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).

[Don McIntosh]

In the meantime my actual argument has still not been directly challenged, let alone refuted. Maybe someone else would like to discuss:

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).

Can I suggest that you start your own topic instead of co-opting mine?

Suggest all you like. But you don't own the threads you start, and you don't get to dictate what course a debate may take. As Socrates put it, "Whither the argument may blow, thither we go." I tried to bow out of this discussion gracefully, you may recall, but you would have none of it, and now you apparently want me to go back and excise parts of my content as well. To that I say simply: no.

I happen to think my argument is highly relevant as a counter to yours, because my argument takes as its first premise an important implication of your argument, viz, that if the universe was created at all it was created a physical object in a physical context. The universe would be no different in that respect from a bag of chips produced in a Frito-Lay plant. But as other posters here have already pointed out, if time is inextricable from matter and energy in the structure of the universe, then the creation of the universe need not take place under an existing backdrop of time.

That is why I appealed to an eternal dimension instead. I would agree that the universe cannot simply emerge from nothing whatsoever, but in principle an eternal dimension where God resides would not be nothing, and thus on theism the creation of time along with the rest of the universe is not necessarily incoherent.

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 63 by Don McIntosh]

But now it's your turn to break out of your bashfulness.

You're probably the only one here who thinks I'm bashful ...!

Check out any of the threads I've started.

Oh, I don't doubt that you are extremely bold and brash when it comes to carping on Christianity. Yet you seem cagey to the same extreme when it comes to describing your own position, whatever that position might actually be.

However:

A world view[1] or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

I don't fit into any such box/es.

Of course you don't, because then you would have to defend your own beliefs rather than simply attack mine. So...bashful you must remain.

[2ndRateMind]

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.

Hmmm. So the universe doesn't exist? I refute it thus: (kicks stone, as did Dr Samuel Johnson).

So, I have:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Time is a fundamental part of the universe.
C1: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RedEye]

Can I suggest that you start your own topic instead of co-opting mine?

Suggest all you like. But you don't own the threads you start, and you don't get to dictate what course a debate may take.

Well, I happen to think that it is an attempt to derail this thread where the topic was to find flaws in my logical argument. Instead you want to present your own argument and ask for people to find flaws in it. (I would be more than happy to do that in another thread). As far as I know you can't refute one logical argument by presenting another unrelated argument. You have to find fault with the premises of the argument presented. However, I will say no more. I notice that no-one is very interested in your "syllogism" anyway.

[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.

Hmmm. So the universe doesn't exist?

No. The universe cannot have been created. Do you believe that everything which exists must have been created? Does that include God?

I refute it thus: (kicks stone, as did Dr Samuel Johnson).

So, I have:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Time is a fundamental part of the universe.
C1: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

Firstly, you can't refute one syllogism by presenting another. Secondly, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It is not a valid syllogism. Not even close.

[RedEye]

That is why I appealed to an eternal dimension instead. I would agree that the universe cannot simply emerge from nothing whatsoever, but in principle an eternal dimension where God resides would not be nothing, and thus on theism the creation of time along with the rest of the universe is not necessarily incoherent.

You could appeal to the Tooth Fairy if you like. Appealing to one imaginary concept to help you justify another imaginary concept is yet another fallacy. This has all become very tedious though (continually pointing out the fallacies you love to engage in). What you don't seem to understand is that you must find a flaw in one of the premises of my argument. I am still waiting for that to happen. I suspect I will be waiting a while longer ...

[FarWanderer]

[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.

Hi, Don.

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.

No, the argument does not claim or imply the former, unless you are assuming the universe was created.

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. 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).

I have a problem with the use of the term “external agent�. Something external, yes, but we don’t know if that something would have to be a agent. And P6 is demonstrably false for anything created by natural processes, unless natural processes constitute a thing “bringing itself into existence� by your definition. But if you do define it that way then P7 is not a given at all.

My main problem is with P1 though. The universe may be physical, but it is not an “object�. It is a field or venue in which objects exist and change.

It occurs to me that even in Christianity, the potential for non-God entities is a necessary existence distinct from God. The universe we know is simply the form that potential is taking. I guess what I am saying is that in my argument, P4 is the weak premise.

Put another way, a potential for change must necessarily precede change itself, and that potential for change is what we call “time�. It exists whether any supposed God likes it or not.

