Another Proof That God Does Not Exist

[RedEye]

Definitions:
God - the creator of the universe.

Syllogisms:
P1: Something can only be created if time exists.
P2: Time is a fundamental part of the universe.
C1: The universe cannot have been created.

P3: It is not possible for the universe to have a creator (from C1).
P4: God is only necessary as an explanation for the origin of the universe.
C2: God, as defined, does not exist.

Support for Premises:
P1 - For something to have been created there must be a moment in time where it did not exist and then a moment in time in which it did. Creation is a temporal (time-related) concept. The word "created" is incoherent without time.
P2 - We know from the work of Albert Einstein and the physics of the 20th and 21st centuries that we live in a universe whose fabric consists of space-time. The only time we know is part of our universe and again, it is incoherent to talk about the passage of time without the universe already existing.
P3 - Follows from conclusion C1.
P4 - Follows from the definition of God.

Can anyone fault this logical proof? Which premises (if any) are wrong?

Note: To refute this proof you must show that either it is not valid (the conclusions do not follow from the premises) or that it is not sound (there is a problem with one or more premises). For the latter, please nominate a premise and then carefully explain why we cannot accept it. Only by invalidating a premise can you invalidate the argument as a whole. (Unless you can show that one of the syllogisms has a conclusion which does not follow from its premises).

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 28 by Clownboat]

I don't see any reason to believe that the physical universe is in fact not physical, but just a simulation. You analogy only applies of course if the universe is in fact a simulation. Any reason to suggest it is?

There are some well known scientists who at least are happy to say that it just may be the case, and one does not have to venture too far on google to find these ones.

The question becomes 'if it is, then how do we go about proving that?' What science has so far uncovered, generally makes a good case for the likelihood of the universe being a type of simulation.

Of course, the whole idea is an intriguing subject. When it gets down to it, one cannot argue that 'the universe isn't really physical' in relation to the simulation argument, because - as a simulation - experiencing physical stuff to the degree that we can and do, would obviously be the major reason for the simulation and our experience of it, existing.

Certainly we can understand the idea of being within a simulation designed to keep us from easily figuring that out.

The universe being physical is just one of those assumptions I personally am willing to make. Similar to how I assume I am an actual thinking being and not some simulation myself. I assume you do as well about our universe, but if you don't, please provide your best evidence for why we should consider it to be a simulation.

Hopefully you will offer more than, "so ElCodeMonkey's analogy can be accepted".

(Again, I understand the analogy he is offering, I just find it to not reflect that actual universe we live in).

Thanks,

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 28 by Clownboat]

The analogy doesn't only apply if we're in a simulation. The point is to explain that God is outside our existence and understanding in much the same way.

I understand a programmer being outside of a program.
I don't understand how a being can be outside of a physical universe. Please describe outside our physical universe. Again, if our universe is a simulation, then I understand being outside of it.

It sounds like you are inventing 'god time' in order for your analogy to hold. What is 'god time' and how is it different than time in our physical universe?

I get the analogy. It is the assumptions that must come with it that give me pause.

Time as we know it is a part of our existence but not God's. Time from a computer perspective, would be entirely different from time in our own perspective. It didn't have time or any running algorithm or physics until you powered it up. Maybe our universe didn't have time until it was powered at the bang.

What time did this being exist in before it created this universe? God time? A coder and the code they write all exist in the same time. They could write a code where 30 seconds is a minute, but the coder and said code all came from the same 'time'. This does not seem to hold true in your analogy where the god is writing the universe while outside of the universe.

Perhaps I'm just missing something?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 32 by Clownboat]

I don't really understand the hangup. We are just characters in this universe and God is outside of it. We cannot come outside or visualize the outside any more than Super Mario can imagine our world. And while he can devise time by the frequencies of the crystal which draws his frames, and while that time is indeed created within our own time, it is still a time which had a beginning within our time just like our time might have a beginning within God's time.

[1213]

...Can anyone fault this logical proof? Which premises (if any) are wrong?
....

Is there any proof that time exists? I think we don’t have time, just chain of changes that some call time.

