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).

[2ndRateMind]

P1 Object O has Property P
P2 Objects with Property P also have either property B or property C, but not neither, nor both simultaneously
C1 Object O has either Property B or Property C
P3 Objects with Property B generally have Properties D, E, and F
P4 Objects with Property C do not have Properties D, E and F
P5 Object O has Properties D, E, and F
C2 Object O has Property B
P6 Property B necessarily involves an Agent A with Properties P and G
C3 Since Object O has Property B, Agent A has Properties P and G

Now, would you like to try yet another level of abstraction...

No, not yet. At this point, I am merely trying to establish whether the argument I have put is valid. That is to say, whether the structure of the argument is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Okay. You can't put "generally" into a syllogism. A premise is either true or it is false. It can't just be true most of the time or some of the time. Also P6 is a mere assertion. Agent A got introduced out of nowhere with no explanation. Your "proof" is a complete shambles.

You certainly can. You can certainly say 'Most cats have tails', and call that a proposition, and one that is either true or false. That is no different to saying 'Generally cats have tails'.

Dear, oh dear. It may be a conditional truth proposition but you can't use it as a premise in a syllogism. If you have an animal with all the characteristics of a cat but no tail what conclusion can you draw? Is it a cat or not? That is why your C2 is a joke. You can't make that determination. Object O could have property B or not. It's just plain ignorance of how to construct a valid syllogism.

You certainly can use it as a premise in a syllogism*. (Harrison-Barbet, 2001)

The phrase the logic of terms is often used to describe 'traditional' Aristotelian Logic. This is because it was based on the four standard of categorical propositions, that is, propositions which affirm or deny a predicate term of the subject term. For example:

All S is P (eg, All cats are mortal)
No S is P (eg, No cat is green)
Some S is P (eg, Some cats have tails)
Some S is not P (eg, Some cats are not black)

These forms are called respectively universal affirmative (A), universal negative (E), particular affirmative (I) and particular negative (O). A and E propositions are said to differ in quantity from I and O propositions, A and I propositions are said to differ in quality from E and O propositions.

So, by way of example, such a syllogism might be:

P1 All cats are mortal
P2 Some cats are black
C1 Some mortal things are black.

Incidentally, if your travels ever take you to the Isle of Man, you will find there a whole breed of tailless cats (the Manx cats). No one seems to have much difficulty identifying them as cats.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Harrison-Barbet, A.(2001) Mastering Philosophy, 2nd ed, Basingstoke: Palgrave pp13-14.

[jeremiah1five]

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).

Yes, I fault it. It is wrong.
God is Eternal (if you can fathom it - you can't).
God created the universe of which TIME is naturally part of creation.
The Universe is not Eternal.
The universe will one day just go away. Poof!
Or a whimper, depending on how far you are to its disappearance.
Only those hid in Christ will witness the end of the universe once it has served God's purpose and function.
Then the real party starts.
You gotta be invited.

I invite you to read the bolded text above.

Invitation accepted.
Let me put it another way....
God created the universe and that's about it for me.
This website did not just 'come into existence,' but it's existence is proof there was a web-designer.
You see, God is not logical and your attempt to disprove God is from a logical perspective or standing does not compute or work.

Anyone who attempts to follow your logical premise to its seemingly logical conclusion is really stepping on God's creative toes by speaking of things they really don't know and which falls squarely on and in God's realm, and will be in error.

Now what?

[2ndRateMind]

P1 All men are mortal
P2 A mortal necessarily has Socrates for a father
C1 Socrates is the father of all men.

Absurd, right?

OK, so now we are moving onto the truth value of the premises. That's fine. That part of the argument is as follows:

The universe has the property of being deliberately created.
Deliberately created things necessarily involve an independent creator.
The independent creator of the universe is (known as) God.

Not so absurd, really, is it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Dear, oh dear. It may be a conditional truth proposition but you can't use it as a premise in a syllogism. If you have an animal with all the characteristics of a cat but no tail what conclusion can you draw? Is it a cat or not? That is why your C2 is a joke. You can't make that determination. Object O could have property B or not. It's just plain ignorance of how to construct a valid syllogism.

Incidentally, I advise you to get hold of a copy of the Harrison-Barbet I referenced earlier. He is good on the logic of terms, if a little dense to read, but I think your obvious interest in this manner of argument would carry you through. You will find his Chapter 2 particularly valuable, I think. It is called 'Critical Thinking'. You seem to be good at the critical part, but not so good at the thinking part, and an acquaintance with what he has to say might improve the quality of your posts considerably. And then, who knows, you might even discover common courtesy and netiquette at some future point in time.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

Object O could have property B or not.

Not if you follow the argument. I said objects either have property B or property C, but not both, or neither. Those with property B sometimes have properties D, E and F. Those with property C never do. Object O has properties D, E and F. Therefore object O must have property B.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 113 by 2ndRateMind]

The universe has the property of being deliberately created.

Please define that property and explain how you establish that the universe has that property.

[RedEye]

Incidentally, if your travels ever take you to the Isle of Man, you will find there a whole breed of tailless cats (the Manx cats). No one seems to have much difficulty identifying them as cats.

Enough of this farce. You aren't paying me sufficiently to continue your education. That and the fact that you obviously don't seem to be interested in learning anything. I think we are done.

[RedEye]

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).

Yes, I fault it. It is wrong.
God is Eternal (if you can fathom it - you can't).
God created the universe of which TIME is naturally part of creation.
The Universe is not Eternal.
The universe will one day just go away. Poof!
Or a whimper, depending on how far you are to its disappearance.
Only those hid in Christ will witness the end of the universe once it has served God's purpose and function.
Then the real party starts.
You gotta be invited.

I invite you to read the bolded text above.

Invitation accepted.
Let me put it another way....
God created the universe and that's about it for me.

Yes, but have you comprehended it? "Now what?" is when you nominate a premise that you have a problem with and explain what that problem is.

[RedEye]

<delete>

[RedEye]

Adding an extra level of abstraction only serves to obfuscate. Let's avoid that and clarify what you are really arguing:

• P1 The universe is an object which exists
  P2 Objects which exist must have been either deliberately created or accidentally created
  C1 The universe has either been deliberately created or accidentally created.
  P3 Objects which have been deliberately created generally have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness
  P4 Objects which have been accidentally created do not have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness
  P5 The universe has coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness
  C2 The universe has been deliberately created
  P6 If something has been deliberately created that necessarily involves God who exists independently of that something and its components
  C3 Since the universe has been deliberately created, God exists independent of the universe and all its components

P1 - It is doubtful that the universe can be classed as an object, but okay for now.

P2 - (Sort of) true within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality (in a clumsy way).

C1 - Fallacy of composition since we only know P2 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). An obvious fallacy.

P3 - Generally? What about a Jackson Pollock painting?
(I have no idea what "comprehensiveness" has to do with anything)

P4 - Patently false. A created snowflake has all those attributes and is not deliberate created using your terminology.

P5 - Okay for now (although I'm not sure about the relevance of "comprehensiveness").

C2 - Terrible "logic" since P4 is demonstrably false.

P6 - An assertion and therefore rejected. My car has been deliberately created but God had no part in its construction.

C3 - Fails because C1 and C2 failed and P6 is an absurd premise.

Now, would you like to try yet another level of abstraction or can we finally return to the subject of the OP which you seem to not want to touch with a 10-foot barge pole?

Until 2RM actually addresses the many, many problems with his syllogisms, all the rest is mere hand-waving.