God Does Not Exist: Logical Statement?

[Ethereal]

Is this a logical or scientific statement?

God does not exist.

 

[Hatuey]

.....where is the logic or science in that statement?

 

[Lightdemon]

How you arrive at the statement or conclusion will decide whether or not it is logical or scientific.

 

[Ethereal]

.....where is the logic or science in that statement?

Can you logically or scientifically assert that God doesn't exist? Yes or no?

 

[Kandahar]

Is this a logical or scientific statement?

God does not exist.

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.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Can you logically or scientifically assert that God doesn't exist? Yes or no?

Which god?

 

[Ikari]

Is this a logical or scientific statement?

God does not exist.

Absolute statements about deities I don't know if you could say are rooted in logic. Maybe. But the logical statement I would say is that "there's no evidence for gods" or something along those lines. Statements of absolute like God does not exist are matters of belief.

 

[OxymoronP]

Not logical, since there isnt enough information one way or another.

 

[Jerry]

Is this a logical or scientific statement?

God does not exist.

You're asserting a sociological premise, from which you base your world view on. Since you believe it to be true, you therefore act accordingly, thus the assertion.

As a sociological premise, we do not need to ask you to provide proof, because we would then get caught in the endless regression of proofs of proofs, and proofs of proofs of proofs. If you have supporting evidence you would like to share, that's fine, but not required.

As your claim exists within a logical construct, it is logical even-though false.

 

[Jerry]

Not logical, since there isnt enough information one way or another.

If the statement were a conclusion allegedly supported by evidence from the hard sciences, yes.

If the statement is a sociological premise borne from personal experience, no.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

It's a hypothesis, though an untestable one.

And from wiki

In logic a statement is a declarative sentence that is either true or false

So I'd say both

If you mean scientifically supported or logically sound, that would change my answer

 

[Jerry]

It's a hypothesis, though an untestable one.

And from wiki



So I'd say both

If you mean scientifically supported or logically sound, that would change my answer

Imo an argument can be logical and wrong, much like a theory which strictly adheres to scientific standards only to later be falsified. Is a theory unscientific just because it turned out to be wrong? I don't think so.

 

[Hatuey]

Can you logically or scientifically assert that God doesn't exist? Yes or no?

Can you logically assert that God doesn't exist? If you understand why there is a need within a historical context for God to exist in the first place then yes you can logically assert that God doesn't exist as an entity but as a very human response to a situation where the subject is experiencing a deviance around him which he simply can not cope with on his own.

Ten thousand years ago people simply could not explain why the seasons changed or major disasters happened. They initially tried to explain this with what we would call elemental or spiritual forces. You had hundreds of small groups of people who credited evil spirits will everything from what we now call mental illnesses to blizzards. Their lack of knowledge about the world around them made it essential that they create an explanation or response for it. As the population of the world rose and the first early cities & societies started appearing, the elements and spirits which had worked so well for people in caves and huts no longer seemed to do the job for much larger groups of people. They started creating personalities for these elements. These personalities came with names and stories. You had Iris, Osiris and Rah in Egypt, Zeus, Hera and Hermes in Greece and Mars, Jupiter & Venus in Rome. These are only a handful of the dozens upon dozens of Gods each of which had backstories that involved their creation, daily lives and occupations.

Then came a revolutionary thought. Why have hundreds of Gods when you could simply have One? One force to explain everything why birds fly, why snow falls and why people die. This concept can be found across the world. Buddhists and Hindus all believe that there is a consistent force in the universe which ties everything together. This concept is not unlike the Holy Spirit. It is something which they claim is there, whether you accept it or not. It(God), like the pantheons of Gods before it, provides an explanation to people of why things we can not explain occur until we find out the true reason. Why is it we no longer explain seasonal changes as the work of God? Why is it we don't say it's God's work when there is an earthquake? Why is it we now explain sickness through bacteria and viruses and not God? When one looks at God through a historical context, you see that at the very least, a concept like God needs to exist to explain things.

So, I guess that from a sociological perspective, yes God most certainly exists. However God doesn't exist as an entity in this perspective. God exists as a response. God is medicine for people who can not entirely deal with the world around them. From a perspective which expects verifiable scientific proof of God's existence? Then no. He does not. If he does then you are more than welcome to prove his existence through means which can be analyzed by the scientific community.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Imo an argument can be logical and wrong, much like a theory which strictly adheres to scientific standards only to later be falsified. Is a theory unscientific just because it turned out to be wrong? I don't think so.

I agree. The statement fits the definition of a hypothesis, making it a scientific statement regardless of whether or not it is true. Similarly, the term 'statement' in logic can apply to both true and false statements. Hence my answer

 

[Dittohead not!]

You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god through science or logic. Therefore, the statement is not logical, nor is it scientific. You can not, in fact, prove a negative, nor can you prove that god exists. It is a matter of faith.

However,

Since we know that creation exists, since we are a part of it, doesn't it follow that a creator also exists?

 

[Ethereal]

Can you logically assert that God doesn't exist? If you understand why there is a need within a historical context for God to exist in the first place then yes you can logically assert that God doesn't exist as an entity but as a very human response to a situation where the subject is experiencing a deviance around him which he simply can not cope with on his own.

