Hate to post in an old thread but I'm struggling to find anything under 4 pages long to reply to. Please put a cap on the amount of members here xD
I think I'm catching your drift here and would say that the proposition is entirely implicit in nature. While it reads "God (who exists) exists" and gives no indication as to the type of existence, what it is really trying to say is "God (who exists) does so indepently from our thoughts and feelings, as his own being". You find these kinds of statements throughout language, where the meaning is obvious yet the proposition doesn't allude to it explicitly.
In terms of the word "exists", I understand the proposition and would treat it as legitimate in a debate. I don't think anybody would contend the point merely to clarify that the existence is external. On another note, I'd reject the statement completely because of the word "god" being ill-defined, and I'd wait for clarification on what they're talking about before pursuing the case further.
Your criticism of the proposition is valid but would be considered little more than pedantic by most. Unless your debating rival cannot make the implicit jump from "god exists" to "god exists independtly of my mind", I'd not worry too much about the semantics.
(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?
I think I'm catching your drift here and would say that the proposition is entirely implicit in nature. While it reads "God (who exists) exists" and gives no indication as to the type of existence, what it is really trying to say is "God (who exists) does so indepently from our thoughts and feelings, as his own being". You find these kinds of statements throughout language, where the meaning is obvious yet the proposition doesn't allude to it explicitly.
In terms of the word "exists", I understand the proposition and would treat it as legitimate in a debate. I don't think anybody would contend the point merely to clarify that the existence is external. On another note, I'd reject the statement completely because of the word "god" being ill-defined, and I'd wait for clarification on what they're talking about before pursuing the case further.
Your criticism of the proposition is valid but would be considered little more than pedantic by most. Unless your debating rival cannot make the implicit jump from "god exists" to "god exists independtly of my mind", I'd not worry too much about the semantics.
