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]

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.

If I'm understanding you, I'd say you're right in that the meaning of the word itself is not immediately clear. I meant "agent" not as a medium or third party, but in the particular sense of "a person or thing that...produces a specified effect." Context makes that clear enough though, I think.

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.

I disagree. The first part of P6 is demonstrably false yes, but the very point of the disjunct is to emphasize the truth of the second part by contrast. Unless you want to argue that nothing whatsoever possibly can be or has been created, P6 is not demonstrably false. And if all things that have come into existence have been created (or "caused," if we extend the concept a bit) by something else, as experience would suggest, P6 is true.

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.

Okay, very good. I agree that there's something "special" about the universe. It's clearly not your typical run-of-the-mill physical object. Rather it contains all other physical objects, with time evidently thrown in as a bonus. So it doesn't appear to be something that has come into existence against a temporal setting. But that nonetheless appears to be how it's treated in the OP, which is one of a few reasons I personally think the argument in the OP fails.

The point of my argument to the contrary is to show that even on the premise that the universe is a physical object in a temporal setting there are still good reasons to think it was created.

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.

As a believer I'm naturally skeptical of this. But if true, would the reverse hold, that even on naturalism/physicalism, the potential for non-universe entities is a necessary existence distinct from the universe? If not, why not? If so, I would think that atheists would have to reevaluate what it means for something to be an "extraordinary claim" and what would constitute viable evidence for it. Doubtless their evidential bar for confirming a miracle would have to be lowered from its currently insurmountable height.

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.

I'm not a philosopher of time, but wouldn't time be expressed through change itself rather than its potential? In any case it doesn't seem to me that any potential must (necessarily) be actualized. I may have the potential to come off the bench and score 16 points in the fourth quarter to win the big game, but if the coach doesn't give me the opportunity it won't happen.

Aquinas argued that God alone is pure act ("actus purus") rather than potential, and therefore all potential derives from him. Given that time itself is a property of the physical universe (a universe marked, despite its vastness, by finitude, entropy and other limitations), the eternal God remains a strong candidate for what best explains the existence of a universe with potential for change.

[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.

No. The universe cannot have been created.

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

See the OP under "Support for Premises". I shouldn't have to repeat myself because you can't keep track of an argument.

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.

In other words theists dreamed it up from nowhere. So what? The issue is that you believe it. Therefore you have no problem in principle with something existing which has not been created. Why then do you insist that the universe must have been created? You can't have a rule (that everything which exists must have been created) and then break that rule on an ad hoc basis as it suits you. That would be a double standard, right?

There is no such tradition that the universe has always existed, and always will, and still exists when time does not.

Who cares about "tradition"? Since when do we get truth from tradition? Traditionally diseases were thought to be caused by the presence in the air of a miasma, a poisonous vapour in which were suspended particles of decaying matter that was characterised by its foul smell. It was called miasma theory and it persisted for centuries in the Middle Ages. Germ Theory came along and proved it wrong. Tradition means nothing. I'm making the case that the universe has existed for all of time since time is part of the universe. I'm not relying on tradition but on logic. Prove me wrong.

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.

A word of advice. Don't pontificate on things which you don't understand. All you do is display your ignorance. Einstein's equation on mass-energy equivalence has absolutely nothing to do with space-time. (Putting Time = 0 in any equation where Time is a divisor produces an undefined result. It does not lead to your imagined conclusion).

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.

Then please explain to us how you go about creating something without time. Go ahead. First the thing you want to create doesn't exist and then it does. The thing cannot both not exist and exist simultaneously. Something must separate those two states (non-existence versus existence). The only thing we know which serves as such a separation is time. Do you know something which scientists don't?

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?

You did when you stated "I refute it thus:".

That is what the OP is all about, after all. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the purpose of this thread.

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.

I'm afraid not. I further suggest that you learn how to create a valid syllogism. The conclusion should follow automatically from the premises:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Your "syllogism" is an abomination where you introduce entirely new ideas into the conclusion ("it must be possible", "to create something", "outside of time"). I find it absurd that you could possibly think that your syllogism is valid. You assume that the universe (with time) has been created and yet this premise is nowhere to be found. As I said, not even close.