Ten thousand years ago people simply could not explain why the seasons changed or major disasters happened. They initially tried to explain this with what we would call elemental or spiritual forces. You had hundreds of small groups of people who credited evil spirits will everything from what we now call mental illnesses to blizzards. Their lack of knowledge about the world around them made it essential that they create an explanation or response for it. As the population of the world rose and the first early cities & societies started appearing, the elements and spirits which had worked so well for people in caves and huts no longer seemed to do the job for much larger groups of people. They started creating personalities for these elements. These personalities came with names and stories. You had Iris, Osiris and Rah in Egypt, Zeus, Hera and Hermes in Greece and Mars, Jupiter & Venus in Rome. These are only a handful of the dozens upon dozens of Gods each of which had backstories that involved their creation, daily lives and occupations.

Then came a revolutionary thought. Why have hundreds of Gods when you could simply have One? One force to explain everything why birds fly, why snow falls and why people die. This concept can be found across the world. Buddhists and Hindus all believe that there is a consistent force in the universe which ties everything together. This concept is not unlike the Holy Spirit. It is something which they claim is there, whether you accept it or not. It(God), like the pantheons of Gods before it, provides an explanation to people of why things we can not explain occur until we find out the true reason. Why is it we no longer explain seasonal changes as the work of God? Why is it we don't say it's God's work when there is an earthquake? Why is it we now explain sickness through bacteria and viruses and not God? When one looks at God through a historical context, you see that at the very least, a concept like God needs to exist to explain things.

So, I guess that from a sociological perspective, yes God most certainly exists. However God doesn't exist as an entity in this perspective. God exists as a response. God is medicine for people who can not entirely deal with the world around them. From a perspective which expects verifiable scientific proof of God's existence? Then no. He does not. If he does then you are more than welcome to prove his existence through means which can be analyzed by the scientific community.

Except I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm just asking if the following statement is supported by science or logic:

God does not exist.

Since it is an absolutist assertion of fact without any proof, I don't see it as being a scientifically or logically valid statement. One cannot assert this as being true unless they know everything about the universe. They can certainly claim it as being possible, and they can even choice to believe it's true, but no one can say with any degree of certainty that the assertion is supported by science or necessitated by logic.

 

[Lightdemon]

Except I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm just asking if the following statement is supported by science or logic:

God does not exist.

Since it is an absolutist assertion of fact without any proof, I don't see it as being a scientifically or logically valid statement. One cannot assert this as being true unless they know everything about the universe. They can certainly claim it as being possible, and they can even choice to believe it's true, but no one can say with any degree of certainty that the assertion is supported by science or necessitated by logic.

The claim does not, and cannot, have any proof because it is impossible to gather evidence of something that you think is nonexistent. If you don't think it exists, how can you gather evidence of it?

Do you point at the empty space? Do you wait for the empty space to make a noise? Do you try to catch the empty space with a butterfly catchers net?

Logic dictates that the claim "God does not exists" cannot be supported by evidence. The only way the claim that "God does not exists" can stand is by the lack of substantiation from the claim that "God does exist." In the failure to provide evidence for the latter claim, one does not even need to provide any substantiation for the former claim.

 

[Ethereal]

The claim does not, and cannot, have any proof because it is impossible to gather evidence of something that you think is nonexistent. If you don't think it exists, how can you gather evidence of it?

Do you point at the empty space? Do you wait for the empty space to make a noise? Do you try to catch the empty space with a butterfly catchers net?

Logic dictates that the claim "God does not exists" cannot be supported by evidence. The only way the claim that "God does not exists" can stand is by the lack of substantiation from the claim that "God does exist." In the failure to provide evidence for the latter claim, one does not even need to provide any substantiation for the former claim.

Basically, neither claim (God doesn't exist / God does exist) can be proven.

 

[Lightdemon]

Basically, neither claim (God doesn't exist / God does exist) can be proven.

yes.

10 characters.

 

[Ethereal]

yes.

10 characters.

Then neither assertion is logical or scientific, since an assertion requires proof. Agreed?

 

[Lightdemon]

Then neither assertion is logical or scientific, since an assertion requires proof. Agreed?

Having proof is not evidence of following logic.

The whole thing between you and I was about which side the burden of proof belongs. Logic dictates that it must belong on the side of the theists because it is impossible to gather evidence of nothing. You can only gather evidence of a positive claim, which is "God does exist."

All the above, here, is logically sound.

 

[Ethereal]

Having proof is not evidence of following logic.

The whole thing between you and I was about which side the burden of proof belongs. Logic dictates that it must belong on the side of the theists because it is impossible to gather evidence of nothing. You can only gather evidence of a positive claim, which is "God does exist."

All the above, here, is logically sound.

The burden falls on both sides, since they are both asserting something.

 

[Lightdemon]

The burden falls on both sides, since they are both asserting something.

I'm going to stay on the other thread, no use having 2 of the same conversations.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

As your claim exists within a logical construct, it is logical even-though false.

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

 

[Skateguy]

God told me at coffee this morning, that he didn't need any support, nor any believers. He was just cool the way things are. He is God after all. but I feel he should use less sugar.