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).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 50 by ElCodeMonkey]

That sounds amazing. Please link it

His character is a recurring character throughout most (if not all) of his videos but the storyline in question is this series of videos

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

I haven't watched all of these myself, but these are all in the same series.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 42 by RedEye]

I am not saying we are a simulation that "God" created. I'm saying that God's relation to us can be similar to us creating a simulation. It's just a method of understanding what makes little sense from a "God is not bound by our universe" concept. That is all it was intended to be (in this thread).

Just because Minecraft makes energy come from thin air does not mean it could not have been programmed a different way. I can easily program a closed system myself. Adding real AI would be difficult, but in a few years even that might not be far off. There is nothing about this universe we live in that could not be simulated with enough programming prowess. We could probably do it now but it would be so slow that a second to the simulation might be years to us. Not quite worth it, but we could still program it. Once we have better hardware abilities, even that becomes a moot point.

As for time in a computer, I am a computer scientist and game developer so I'm fairly familiar with what I'm trying to explain. Games have "Frames" that are determined for each "thing" that happens. Each object loops through its code once for each frame and determines all the reactions of all things around it. Depending on the complexity of the frame to calculate, it sometimes takes more clock cycles than other frames. But if my ability to think is frame-dependent, then each frame, from my perspective is some constant speed of time even if it took longer for me to get that frame of data. I'm not sure how better to explain it than that without a huge lesson in programming and computer architecture.

You're talking to another computing science graduate here, so we are not in dispute about the fundamentals of how computers operate. I see nothing in the above which refutes my argument that the time within a simulation is inextricably linked to the processing speed of the computer hardware running it. As to you being able to program a truly closed system, I would love to see it. I suspect you haven't thought it through deeply enough. Let's agree to differ.

[RedEye]

So clocks measure nothing at all?

Clocks just count things, for example how many times Cesium atom energy level changes.

You are describing an atomic clock which is just one device for measuring time. There are other clocks which don't count things, eg. a spring-loaded watch. A day is a measure of how long it takes for the Earth to completely revolve once on its axis. Are you suggesting that a day measure is not measuring anything at all? Are you suggesting that a year measure is not measuring anything either?

Now, if it would happen that the energy level wouldn’t anymore change, time would stop and you could do things really fast, because time has stopped. 😃

What? If time stopped you couldn't do anything because there is no before and after an action. You seem very, very confused.

Regardless, thank you for admitting that time exists after all. You can't have time stopping if it doesn't exist, right?

Times is very subjective and relative matter. It seems to exist only in person’s mind.

Not true. Time existed long before humans came along.

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

I don’t see any reason to believe that.

You're denying logic?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 52 by RedEye]

I can make a closed system in a matter of seconds. Every program starts as a closed system. I could then add a ball that doesn't move anywhere and it would still be a closed system. I could make the ball move and as long as it never changes direction or stops moving, it is still a closed system. Our universe is simply a bit more complex (to grossly understate it), but it's not impossible.

While processing power is a factor of how fast the computer can simulate a frame, if we can only think from frame to frame and we perceive our time as a matter of frames (there is indeed a limit to how fast we can perceive things and that would be our "framerate") then it wouldn't matter if an entire year passed to calculate that frame, we'd only think it was one frames-worth of time.

But if that doesn't make it any more clear, then perhaps we should simply leave it at the fact that we differ.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 52 by RedEye]
I can make a closed system in a matter of seconds. Every program starts as a closed system.

Nah. Take the ubiquitous "Hello world" program. It prints out the message on a screen or on a printer. Neither the screen or the printer is part of the program code itself. I'm not sure that we are aligned on what a "closed system" means.

I could then add a ball that doesn't move anywhere and it would still be a closed system. I could make the ball move and as long as it never changes direction or stops moving, it is still a closed system. Our universe is simply a bit more complex (to grossly understate it), but it's not impossible.

See above. Move up the ball up and down on what? Where is is the energy for producing the photons which make up the image of the ball coming from? You are looking at things far too simplistically.

While processing power is a factor of how fast the computer can simulate a frame, if we can only think from frame to frame and we perceive our time as a matter of frames (there is indeed a limit to how fast we can perceive things and that would be our "framerate") then it wouldn't matter if an entire year passed to calculate that frame, we'd only think it was one frames-worth of time.

Simple question. If you wrote a program which simulated Conway's Game of Life and ran it on a 1990 CPU compared to a 2018 CPU which version would iterate faster? It doesn't matter what ratio of dependence we are talking about. The point is that there is a dependence between the time within the simulation and the timing of the external hardware.

But if that doesn't make it any more clear, then perhaps we should simply leave it at the fact that we differ.

Well, I don't think I have anything more to add.

[1213]

What? If time stopped you couldn't do anything because there is no before and after an action. You seem very, very confused.

Regardless, thank you for admitting that time exists after all. You can't have time stopping if it doesn't exist, right?

