I think the problem is that it's so easy for believers to claim that god's existence is outside the 'realm of logic', not because of the mere fact that it is supernatural, but because it is arguably a metaphysical question. Of course, that argument does not hold for the purpose of establishing god's existence within the realm of logic.KFunk said:What about cases of logical impossibility, e.g. a cyclops which has only one leg and which has only two legs. I reckon any conception of god which requires god to be both 'X' and 'not-X' (where X is some precise description) can be logically excluded without much trouble. I do, however, agree that the burden of proof lies with those who wish to argue that god exists (I have explained before that this needs to be the case, otherwise we are lead to accepting the existence of all beings whose existence cannot be disproved).
Last edited: