Logic question, the existance of God?

Question

Please note that this is a LOGIC question, it is NOT about belief. So if someone has taken logic please help me analyze this claim.

If an individual makes the claim that:

"God does not exist."

Isn't that individual contradicting him/herself, and hence making a fallacy? Because why would a person deny the existence of [God] if there isn't anything that exists to begin with?

Thank you :)

Hey, "nycratki," mate, instead of spewing __insert latin phrase here that begins with "dia" why not answer the question? Kthxbai!

Thank you for the replies everyone.

To "Future Arch," we are talking about the greatest being conceivable, your unicorn example doesn't apply. Why? I can think of a greater unicorn than the one you described :)

Wow, many thanks to all of you, I appreciate all of your replies. HOWEVER, do not, I repeat, do not take into account examples such as unicorns, h2o, floating islands, etc.; because THOSE ARE NOT THE GREATEST CONCEIVABLE BEING!

Answer 1

The fact that the person would use the name of the thing he claims does not exist in a statement asserting the thing does not exist does not make the statement illogical.

Think of it this way: Suppose, instead of the individual saying "God does not exist," the individual said, "The existence of a supreme being, a God, if you will, cannot be proven using scientific methods. Ergo, I must conclude strictly on this basis that such a being does not exist." would we conclude that he made an illogical statement...forget belief, forget faith, strictly on the basis of its logic? If so, where is the illogic?

An intriguing question, if a bit ...well...weird.

Answer 2

No it's not a fallacy, at its best it could be a contradiction but only if you includes the predicate of existence in the definition of God, what after Kant is pointless.

Beside that the logic of existential judgment does not allow for contradiction with a single existential statement.

God doesn't exist has the general form: " X is/is not" in which no possible contradiction let alone fallacy.

You can also read it more formally as "Exist a X and this X is not God" (for lack of adequate symbols).

If what you meant was an informal fallacy I don't see what kind of fallacy it would be.

On the other hand as somebody has already remarked not all the words we use refer to something refer to an extant thing. Here the problem is what you mean by existence. Would it exist as a material thing in space and time? Would it exist as subject of discourse? Would it exist as Poetic or Mythological charcater (the unicorn). So the problem is no more logic but epistemological or sociological.

So the answer is: one would deny the existence of God because somebody else would adfirm it; meaning that "God" designate a possible subject of discourse within a certain cultural environment in which it makes sense to adfirm or deny God's existence. But we are pretty far from logic strictly understood. Good Luck

Answer 3

Logically speaking, God does exist.

If God does not exist, then one cannot make a statement which says "God does not exist" and expect it to be logical.

Because if God does not exist, then logically, he wouldn't have been able the ponder that question in the first place.

Its not a stupid question.

The only stupid thing is that some people cannot seperate concepts from logic.

Logic is a very limited framework to figure out the nature of what is seen and what is not seen.

For instance, logic can't even tell you why a painting by a dead artist would be worth tens of millions of dollars.

Don't put ALL your faith in logic. He will betray you eventually, or even now. The lure of logic is that the more your engage, the more you will "get". That kind of attraction is based on vanity.

Answer 4

It is not a fallacy to deny the existence of something that does not exist. You could substitute unicorns for god and get the same result. It is not a fallacy to state that "unicorns do not exist." Humans have many concepts and ideas that have no basis or existence in reality. That doesn't mean we can't make statements about them.

Also, I have a problem--or at least a nitpick--with your wording above. To "deny" the existence of something makes it sound like the person is in "denial" about something that actually exists. But when there is zero evidence for the existence of something, the burden of proof is on those making the statement that that something does exist. If I say "unicorns exist" and you say they do not, the burden of proof is on me because I'm the one making the assertion. Be wary of assuming a premise that has no backing to support it.

Answer 5

No, there's nothing wrong with identifying a thing only to say it does not exist. That's not an inherent contradiction. It does not somehow invest something with reality or existence just to name it - for example, I can say there is no such thing as a living seven hundred foot long dog. There isn't one now, just because I've said those words -

Answer 6

How about: "A universe without a God does not exist"?

Using your logic, this contrary statement is equally true.

WIthout explaining the meaning of the circular argument fallacy that you committed, it is clear that your conclusion is logically invalid.

Other examples as to why your logic is incorrect, consider the statement:

"Flying Monkeys do not exist"

In other words, this example shows that a negative statement does not require the opposite affirmitave statement to be true (unless someone is shooting monkeys out of a cannon).