By what the Bible tells, in God’s realm there is no change, and so no time.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation [change], nor turning shadow.
James 1:17

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 32 by Clownboat]

I don't really understand the hangup. We are just characters in this universe and God is outside of it. We cannot come outside or visualize the outside any more than Super Mario can imagine our world. And while he can devise time by the frequencies of the crystal which draws his frames, and while that time is indeed created within our own time, it is still a time which had a beginning within our time just like our time might have a beginning within God's time.

As I have said at least twice now, I get the analogy, I just find it wanting and all of the made up assumptions in order for your analogy to apply, give me pause.
That is the hangup.

For example...
Can you supply an example of this 'god time' that must exist for your analogy to apply? I ask, because I am only aware of one time and it seems to be universal.
Can you show me anything that is outside of this universe? I ask because everything that we know to exist so far, exists within this universe.

Your lack of being able to do either of these things does not make the analogy not apply I admit, but it should sure give you pause that there is no evidence for the assumptions needed in order for your analogy to even be possible.

Now, if the universe was indeed a simulation, I would not have cause for this pause. I am not aware of any evidence that we are in a simulation though and I personally am content in believing that my universe is physical. Should I amend this belief in your opinion?

I could make an analogy that the universe is like how a sodium molecule doesn't realize that it is in the Atlantic ocean. Our universe is just a part of a god like sodium to the ocean. My analogy may apply, but I'm sure it would give you pause due to the assumptions I invented in order to make it.

[ElCodeMonkey]

As I have said at least twice now, I get the analogy, I just find it wanting and all of the made up assumptions in order for your analogy to apply, give me pause.
That is the hangup.

For example...
Can you supply an example of this 'god time' that must exist for your analogy to apply? I ask, because I am only aware of one time and it seems to be universal.
Can you show me anything that is outside of this universe? I ask because everything that we know to exist so far, exists within this universe.

This is where you confuse me. You say you understand the analogy but then ask questions which indicate you do not. The very analogy explains why I cannot show you an example of this "God time" except for in the form of the analogy. I obviously cannot show you this time any more than Mario can show you ours. I cannot show you anything outside our universe any more than Mario can show the Nintendo. So if you understand the analogy, I do not understand why you are asking for these. Just because I cannot show you them, being the Marios of our universe, doesn't mean we are not the Marios of our universe.

Your lack of being able to do either of these things does not make the analogy not apply I admit, but it should sure give you pause that there is no evidence for the assumptions needed in order for your analogy to even be possible.

This is also confusing because you state that you understand it does not disprove my analogy as possible but then explicitly state that evidence is needed for it to be possible. The analogy does not need evidence for it to be possible. Mario does not need evidence he is in a game in order for it to be true. I think you are confusing "is it possible" with "should I believe it." I have given no reason that you should believe it, just that it is a possibility in order to explain other things.

Now, if the universe was indeed a simulation, I would not have cause for this pause. I am not aware of any evidence that we are in a simulation though and I personally am content in believing that my universe is physical. Should I amend this belief in your opinion?

We could very well be in a simulation without evidence and you would thus still have cause for pause as you obviously do right now. You do not know that we are not in a simulation. Should you amend your belief? I don't see why you should from what has been presented thus far. But if you want to discuss that further, it would be better in the other thread specifically about whether or not we are in a simulation here.

[ElCodeMonkey]

...Can anyone fault this logical proof? Which premises (if any) are wrong?
....

Is there any proof that time exists? I think we don’t have time, just chain of changes that some call time.

By what the Bible tells, in God’s realm there is no change, and so no time.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation [change], nor turning shadow.
James 1:17

That's slightly cheap like saying bananas don't exist--just things we call bananas. We certainly have something we call time and it is certainly measurable and has effects when other things apply to it. It exists in the method by which we define it to exist. I'm not sure what else you could be trying to say. A chain of changes where one precedes or succeeds another is indeed called time and is this time that we call time.

