never/rarely say to one another "god exists" unless talking about a non believer type of discussion, etc. Amongst believers the debate would consist of the "inner circle" type. What "god" expects in a situation, who wouldn't get into heaven, etc. Their world view puts god as an entity as being a given.
Atheist world view would invariably claim that "god" is a ridiculous assumption but being that a specific answer is unidentified/unknown every/any possibility means including "god".
That's where I think the "god exists" proposition doesn't work.
Believers wouldn't say it amongst themselves in such an assertion (besides the ground I've already covered about it fitting the missing premise better) that is, a double assertion. Besides, I don't think it can really stand alone the way it does. There's no context for how or what sort of existence is implied, unless this proposition can only trully work as a defence to, say: "god doesn't exist". At least then "god exists" would have a relational context.