Everything exists

[Edwardo Piet]

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

"God exists".

It's a truth claim so it is IOW a proposition. "God exists" = "God does exist"= you are claiming that God exists= you are making a truth claim which is a proposition. So yes it's a proposition.

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

[Tiberius]

A proposition is never an argument, as I told you when you first brought it up.

This fact doesn't put a dint in the proposition "God exists" anymore than it puts one in any other proposition.

Get it into your head:

Proposition =/= Argument.

An argument is a series of propositions for which the conclusion is a logical consequence of, or, (as is the case of inductive arguments) the conclusion is logically supported by the series of propositions that precede it.

[Edwardo Piet]

It seems to me that what Truthworthy is trying to express is that he finds it rather tedious when some people barely assert "God exists " as if it's an argument.... like "X is true because it is true", the bare assertion fallacy or something like that?

Correct me if I'm wrong and do say if I'm at all in the ballpark of what you're getting at Truthworthy.

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

[TruthWorthy]

A proposition is never an argument, as I told you when you first brought it up.

This fact doesn't put a dint in the proposition "God exists" anymore than it puts one in any other proposition.

Get it into your head:

Proposition =/= Argument.

An argument is a series of propositions for which the conclusion is a logical consequence of, or, (as is the case of inductive arguments) the conclusion is logically supported by the series of propositions that precede it.

So a proposition with no supporting propositions is able to operate as a stand alone statement that requires something to disprove it?

---

It seems to me that what Truthworthy is trying to express is that he finds it rather tedious when some people barely assert "God exists " as if it's an argument.... like "X is true because it is true", the bare assertion fallacy or something like that?

Correct me if I'm wrong and do say if I'm at all in the ballpark of what you're getting at Truthworthy.

EvF

Exactly. Only I think the assertion is only valid as an argument. As if the statement were made amongst beievers it would instantly contradict their own belief in it. It is because the proposition has an intended audience of nonbelievers that it's so bare.

---

Ahhh so you meant, "worldview" or, "epistemic" differences. One of my favorite new words I have learned from these forums, from Arcanus specifically, is the word, "epistemology". It cleared up why people have a hard time understanding each other.

The primary difference between theist and atheist worldviews is that theism accepts "God exists" as a basic belief right along with the belief, "I exist" (cogito ergo sum)and, "The world we perceive is objectively real." While this might not hold true for all theistic worldviews they are true for many. Most people would agree with the basic beliefs that they are real and the world is real.

Rhizo

Yes true. Only my idea of "god exists" being directed to an outside group (nonbelievers) makes this an argumentative proposition. Because this would be considered a missing premise. Ironically, to us nonbelievers the proposition "god exists" is missing premises itself.
The whole thing is self reflexive - like the book of bull they read. It's only true to itself, as far as is possible with so many lines of text.

[Tiberius]

[TruthWorthy]

So that argument's no good.
What happens to arguments which are no good (unravelled through logical flaw/erroroneousness)?

[Tiberius]

They are usually abandoned by most. Unfortunately, when it comes to arguments involving God, the religious tend to try and bend the rules. For instance, in the case of the cosmological argument, some theists argue that God is the "only" thing to exist without a cause.

Most arguments you see being adapted to weed out imperfections, and a lot of the time this simply causes more errors.

[theVOID]

(1) is also verified by causality

Not necessarily, quantum fluctuations and Radioactive decay, for example, have no observable cause, therefore saying that everything that exists has a cause for it's existence is an assumption in it's self. That is not to say that there is certainly no cause for these events but thus far there is no empirical evidence to support the notion that everything that exists has a cause for it's existence and thus the argument makes an assumption at it's very first premise, invalidating the argument in step 1.

Even if that premise were true you would be required to engage in special pleading to exclude God from the same rule you have used to show that the universe must have had a cause.

The whole argument is dead on arrival.