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.

See above. That I would need to explain to you what anyone at all schooled in logic would find so hilariously wrong tells us something. I'll let you decide what that something is.

[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 ...

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.

I understand perfectly well what in principle means but where have you established this principle? All you are doing is asserting it. You continue to claim that you are "showing" something but you are showing nothing at all. All you do is appeal to further imaginary concepts. I trust you can recognize the difference between facts and imaginary concepts?

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.

*sigh* And yet more appeals to imaginary concepts:
eternity - imaginary
beyond or outside time - imaginary
ever-existing dimension - imaginary

See my previous answer on why such appeals constitute a fallacy.

So it's not like I had to made up this new concept (eternity) in a desperate move to rescue theism from incoherence.

You personally didn't make it up but theists in general most certainly did. Who actually made it up is irrelevant. The fact is that it is made up.

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?

Chaff? A logical argument which you can't seem to refute is chaff? I'm bothering because I have presented a proof for what I believe to be true, ie. that God does not exist. That is the whole point of this thread.

[FarWanderer]

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.

If I'm understanding you, I'd say you're right in that the meaning of the word itself is not immediately clear. I meant "agent" not as a medium or third party, but in the particular sense of "a person or thing that...produces a specified effect." Context makes that clear enough though, I think.

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.

I disagree. The first part of P6 is demonstrably false yes, but the very point of the disjunct is to emphasize the truth of the second part by contrast. Unless you want to argue that nothing whatsoever possibly can be or has been created, P6 is not demonstrably false. And if all things that have come into existence have been created (or "caused," if we extend the concept a bit) by something else, as experience would suggest, P6 is true.

P6 and P7 are fine if by “agent� you don’t mean to imply agency. Accident or not, I will not tolerate any agency smuggling.

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.

Okay, very good. I agree that there's something "special" about the universe. It's clearly not your typical run-of-the-mill physical object. Rather it contains all other physical objects, with time evidently thrown in as a bonus. So it doesn't appear to be something that has come into existence against a temporal setting. But that nonetheless appears to be how it's treated in the OP, which is one of a few reasons I personally think the argument in the OP fails.

I don’t see where the OP suggests the universe is something that came into existence against a temporal setting. The way I see it, one would only derive that conclusion from the OP if they injected the presupposition that the universe did, in fact, come into existence.

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.

The point of my argument to the contrary is to show that even on the premise that the universe is a physical object in a temporal setting there are still good reasons to think it was created.

I would go so far as to replace “even� with “especially�. But like I said I don’t believe that’s what the OP meant to say.

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.

As a believer I'm naturally skeptical of this. But if true, would the reverse hold, that even on naturalism/physicalism, the potential for non-universe entities is a necessary existence distinct from the universe? If not, why not?

No. We only know the potential for non-God is real because we are non-God and we exist. But we are not non-universe, so we can’t be sure whether or not there exists potential for non-universe things.

Panentheism solves the problem though.

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.

I'm not a philosopher of time, but wouldn't time be expressed through change itself rather than its potential?

Yes. The potential for change (a.k.a. time) is expressed through change itself. How else might a potential for change be expressed?

In any case it doesn't seem to me that any potential must (necessarily) be actualized. I may have the potential to come off the bench and score 16 points in the fourth quarter to win the big game, but if the coach doesn't give me the opportunity it won't happen.

That particular outcome was never necessary, but an outcome was.

Aquinas argued that God alone is pure act ("actus purus") rather than potential, and therefore all potential derives from him.

“Therefore�? I don’t see how it follows.

Given that time itself is a property of the physical universe (a universe marked, despite its vastness, by finitude, entropy and other limitations), the eternal God remains a strong candidate for what best explains the existence of a universe with potential for change.

If the potential for change is a necessary existence, then there is no explanation.

[RedEye]

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).

P1 - Doubtful claim but I'll defer criticism since there are more serious problems with the other premises.

P2 - Is a proton a physical object? If so, there is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs. It might, but no-one knows for sure. How about a neutron star? I'm afraid that this premise cannot be accepted on face value.

