conclusion: The proposition "God does not exist" is a category error:
1) Every thing that exists is a sum of individual parts.
2) Every thing that exists depends on something else that exists.
3) Every thing that exists, does so relative to a cause.
4) Every thing that exists has a single identity.
5) The god defined by Christianity (God) is not a sum of parts, but an indivisible whole; God is not dependent on any other thing; God is without cause; God does not have single identity, God is (and can be) more than one thing simultaneously e.g. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Indeed God could be a post box if that was God's will while at the same time remaining God. Such is omnipotence.
6) Based on premises 1-4 The God defined in 5 cannot be an existent thing.
7) The previous conclusion is not equivalent to the proposition "God does not exist." Such a proposition contradicts this conclusion, because whether something exists or not is dependent on whether something can exist or not. Stating "God does not exist" logically implies that God can be existent which is false. It is the same as saying "God cannot exist and God can exist", or P ^ ¬P is true, which is a breach of the law of non-contradiction.
8) The above is also true with the proposition "God exists".
9) So ¬(P v ¬P) is true, or in plain English: it is true that neither the proposition (P) "God exists" or "God does not exist" is true.
10) Two possibilities explain this: a)There is another truth value which can be applied to P e.g indeterminate, or P is truth-valueless.
11) In either case the proposition "God does not exist" is neither true or false.
12) God is not within the set of things which have the property "exists" and "does not exist".
13) It is true that the proposition "God does not exist" is a category error.
"God does not exist" is a Category Error
-
ziggysdaydream
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:22 am
6) Based on premises 1-4 The God defined in 5 cannot be an existent thing.
NO. Based on 1-4 God can not exist.
If God can't be an existant thing, then he can't exist. Duh.
If he is not a thing he is no-thing nothing. Non-existant.
No. The proposition "A square-circle does not exist" doesn't imply that A square-circle can exist....it implies that it CAN'T.7) The previous conclusion is not equivalent to the proposition "God does not exist." Such a proposition contradicts this conclusion, because whether something exists or not is dependent on whether something can exist or not. Stating "God does not exist" logically implies that God can be existent which is false. It is the same as saying "God cannot exist and God can exist", or P ^ ¬P is true, which is a breach of the law of non-contradiction.
Same for god. He can't exist.
8) The above is also true with the proposition "God exists".
9) So ¬(P v ¬P) is true, or in plain English: it is true that neither the proposition (P) "God exists" or "God does not exist" is true.
You can't have neither-exist nor not-exist at the same time.
(contradiction)
law of excluded middle. your logic is broken.
-
Kevin Solway
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: "God does not exist" is a Category Error
I disagree with that. The typical Christian does not believe that they themselves are God. Therefore God is something other than themselves. Therefore God has a single identity.ziggysdaydream wrote:The god defined by Christianity . . . does not have single identity.
However, if you try to pin the Christian down on the identity of God, they will refuse to define it in any way at all, other than in some nonesensical way, similar to "a square circle", or suchlike. So in that sense their God cannot be said to have an identity, since it lacks a sensible definition.
If we do not have a sensible definition for God, then we cannot say whether it exists or not. In the same way that saying anything about a square circle would be meaningless.11) In either case the proposition "God does not exist" is neither true or false.
As with a square circle.12) God is not within the set of things which have the property "exists" and "does not exist".
If "God" were defined to be the whole of Nature then it would not be a "thing" (if a thing is defined to be a part of the Totality), yet it would not be nothing at all, in the sense that it would not be a complete void, since it is everything. In that sense we could not say that God exists or does not exist.13) It is true that the proposition "God does not exist" is a category error.