[2ndRateMind]

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.

No. The universe cannot have been created.

Why not? ie, why is your premise P1 necessarily true?

Do you believe that everything which exists must have been created? Does that include God?

Hmmm. There is a long standing metaphysical tradition that God is eternal, and always existed, exists now, and always will exist. Maybe that is because God is said to exist outside of time, as well as within it. (ie, God is both transcendent and immanent). There is no such tradition that the universe has always existed, and always will, and still exists when time does not.

Indeed, take Einstein's famous equation E=MC^2 relating space, time, energy and matter. Then rearrange it slightly for ease of expression to E/C^2 = M, or, applying a little dimensional analysis, Energy times (Time divided by Distance) squared = Mass, and set Time to zero, then it becomes obvious that Energy and Mass are zero also, and space is irrelevant.

That's all a technical way of saying that without time, the material universe cannot be. But that does not imply it was not created, along with it's component, time.

I refute it thus: (kicks stone, as did Dr Samuel Johnson).

So, I have:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Time is a fundamental part of the universe.
C1: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

Firstly, you can't refute one syllogism by presenting another. Secondly, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It is not a valid syllogism. Not even close.

Who says I need to refute anything? I am simply presenting an alternative point of view. To my way of thinking, the syllogism I offered is valid (the conclusion is true if the premises are true) and sound (the premises are true and the argument is valid) and therefore the conclusion is true.

You are welcome to state why you think the conclusion does not follow from the premises, and that might enable us to progress the discussion, further. But until you specify your objection, we cannot do that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Don McIntosh]

Can I suggest that you start your own topic instead of co-opting mine?

Suggest all you like. But you don't own the threads you start, and you don't get to dictate what course a debate may take.

Well, I happen to think that it is an attempt to derail this thread where the topic was to find flaws in my logical argument. Instead you want to present your own argument and ask for people to find flaws in it. (I would be more than happy to do that in another thread). As far as I know you can't refute one logical argument by presenting another unrelated argument. You have to find fault with the premises of the argument presented. However, I will say no more. I notice that no-one is very interested in your "syllogism" anyway.

You're right that the two arguments need to be related. But otherwise initial arguments are refuted and rebutted by counter-arguments all the time. If my argument is demonstrably sound and my conclusion contradicts yours (indicating a logical relation of mutual exclusivity) then my rebuttal succeeds even if I haven't identified where precisely the flaw/s is/are in your own argument. So, if you present an argument purporting to prove that the universe could not have been created, I believe I am perfectly within my rights as a debater here to counter with an argument purporting to prove that the universe was created after all.

Besides, I would much rather discover what the actual answer is than simply show that your answer is wrong. But again, you and I simply have very different perspectives on this. To me it's a much more fruitful exercise to construct alternatives and see where it all leads.

[Don McIntosh]

That is why I appealed to an eternal dimension instead. I would agree that the universe cannot simply emerge from nothing whatsoever, but in principle an eternal dimension where God resides would not be nothing, and thus on theism the creation of time along with the rest of the universe is not necessarily incoherent.

You could appeal to the Tooth Fairy if you like. Appealing to one imaginary concept to help you justify another imaginary concept is yet another fallacy. This has all become very tedious though (continually pointing out the fallacies you love to engage in). What you don't seem to understand is that you must find a flaw in one of the premises of my argument. I am still waiting for that to happen. I suspect I will be waiting a while longer ...

Do you understand what the words "in principle" mean? The point here, for the third(?) time, is not to prove that God exists, but to show that the concept of God (as creator) has not been rendered incoherent by your argument. I trust you can recognize the difference.

Your argument was essentially that theism is incoherent because the creation of time has to presuppose a time at which it took place. But central to traditional theism is that God dwells in eternity (beyond or outside time), an ever-existing dimension or set of dimensions from which he could, conceivably, create a temporal world. So it's not like I had to made up this new concept (eternity) in a desperate move to rescue theism from incoherence. Now if your whole point is that theism is imaginary (maybe because God is not empirically verifiable, or whatever), why bother with all the chaff about incoherence?

(By the way, your gross mischaracterization of my own argument amounts to a straw man, i.e. a fallacy. See, I can also play "spot the fallacy"!)