0

I found a statement as follows,

The existence of universe is the proof of the existence of god.

and I think it is a logical fallacy because it seems to me that the statement is not trivial. For the sake of comparison, I can rewrite it as follows even though it is still logically false.

The existence of universe is the proof of X where X are any imaginative objects.

We have many categories of logical fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad baculum, etc. For the case given above, which category does it belong to?

1
  • 4
    If that's the entirety of the argument, then it's a non-sequitur which is also called a "red herring." ( If there's more to the argument, it might not be fallacious -- fallacy is a technical term in philosophy -- see here meta.philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3040/…)
    – virmaior
    Oct 21 '16 at 6:12
1

I would call it a non-sequitur.

But there is a catch. From a purely formal viewpoint:

Premise 1: P → Q
Premise 2: P
Conclusion: Q

So in that logic system, an entity called God exists. It doesn't mean anything about the existence or non-existence of God outside of it, and particularly that the philosophical entity God is the same or different from the entity in this logic system. For all we know, they could be homonyms.

1
  • 1
    I agree about the formal viewpoint. The statement about God and existence nearly assumes what it sets out to prove. Oct 24 '16 at 5:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.