• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God Does Not Exist: Logical Statement?

God Does Not Exist: Logical? Scientific?

  • Scientific but not logical.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    41
I'm pretty certain you cannot call a false claim logical, thats illogical; You can call it specious as best.

If you continue to claim it's true after you know it's false, I agree.

But if you don't yet know it's false, I think it could be a logical statement.

Much like the falsified theory: the nature of it is scientific even after it has been falsified. I would even say that the simple fact that it could be falsified by the scientific method reinforces the fact that it is a scientific theory.

In the same way do I regard a false statement. The simple fact that it conformed to the rules of logic enough to be falsified by another logical argument reinforces the fact that the nature of the false statement is logical even if wrong.
 
Last edited:
The argument requires that God is bound by logic. That's a rather large assumption that questions the logical value of such a statement.
 
If you continue to claim it's true after you know it's false, I agree.

But if you don't yet know it's false, I think it could be a logical statement.

Much like the falsified theory: the nature of it is scientific even after it has been falsified. I would even say that the simple fact that it could be falsified by the scientific method reinforces the fact that it is a scientific theory.

In the same way do I regard a false statement. The simple fact that it conformed to the rules of logic enough to be falsified by another logical argument reinforces the fact that the nature of the false statement is logical even if wrong.


IA, a logic statement can turn out to be false. Logical doesn't equal accurate.
 
A scientific statement? No...not really. There is no way to empirically test this, unless you clarify what you mean by God.

A logical statement? Based on Occam's Razor, I would say that this should be the default logical conclusion in the absence of any evidence.

Unfortunately, it's not. At best, one can say that because there is no currently-existing evidence, that the claim fails to meet the criteria for believability. No evidence ought to mean no belief. Lack of evidence does not prove that it doesn't exist though.
 
It is not scientific as it cannot be tested one way or the other. It is not logical as it is based literally on nothing.
 
It is not scientific as it cannot be tested one way or the other. It is not logical as it is based literally on nothing.

People can make arguments either way.

There is no God: and here's the exact part of your brain we can attribute to your false belief.

There is a God: and here's the Great Pyramid as evidence.

So, sure, we can dig up evidence for either side. We can dig up counter evidence against either side, also.
 
Last edited:
It's fun ta liking about things that can neither be proved, or disproved. ---there is so much leeway.
 
Unfortunately, it's not. At best, one can say that because there is no currently-existing evidence, that the claim fails to meet the criteria for believability. No evidence ought to mean no belief. Lack of evidence does not prove that it doesn't exist though.

I realize it doesn't prove it...I'm just saying it should be the default assumption. Carl Sagan addressed this point in The Demon-Haunted World:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

(reprinted for educational purposes only, in accordance with Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.)
 
Last edited:
People can make arguments either way.

There is no God: and here's the exact part of your brain we can attribute to your false belief.

There is a God: and here's the Great Pyramid as evidence.

So, sure, we can dig up evidence for either side. We can dig up counter evidence against either side, also.

Maybe in a philosophical discussion, but not involving science and logic.
 
I realize it doesn't prove it...I'm just saying it should be the default assumption. Carl Sagan addressed this point in The Demon-Haunted World:

Sagan is absolutely right. God is not proven, but that doesn't make God the logical equivalent of invisible garage-dragons.
 
Why not? What's the difference? :confused:

I don't know. Would you react the same way to a person that believed in "God" as you would to a person that believed there was an invisible dragon in his garage?
 
I don't know. Would you react the same way to a person that believed in "God" as you would to a person that believed there was an invisible dragon in his garage?

Probably not...but that's because of social conditioning, not because of any logical difference that I can see between the two.
 
Probably not...but that's because of social conditioning, not because of any logical difference that I can see between the two.

Logical is not the same thing as falsifiable. Moreover, empiricism is not the sole determinant of a concept's validity. Can you prove that raping an infant for pleasure is wrong? No? Then I guess laws forbidding the rape of infants are just arbitrary and illogical.
 
Logical is not the same thing as falsifiable. Moreover, empiricism is not the sole determinant of a concept's validity.

If we can't use empirical evidence and we can't use logical reasoning to confirm that something exists, I'm hard-pressed to see any OTHER way to confirm it. And I'm still not seeing how God is different than the garage dragon. :confused:

Ethereal said:
Can you prove that raping an infant for pleasure is wrong? No? Then I guess laws forbidding the rape of infants are just arbitrary and illogical.

