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

[Tiberius]

"god is true, "god is real, or "god is there, are all self reflexive statements.

It doesn't matter if statements are self-reflexive. What matters is if the statement can be true or false. If it is (and is declarative) then it is a logical proposition.

The reason why "god exists" cannot be a sentence is because there is no predicate (nothing is actually said about "god). A sentence requires an object, subject, and a predicate.

Nothing is said about god??? I think you'll find that the statement "God exists" says that God...exists. How is that not saying something about God? Just as "Jeremy paints" says something about Jeremy (that he paints), "God exists" says something about God (that he exists). Such statements are either true or false, and are therefore logical propositions.

The predicate basically links the subject and object in some way, or says something about either the subject or object, but both need to be present.
I hit him. Can constitute a sentence because the subject "I" the predicate (action/verb) "hit", and "him" the object - in this sentence.

Are we talking about philosophy or english language here? Make your mind up, because it matters which context we are talking about statements in.

Also in logic there need to be some sort of claim in any proposition. Such as "god creates ..." or "god seems ..." from this we can look at either noun and tell something about the other in the (usu') diadic statement.

The claim is that God exists. I thought that was rather obvious...

I had to read up a text book about grammar (by myself) after having a shit house english teacher, but I've got a reasonable grasp on usage. I'll go and double check - so give me a chance to correct myself if you know better.

Your time would be better spent reading up on logic statements in philosophy. Grammar doesn't really come into this. We aren't writing a novel, we're talking about logic.

[TruthWorthy]

ok, thanks for letting me self correct as I asked.
A sentence doesn't have to include an object, just the subject and predicate.
I am unconvinced about the rules of propositions.
Isn't saying that something exists a non-statement?!
I mean that saying, for example, "my computer exists" is like a double affimative in that the subject and premise of "my computer" already suggests the presence/existence of the computer so the following "exists" becomes pointless!?
The 'self reflexive nature of the statement is a double assertion that the subject of the statement exists so cannot reflect a trully logical statement.
To adjust the statement would render the original statement of "god exists" to just "god" thereby making it grammatically incorrect.
hehe, I have a fkn grouse memory

[Tiberius]

I am unconvinced about the rules of propositions.
Isn't saying that something exists a non-statement?!
I mean that saying, for example, "my computer exists" is like a double affimative in that the subject and premise of "my computer" already suggests the presence/existence of the computer so the following "exists" becomes pointless!?

Not so. To show a simple example, look at the negative forms of the statement:

"My friend does not exist."

I could talk at length about "my friend", list attributes he has, where he lives, what he eats for breakfast, but just because I refer to him as "my friend" doesn't mean he exists. Existence can be applied somewhat by "my" since it denotes some kind of ownership, but it should be clear by my example how this is not always the case.

Now, the idea I had about my friend may very well exist (and indeed it must for me to be able to list attributes), but the idea wasn't the subject of the proposition.

Unlike sentences in the form "my ...", the proposition "God exists" doesn't have any suggestion of existence in the first part, but it does in the latter. Likewise, "Trees exist", "Houses exist", etc, are all valid propositions.

Anyway, if your view was true, then surely mentioning anything in a sentence implies true existence of that thing (which causes a whole load of problems for fiction writers), and likewise, how would you directly talk about something's existence?

[TruthWorthy]

Yeah, I think it's a bit of a conundrum that I'm working on in this "god exists" plausibility issue.
I understand where you're coming from with the notion that you can't talk about something which doesn't exist without mentioning that thing when you do.
The example of "my friend doesn't exist" sort of doesn't fit the argument in the same context since it states differently to the opening of assumed existence "my friend".
I think it's really probably nit picking that I'm doing with the non-statement but I couldn't really care less because the statement still has no supporting argument outside human invention.
So I don't care that much.
I'm interested to know why this non-statement is allowed to fly in an 'as-is' condition, by itself, and without any supporting argument.
Why can "god exists" be a scientific statement needing to be disproved?

[Tiberius]

Firstly, you are the only one who seems to think that the statement (and it is a statement, not a "non-statement") is allowed to fly by itself without any supporting argument.

It's not allowed, it never has been. You can't just state something exists and expect people to believe you. Arguments have been created over millennia for the existence of God, and if you don't know about them, I suggest you google "arguments for the existence of god" and have a long read.

When people say "God exists" as a single statement, it does not necessarily mean that they are using it on it's own, without any arguments. They may have arguments, but it is silly to cite every single one of them when you are making a simple claim. If someone challenges your claim, you present arguments. For instance, I can say "I exist" as a statement, alone, on it's own. You probably wouldn't question me, since you probably believe that I exist as well. However, if you were to question me, I could provide arguments for my existence. Just because I didn't present my arguments beforehand doesn't mean I don't have any.

Secondly, I don't think many people think "god exists" is a scientific statement. It's a statement of logic, a proposition, but not all propositions are scientifically testable. Indeed, this is why people have argued that science isn't an answer for everything, and that the existence of certain unscientific propositions is an argument against materialism.

Finally, to address your "needing to be disproved" part. I wouldn't say anything has a "need" to be disproved. I'm agnostic, so I don't think these things can be proved or disproved either way. God as I define it, is a being that possibly exists outside of the observable reality, and since the observable reality is all we have to go on at this point in time, I cannot see a way of proving or disproving the existence of such a being. That may change of course, but currently such knowledge is unknowable.

[theVOID]

Basically because when someone's ideal is threatened they will reach for the lowest common area of uncertainty and try to endue doubt to make their proposition at least feasible, and for now the concept of god is at least feasible compared to other hypothesis of origin, that is to say there is nothing empirical to differentiate the hypothesis from each other and thus no reason to favour a single explanation. People who favour the idea of god do so for non-smart reasons, such as an appeal to emotion or an argument from ignorance.

[fr0d0]

People who favour the idea of god do so for non-smart reasons, such as an appeal to emotion or an argument from ignorance.

Yet your assertion remains bare (you could say non-smart/ ignorant (how are those different! lol ). People favour the idea of god for very smart reasons: All to do with personal fulfillment and attainment otherwise impossible.

[theVOID]

People who favour the idea of god do so for non-smart reasons, such as an appeal to emotion or an argument from ignorance.

Yet your assertion remains bare (you could say non-smart/ ignorant (how are those different! lol ). People favour the idea of god for very smart reasons: All to do with personal fulfillment and attainment otherwise impossible.

Simple fact is there is no evidence to discern God from any other possible explanation of origins and thus no reason to favour the "sky daddy" explanation over any other, let alone organise your life around such an idea. Personal fulfilment is irrelevant when searching for the truth, if you are not prepared to accept what is found, like it or not, and instead hide behind your cushy religious smoke-screen of assumptions, you have defeated the purpose of looking to begin with.

[fr0d0]

But what are we looking _for_ VOID? For me it's meaning and purpose.. for you it seems to be an impossible answer. From my POV I see you don't want to accept the obvious, but instead skirt around superfluous issues and even fail at making anything of those, apart from some humour.

What am I "not prepared to accept that is found" exactly? I'm not the one denying an aspect of human nature evidenced from the earliest found artifacts.

[ib.me.ub]

You can't just state something exists and expect people to believe you.

Why has the existence of god been done in this way and people do believe. Do you think there may be something more to the story that just a story?

Could there possibly be some truth in out there somewhere?