You don’t seem to understand. In modern time one second is defined by atomic clock. And one second is the basic measure of “time�. Now, if the thing that determines the “time�, stops, then “time� stops also. But now you could say, it is really something else that defines the “time�. But also, it can stop. You can’t show absolute “time�, only some things that are used as “time�. It is really subjective view only and because of that, I think time doesn’t really exist. But it is possible that atoms exist and it is possible that the energy levels of atoms change.

Interesting thing is also, I have been in situation when it felt like “time stopped�. In that situation, I saw my whole life in few “seconds�. It is interesting how it is possible see long “time� in a short moment.

[William]

[Replying to post 47 by ElCodeMonkey]

Sounds logically laid out. Where things get confusing is when discussing consciousness. We can't properly define what it is so it makes it difficult to discuss.

In relation to the simulated universe theory, we can at least discuss consciousness related to that.

Simply put, consciousness is that which defines everything else, but is not necessarily a 'thing' itself, in terms of things being made of stuff/matter.

But yes indeed, it is a complex subject to discuss, which stands to reason since the universe itself is complex.

For all we know, there is indeed a consciousness that is derived from all the communicating minds of humans as if they were each a neuron in a brain. Neurons simply send communications to one another and magically we have consciousness.

If we exclude magical thinking, we can move away from this type of interpretation as to 'where consciousness derives (as in 'the brain') and think of consciousness as something which utilizes the brain rather than something which is magically created by processes of the brain.

The way I do this is to simply assume that consciousness existed before things and has always existed and was never created and is the reason why things exist.

This is the same as saying "GOD" (as generically understood) has to be that consciousness.

Do the neurons know they are making a consciousness?

Why assume that they are making consciousness when it could as easily be that consciousness created brains and is using neurons as a means of experiencing the simulation through biological forms?

Well, only if they are conscious themselves could they know, but I doubt they could know any more than we could know if we've made a larger consciousness.

This tends towards separating consciousness into 'types' and reminds me of how some argue that OOBE-type experiences are 'creations of the brain' as if the brain has created at least two consciousnesses - one which is that which we self identify with and the other which is able to create these 'hallucinations' independent from the knowledge of our dominant consciousness to which we self identify with being.

I tend to work it out from the other direction. One consciousness entered the quantum potential field which is the basis for our particular universe, and this created the Big Bang. Call that 'the Universal Entity Consciousness [UEC] This consciousness then created events which enabled it to diversify into the forms those events created. In effect then, it is 'the larger consciousness' which created the means in which to divest aspects of itself into individuate forms.

I also think that the earth is one such form in which an aspect of the UEC entered into, for that experience and the pattern of diversifying continued through the biological forms which were then created through that process.

As individual human beings we can get a gist of this - how the Earth Entity [EE] might experience Its Self as - in wholeness - a planet, and in diversity as the individuate lifeforms upon the planet.

In that, every living thing currently experiencing being conscious as an individual is an aspect of the overall conscious experience of the Earth Entity as it experiences Its Self.

And in that, the simulation experience of the consciousness of the EE, is different from our own, and consists of all of our own experiences simultaneously.
We of course can only get a vague gist of how that must be for the EE. It would be 'GOD-like' in our own estimate, but still only minor compared with the overall experience the UEC would be having, even without assuming there are billions of Earth-like planets evolving at one stage or another throughout the universe simulation.

Where it gets confusing though, is that consciousness appears to be the "something greater" than the "sum" of what makes it up.

Unless all consciousness is essentially sourced from itself and only appears to behave differently etc, because of the diverse matter of forms in which it can experience through.

At our level of experience as human beings, we are effective information gatherers, essentially gathering a portion of the sum total of the planet consciousnesses experience, which is not only fed through the various levels of experience back to the UEC, but this information is also re-channeled/looped back to us as an expression of insight, intuition, ideas, creative thinking etc et al.

I'm not sure I could agree that a consciousness existed before "stuff" existed.

In a closed universe system, this could be the case, but that in itself means one would have to conclude that such a system has always been eternal, and also we would have to reach the logical conclusion that the two are aspects of each other rather than one created the other. In essence, this is no different from the idea of multi universes anyway. For me the idea of there existing any universe in which consciousness does not exist, is equal to that of such universes not existing either, on the grounds that it is consciousness itself which acknowledges anything at all as 'existing'. So without consciousness, that which 'might' exist, cannot be actually said to exist. It takes consciousness to make such a call.

And for the "stuff" to make consciousness, I feel as if that would take time. So I can be fine with the universe itself simply "being" but not necessarily a consciousness simply being. The consciousness would have to come later. And even if it does come later, it would likely have no more control over the smaller parts than we do of each and every neuron and cell of our bodies. So I can't imagine it would be "God" as a creator. From where would a consciousness be derived without anything to comprise it?

As far as 'control' is concerned, this simulation may be for the express purpose of exhibiting an apparent chaos from certain conscious perspectives (like our own) whilst simultaneously exhibiting order and purpose from other conscious perspectives, such as the EE's (specific to Its position) and the UE's (also specific to Its position), and there is absolutely no reason why we - from our specific position - cannot adopt the same view - that so-called 'chaos' is simply an illusion we are able to perceive in relation to our particular position within it all, but it is not really how the universe is actually unfolding.