[RedEye]

My understanding however was that you claim to have proven that God does not exist and asked if there was any problem with any of the premises upon which your argumentation was based, I responded yes, and pointed out that existence cannot be dependent on what one has created.

And I think I have conveyed that I agree but {snip} ....

Emphasis MINE

Well if you agree that existence is not dependent on what one has created, then effectively someone can exist without creating anything. Thus, proving that God is not the creator of the universe (which is what your hypothesis presumably set out to do) would not, even if it were successful, prove God does not exist (which is what the heading of this thread claimed to be presenting).

I'm not sure where your confusion lies. My proof only set out to disprove the God who is the creator of the universe (allegedly). You know, the God you believe in. You are not disputing that I have done that. All the rest is irrelevant posturing on your part. I'm not interested in a God who is not the creator of the universe because that is not the God who Christians (like yourself) worship.

....red herrings to divert from the actual topic of the thread.

I do believe "The topic at hand was a hypothesis as to whether God exists. But you defined God as creator which is a designation that is, logically, entirely separate from his existence. Since you asked in the OP...

Can anyone fault this logical proof? Which premises (if any) are wrong?

I do believe my response is entirely in line with the stated topic of the thread.

No, it isn't. If you don't accept the definition of the God I am attempting to disprove then the proof is not relevant to you. A stated definition is not a premise which you can refute. The reality is that you do accept that definition of God (even though you refuse to answer my question about it). Therefore it seems that your only purpose is to throw in a red herring for me to chase down, one that is irrelevant to the OP topic.

Anyway, If you "agree" with the weakness of the premise (namely that disproving the existence of a "creator" would not disprove the existence of a god), then my work here is done.

*sigh* A starting definition of the thing you are trying to disprove is not a premise. Your work here is not done because we both know that you really do believe that God created our universe. You seek to run away from this admission but we also both know that this is no more than a transparent attempt to escape the logic of the proof.

[RedEye]

...Can anyone fault this logical proof? Which premises (if any) are wrong?
....

Is there any proof that time exists? I think we don’t have time, just chain of changes that some call time.

So clocks measure nothing at all?

By what the Bible tells, in God’s realm there is no change, and so no time.

So stasis and God cannot act. You can't create anything if there is no time. That refutes a universe creating God.

[RedEye]

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the physical universe to a program running on a computer though?
I get your analogy, but am not seeing much for actual comparisons between the universe and a program running on a computer.

I don't think so. It's one example of how God could exist despite the arguments being posted. God could be some random guy who created a simulation that we now live in. I started another thread elsewhere for that discussion. It can't be proven any more false than a God's existence. Not sure why people keep trying to prove a generic God being as false. Can't be done. We can have inadequate evidence to believe, but that's entirely subjective to the person believing. What's enough for me might not be enough for you. I personally think it's far more likely we're in a Simulation .

There are all kinds of problems with the computer simulation analogy.

Firstly, the universe is a closed system. A computer simulation cannot be closed, by definition, since it relies on the underlying computer hardware and software which is not part of what is being simulated.

Secondly, it leads to infinite regression. Even if we accepted that what we perceive as reality is some kind of simulation, the suggested solution does not solve the problem of existence. You would still need to explain the programmer and the computer system the simulation is running on. Are they a simulation too? It's a case of turtles all the way down. Nothing has been achieved.

Thirdly, you relegate God to being no more than an advanced alien in some other universe. He could be a teenager performing a computer experiment. I'm not sure that theists would be comfortable with calling such a being God.

Lastly, you ignore the problem of time. Time is a fundamental part of the universe we find ourselves in. If you are trying to assert that our time is completely independent of the time of the simulator world (the clock the computer is using to execute the instructions of the program), then it creates a dilemma. From the perspective of the programmer, all of the time of the simulation (our universe) would pass and the programmer would be none the wiser. He would see absolutely nothing happening from his own frame of reference. Obviously that contradicts the very idea of the universe being a simulation. You can only overcome this by having our universe time being dependent on the clock of the computer running the simulation. That won't work either since then time would not be a fundamental aspect of the universe as we know it is. Catch-22.