Also, this claim cannot be accepted unless "forever" is defined. If "forever" is defined as "all of time" then the claim can be rejected if time is a fundamental property of the physical object in question. In that case the physical object can indeed exist for all of the time which the object inherently possesses (ie. forever).

P3 - This is actually a conclusion, not a premise. It should be labelled C1. It fails because P2 cannot be justified (and P1 is doubtful).

P4 - Okay.

P5 - This is also a conclusion rather than a premise and should be labelled C2. It fails because it relies on P3 (C1) which has failed.

P6 - True within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality.

P7 - Given?

C(3) - Fallacy of composition since we only know P6 to be true within the universe. You can't necessarily apply what is true of the parts (within the universe where time exists) to the whole (the universe itself outside of which time is not known to exist). Another obvious fallacy.

Okay. Are you satisfied that your syllogisms fail? Can we now return to finding fault with my syllogisms now that you have been shown how it is done?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 82 by RedEye]

No, I had spotted that. It just seems to me an unwarranted assumption, even if one derived out of 'common sense'.

Why should the universe, which necessarily includes time, have to be created within time? The whole idea is inconsistent. If time is necessary to the creation, and the creation necessarily involves time, you are left with an insoluble paradox. which precedes which? Time or the universe, or the universe or time?

Far more simple is the idea that the universe at time = 0 seconds, minutes, hours etc, came into existence by some motivation outside of time. Or you are still left with the problem: why should anything exist at all? And why, then?

Best wishes, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

Your "syllogism" is an abomination where you introduce entirely new ideas into the conclusion ("it must be possible", "to create something", "outside of time"). I find it absurd that you could possibly think that your syllogism is valid. You assume that the universe (with time) has been created and yet this premise is nowhere to be found. As I said, not even close...

See above. That I would need to explain to you what anyone at all schooled in logic would find so hilariously wrong tells us something. I'll let you decide what that something is.

Oh, what fun! An unrepentant sinner to redeem! Pass me the thumb-screws, someone...

So, your alternative explanation is that the universe, and it's necessary component time, has always, does now, and will always, exist? If so, why so? Modern physics, incidentally, thinks not, and has traced it's generation to within thousandths of a second after 'the Big Bang'.

If not, why does it now exist? By accident, maybe, at time T=0? It spontaneously generated itself, and its governing laws of logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology out of nothing? And you think that account of the universe might be more credible than a fairy story such as Little Red Riding Hood?

But I'm happy to amend my syllogism in order to clarify my unstated assumptions, as you expose them:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Things that exist are created or accidental.
C1: The universe, and its constituents mass, energy, time and space were created or accidental.
P3: The universe is too coherent, consistent and comprehensive to be accidental.
C2: The universe was created.
P4: The act of creation is always external to that creation.
C3: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Wootah]

Oh, what fun! An unrepentant sinner to redeem! Pass me the thumb-screws, someone...

Moderator Comment

Let's not call others unrepentant sinners nor threaten torture.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[2ndRateMind]

Oh, what fun! An unrepentant sinner to redeem! Pass me the thumb-screws, someone...

Moderator Comment

Let's not call others unrepentant sinners nor threaten torture.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

It was meant to be a laughable comment! I admit my sense of humour is a little, maybe even bone, dry, but the more literally you take it, the more adverse to my (Christian) perspective it must be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 82 by RedEye]
No, I had spotted that. It just seems to me an unwarranted assumption, even if one derived out of 'common sense'.

Why should the universe, which necessarily includes time, have to be created within time? The whole idea is inconsistent. If time is necessary to the creation, and the creation necessarily involves time, you are left with an insoluble paradox. which precedes which? Time or the universe, or the universe or time?

There is no paradox unless you insist that the universe was created. I don't of course.

Far more simple is the idea that the universe at time = 0 seconds, minutes, hours etc, came into existence by some motivation outside of time.

Appealing to the unknown cannot help you overcome a logical proof.

Or you are still left with the problem: why should anything exist at all? And why, then?

It's not a problem to me. The universe just is. Isn't that the exact same thing you believe about your God? Why then do you struggle with accepting it in relation to the universe?