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.
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.
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