The whole environment is controlled, but even in that there is a great deal of leeway. Mostly the leeway is the result of the perception that everything is chaotic and disorderly, and we are relatively free agents within this. Those who think in such a manner also contribute to the perceived chaos through their behavior, because their behavior is based upon those mis-conceptualized perceptions...but ultimately our behavior is not something the universe depends upon, as it were. The planet itself is a fine tuned intelligent organism which for some reason we humans generally see as a mindless thing which happens to process mindful things, and we have difficulty in thinking of it in terms of mindfulness without also then attributing evil to It... which places us out of sync and thus at odds with our own local parent - the Mother Earth.

[RedEye]

What? If time stopped you couldn't do anything because there is no before and after an action. You seem very, very confused.

Regardless, thank you for admitting that time exists after all. You can't have time stopping if it doesn't exist, right?

You don’t seem to understand. In modern time one second is defined by atomic clock.

For accuracy, yes. However a second was defined long before atomic clocks. In essence it is 1/(24*60*60) part of a day (where a day is the time it takes for one revolution of the Earth). You don't seem to understand that clocks have been around for thousands of years.

And one second is the basic measure of “time�.

Rubbish. Firstly, it is no more basic than a minute or an hour. Secondly, it is a completely arbitrary unit. If we had evolved on Mars the duration of a second would be different.

Now, if the thing that determines the “time�, stops, then “time� stops also.

What? So when my electric clock stops during a power failure, all time has stopped in the universe?

But now you could say, it is really something else that defines the “time�. But also, it can stop. You can’t show absolute “time�, only some things that are used as “time�. It is really subjective view only and because of that, I think time doesn’t really exist. But it is possible that atoms exist and it is possible that the energy levels of atoms change.

This is such a confused mess that I don't know where to start. Where you get that time is "subjective" I don't know. I think you mean that time is relative. They're not the same thing. Yes, humans can experience time as going fast or slow depending on their situation (and age). However, objectively (according to a clock) time passes at the exactly the same rate for two people at the same location. Time is very real and no, it never stops in our experience. Perhaps inside a black hole it does, but who knows?

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

How about...

P1) Something can only be created if time exists.
P2) Time cannot exist if the universe does not exist.
C1) Something can only be created if the universe exists.

P3) Something can only be created if the universe exists. (C1)
P4) If God exists, he can create something even if the universe does not exist.
C2) God does not exist.

Interesting argument! The logic looks pretty good anyway. Premise 4 seems uncontroversial enough, and P3 (C1) follows clearly enough from P1 and P2.

P1 and P2, however, appear mutually dependent (which does not make them mutually true): the universe can only exist if time exists, and time can only exist if the universe exists. But a universe that bundles classical notions of time and space does not logically preclude a meta-dimension (like eternity, or even a "quantum vacuum") in which creation of both time and space could still occur.

Something can only be created in time if time already exists, yes, but like many philosophers and physicists I see no reason why time itself (as we understand and experience it) could not be created along with the rest of the universe, and many reasons to think the universe was in fact created. I would therefore suggest the following to be a better argument:

P1) The universe is a physical object.
P2) Physical objects do not exist forever (assumption).
P3) The universe has not existed forever (from P1 & P2).
P4) Any object that has not existed forever came into existence at some point.
P5) The universe came into existence at some point (from P3 & P4).
P6) Any object that came into existence at some point either brought itself into existence or was created by an external agent.
P7) The universe did not bring itself into existence (given).
C) The universe was created by an external agent (from P6 & P7).

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]
How about...

P1) Something can only be created if time exists.
P2) Time cannot exist if the universe does not exist.
C1) Something can only be created if the universe exists.

P3) Something can only be created if the universe exists. (C1)
P4) If God exists, he can create something even if the universe does not exist.
C2) God does not exist.

Interesting argument! The logic looks pretty good anyway. Premise 4 seems uncontroversial enough, and P3 (C1) follows clearly enough from P1 and P2.

P1 and P2, however, appear mutually dependent (which does not make them mutually true): the universe can only exist if time exists, and time can only exist if the universe exists. But a universe that bundles classical notions of time and space does not logically preclude a meta-dimension (like eternity, or even a "quantum vacuum") in which creation of both time and space could still occur.

Something can only be created in time if time already exists, yes, but like many philosophers and physicists I see no reason why time itself (as we understand and experience it) could not be created along with the rest of the universe, and many reasons to think the universe was in fact created.

Then you would have to explain how that kind of imagined creation is possible without time. As I stated in my support for the 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.

I would therefore suggest the following to be a better argument:

P1) The universe is a physical object.
P2) Physical objects do not exist forever (assumption).
P3) The universe has not existed forever (from P1 & P2).
P4) Any object that has not existed forever came into existence at some point.
P5) The universe came into existence at some point (from P3 & P4).
P6) Any object that came into existence at some point either brought itself into existence or was created by an external agent.
P7) The universe did not bring itself into existence (given).
C) The universe was created by an external agent (from P6 & P7).

Let's just say that I'll leave it to you to defend it. I'm sorry but I still prefer my proof.