Answer 7

It is not logical to claim "God is not," as proving a universal negative requires Omniscience, Omnipresence, and the like.

It is logical to claim "I, in my present consciousness, do not find evidence that 'God is.'"

At this point, it is logical to point out that absolutely nothing comes of absolutely nothing, so Some Thing always has been. This is either Mind (God), or Matter (physis). In the latter case, it is Godlike, but non-sentient, non-creative...not "God."

The latter case presently looks unlikely, as all matter is known to decay.

The superceding of basic laws of physics, as with e.g. the Host of Light at Garabandal, Spain, in the 1960s, begins with an Angel perceived by a peasant child, who asks the Angel for a miracle; she is at first disappointed that it will be a Host, as for her that was a "small miracle." (She wished a bigger miracle to prove to the villagers she was telling the truth.)

Filmed by sceptics, coalescing in a perfect form of Light in mid-air above the girl's mouth, even one such "white raven" seriously falsifies the "no God, only matter" hypothesis.

The question as to why "science" does not say more about such "miracles" is simple: the miraculous cannot be controlled, nor replicated, in the laboratory.

"Extraordinary Knowing," Dr. Elizabeth Mayer, and "Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. William A. Tiller, http://www.tiller.org are good re demonstrating human intentionality and various state-specificities. One logical value of the latter, e.g. high gamma wave mentation during insight meditation, is that it cannot be totally evaluated using beta wave mentation, i.e., typical reductive materialist mentation, without committing a category error (overgeneralization).

Answer 8

I don't see a contradiction. For it to be a fallacy, you must assume that nothing can exist without God, which falls out of the scope of the statement itself. It really depends on what definition of God you use. If God means "universe" then you have a contradiction, but not if God means "bearded man on a cloud."

Answer 9

I would say that the Future... Archailect has successfully answered your question on your original terms. Now you have shifted your terms, so I will answer it on the new terms. The answer, in short, is that it is not illogical to say "God does not exist".

To clarify the terms of the debate:
(a) By a "logical" claim, it seems both you and I mean a claim that involves no contradiction.
(b) By "God", you mean "the greatest being conceivable".

So in the claim "God does not exist", we can substitute "God" with "the greatest being conceivable", to get:
"The greatest being conceivable does not exist."

There's no contradiction there, unless you are assuming (as you surely are) this:
"the greatest being conceivable must exist or else s/he isn't the greatest being conceivable."

But when we carefully think about your assumption, it does not yield a contradiction. Your assumption may be interpreted in two ways:

(1) "When I think of the greatest being in the world, I must think of him/her as existing in the world".

This claim only tells us how WE MUST THINK when we think about the greatest being in the world. But it does not say anything about WHAT THE WORLD MUST BE LIKE. For all we know, the world could be such that the greatest being does not exist. And there is no contradiction in claiming that "When I think of God I must think of him/her as existing, but the world is such that it contains nothing fitting the description of God". (Analogously, think: "When I think of a unicorn I must think of it as having one horn, but the world is such that it contains nothing fitting the description of a unicorn").

(2) "The greatest being I can think of must exist in the world."

This assumption is not logically warranted: its negation (i.e., "The greatest being I can think of possibly does not exist independently of my thoughts in the world") is not a contradiction. And that's because, in general, it does not follow that whatever I can think of must exist in the world. For instance, I can think of water as something else besides H2O, but our examination of the world tells us that there's no water in the world that's not H2O. What we can think about in our heads does not guarantee to us that it must exist outside our heads, independently of our thoughts. Whether it must exist independently of our thoughts can only be determined by investigation of what the world is like, not by an investigation of how we think. So whether (2) is true or not cannot be determined by logic alone, but by acquiring the appropriate facts about the world. This means that the claim "The greatest being I can think of does not exist" does not involve logical contradiction, and must be settled by what is the fact of the matter.

Answer 10

Faith goes beyond logic my friend. It sees above and beyond what we have in our direct line of vision.
No one can logically prove it to you, I would like to! Really I would ...but I can't and I don't think anything short of the Christ's return can bring the logic you want to have.
I'm sorry but there is no viable answer to your question of logic. But, might I suggest you read some of C.S Lewis's books? "Mere Christianity" or "The Case for Christ".
Either one will assist you in the logistics? or the logical point of view you want.