According to wikipedia a statement is either (a) a meaningful declarative sentence that is either true or false, or (b) that which a true or false declarative sentence asserts. Is the sentence God exists a statement? Me and some friend were discussing about the above sentence whether it is a statement or not. My answer to the question was No. Since its truth value depends on the personal opinions and so it can not be a logical statement( therefore different persons give different truth values based on their opinions. ) Please give a clear answer.

Thanks in advance.

  • 3
    In principle, the fact that we do not currently know the truth value of a statement does not mean that we will never know it... – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 5 '17 at 5:55
  • Of course, it cannot be a "logical" one. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Sep 5 '17 at 6:47
  • It is a perfectly sound and logically meaningful statement. So is 'God does not exist'. What makes it totally dodgy as a logical statement is the difficulty of defining the terms. If we define our terms carefully then there's no problem, but otherwise it's a muddle of woolly words that won't serve us well in logic. . – PeterJ Sep 5 '17 at 11:13
  • 2
    P -> P v Q is a logical statement, even when we don't know what P or Q are, It is even true. So it does not matter whether there is a definition for 'God' or 'exists'. – user9166 Sep 7 '17 at 23:45
  • I'm going to call semantics: it depends on how define God, and it depends on how you define "exists". In some sense, at least the concept of God exists, otherwise we would have no way to discuss it. Of course, naming something doesn't mean it exists. Mathematics example: let x be the smallest number greater than 10 that is also smaller than 5. A pure mathematician would say you must first show such numbers exist before you're allowed to assign them a name. – barrycarter Sep 9 '17 at 2:24

God exists is a perfectly reasonable logical statement.

What you are doing is asserting a truth for the purposes of making logical deductions. For example, you could take this statement, add some others then apply logical rules to deduce further statements.

Now, whether the logical system you have produced is of any practical use or interest is a separate matter. Even if it's completely meaningless it can be, nonetheless, a perfectly valid logical system. All dogs are yellow, yellow things quack therefore dogs quack is a perfectly valid, perfectly useless logical scheme.

That's not to say making logical statements that are controversial is inherently pointless. For example, say you incorporated this statement with others. Now, you apply logical operators and ended up with the statement God does not exist. You now have a logical inconsistency which would imply, in your logical scheme, that God's existence is a logical contradiction. Whether this ends up as being known as Hamid's Paradox or whatever will, of course, depend on exactly how uncontroversial the other statements turned out to be.

It's also probably worth pointing out that, as God's existence is an input to your logical scheme, the only valuable thing regarding God's existence that you could reasonably deduce would be the contradiction above.


According to your theory of truth, the truth value of some propositions are determined by subjective conditions. In your opinion, the proposition "God exists" falls into that category, but in my opinion it doesn't. Therefore, which propositions fall into that category is itself a matter of opinion.

Now, if we apply your theory of truth to the things you claim, someone might be of the opinion that the truth value of everything you say depends on opinion, and, accordingly, it would follow that there is nothing logical in what you say. For that reason, I would suggest adopting another theory of truth.


Generally logic is about a system of inference that moves from true statements to true statements, it isn't able to assert the truth of propositions, this has to come from elsewhere. The proposition, 'there is a cup on this table' given the situation where there is a cup on a table has an unproblematic truth value, the proposition 'God exists' is much more difficult.

Deontic logic deals with this by treating such propositions as a matter of belief without asserting their ontological truth; and in a sense, this is unproblematic since the truth value of the proposition 'Ibn Arabi believes God exists' is a safe statement to make.

However, it will also assert the truth of the proposition 'Tom Cruise believes in theta beings' (he's a scientologist), and this whilst a safe statement to make is much more problematic.


If you think about the wide extent of things regarding God, for example churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and religions, an argument could be, God must exist, otherwise all those things would not have existed. Although cosmologists say they believe in God, they have no definition for God, according to Thomas Aquinas who was a cosmologist, therefore, for them it is difficult to logically explain the existence of God. Ontological people who believe God exist, have definitions for God. A definition could be--God are partly those who create--which implies God exist, because creativity exists. A discussion can then go on. What is meant by "creativity" and "create", i.e.? The point is, when existence of God is discussed with a cosmologist who 'believes' in God, the discussion will end in a metaphorical explanation, which does not have clear meaning. An ontological explanation could however lead to more meaning and comprehension.

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.