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]

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

Alright I can't refute the proposition that the statement "god exists" is a proposition.
I have to maintain that as it stands it isn't a valid argument especially considering the missing premise and contradiction in "existence" being asserted; called negation (which I thought something like it should be playing a role in my brain's being teased.

Does this argument put a dint in the proposition?

[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]

---

I'm glad you're willing to understand Rhizo,
World difference can mean relevancy to differing groups. For instance the religious probably would never/rarely say to one another "god exists" unless talking about a non believer type of discussion, etc. Amongst believers the debate would consist of the "inner circle" type. What "god" expects in a situation, who wouldn't get into heaven, etc. Their world view puts god as an entity as being a given.
Atheist world view would invariably claim that "god" is a ridiculous assumption but being that a specific answer is unidentified/unknown every/any possibility means including "god".
That's where I think the "god exists" proposition doesn't work.
Believers wouldn't say it amongst themselves in such an assertion (besides the ground I've already covered about it fitting the missing premise better) that is, a double assertion. Besides, I don't think it can really stand alone the way it does. There's no context for how or what sort of existence is implied, unless this proposition can only trully work as a defence to, say: "god doesn't exist". At least then "god exists" would have a relational context.

---

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

[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]

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

No. Nothing is allowed to stand alone, and this is why there are so many arguments for and against the existence of God. Each one has numerous flaws that have been pointed out over the years. If one logical step is shown to be illogical, the argument falls apart.

Take the Cosmological argument for the existence of God: ( simple version taken from http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/the...l-argument )

(1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe exists.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

Note that (1), (2), and (4) are the premises, and (3), (5) are the conclusions.

The first part of the argument is sound. Given (1) and (2), (3) logically follows. (1) is also verified by causality, and (2) by observation.

Where the argument fails is in step (4), where the assumption is made that God is the cause of the universe existing. This is, as you would put it, a standalone statement, which is as unverifiable and illogical as me saying:

4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is Pizza.
Therefore:
(5) Pizza exists.

It is an invalid argument because whilst the conclusion (5) does follow logically from the premises, the premises themselves are unverifiable and illogical. Premise (4) commits a non sequitur by arguing that the cause of the universe existing must be God, when this does not necessarily follow.

Further, the argument can be questioned itself by relating the conclusion (5) back to the premise (1). Since God exists, and by (1), everything that exists must have a cause for existence, God must have been caused to exist.

This poses problems on two fronts. Firstly, if we accept that God has a cause to its existence, then positing God's existence in order to explain the existence of the universe only increases the complexity of the question. We find ourselves continually asking "Ok, X caused Y, but what caused X?".

Secondly, if we reject the notion that God has a cause, then the existence of God (of which the argument seeks to prove) is a counterexample to the first premise of the argument itself. If God exists but doesn't have a cause, then (1) is false, and the argument is unsound, since if (1) is false, one could argue that the universe itself could be uncaused, and the argument proves nothing.

[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.