Morality cannot be "proven" because it is a nebulous concept invented by humans and varies from one person to another. The existence of an entity is different; it either exists or it does not.
 
Life outside of the Solar System does not exist. Logical statement?

After all, there's no proof of it.
 
Life outside of the Solar System does not exist. Logical statement?

After all, there's no proof of it.

That, also, is a fine hypothesis.
 
Life outside of the Solar System does not exist. Logical statement?

After all, there's no proof of it.


There's no proof of it yet.

The choice is:

There is a god who created the Earth and the life forms we see on it, including us.
or
This planet with all of its complex and interconnected life just came into being all on its own, starting with abiogenesis and ending with intelligent life.

Neither statement can be proven, both are quite unbelievable, yet one or the other has to be true.

Personally, I think the second statement is the most difficult to believe, but, there is no proof of either one.
 
Life outside of the Solar System does not exist. Logical statement?

After all, there's no proof of it.

There's certainly no scientific evidence for it, but I think you're on more solid logical ground postulating the existence of extraterrestrial life than you are postulating the existence of a god. There's really no evidence OR logical reason that a god should exist, whereas Frank Drake (for example) attempts to make a case for why extraterrestrial life is very likely. Your interpretation of his numbers may vary and you might disagree with his conclusion...but I think it's at least a reasonable argument.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation[/ame]



Furthermore, we can use Occam's Razor here: Extraterrestrial life does not necessitate the existence of supernatural forces for which there is currently no evidence, whereas most versions of god do.
 
Last edited:
There's certainly no scientific evidence for it, but I think you're on more solid logical ground postulating the existence of extraterrestrial life than you are postulating the existence of a god. There's really no evidence OR logical reason that a god should exist, whereas Frank Drake (for example) attempts to make a case for why extraterrestrial life is very likely. Your interpretation of his numbers may vary and you might disagree with his conclusion...but I think it's at least a reasonable argument.
Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logic has nothing to do with it. Neither scenario has an answer that is more logical than the other.

It's all about what is, as you say, reasonable. I think it's reasonable that the universe is so big, there is probably life on it outside of the Solar System. I don't think it's reasonable that we could even be having this conversation if in the end we all die and disappear, and then eventually everyone dies and everything that ever happened is forgotten, and none of this will ever have mattered or happened for any reason. We could argue about what is and isn't reasonable forever and not get anywhere, since there's no proof or evidence to work with. It's all assumptions.
 
Is this a logical or scientific statement?

God does not exist.
Not any less that "Santa Claus doesn't exist" or "the Easter Bunny doesn't exist" the way I see it. (Of course I can't "prove" that either of them don't exist either). ;)
 
Not any less that "Santa Claus doesn't exist" or "the Easter Bunny doesn't exist" the way I see it. (Of course I can't "prove" that either of them don't exist either). ;)

Except that is not even remotely close to being a valid comparison.

God's existence is a hypothesis regarding the structure of the entire universe. It is not like Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny, which are nothing more than specific creatures within the universe.
 
Not any less that "Santa Claus doesn't exist" or "the Easter Bunny doesn't exist" the way I see it. (Of course I can't "prove" that either of them don't exist either). ;)

I really wish DP mods would start thread-banning people who make the santa clause/easterbunny/tooth-fairy/unicorn/etc comparisons. It's a retarded argument which ignores several critical points.
 
Last edited:
I really wish DP mods would start thread-banning people who make the santa clause/easternmost/tooth-fairy/unicorn/etc comparisons. It's a retarded argument which ignores several critical points.
Well the same critical points could just as equally be applied to the creator itself (who created god, how did god get here, did god just always exist or was there an even more powerful creator who made him - and if so, then who created the more powerful god, etc). It's really a non-issue that can't be explained, and since it deals with the supernatural, it can't be "proven" or "disproven" by our scientific standards of proof either.
 
Well the same critical points could just as equally be applied to the creator itself (who created god, how did god get here, did god just always exist or was there an even more powerful creator who made him - and if so, then who created the more powerful god, etc). It's really a non-issue that can't be explained, and since it deals with the supernatural, it can't be "proven" or "disproven" by our scientific standards of proof either.

Science discovers the supernatural all the time. That's exactly what science is for.
 
Back
Top Bottom