"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[Tiberius]

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.

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.

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.

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.