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 269 by 2ndRateMind]

But I have had cause to repent, atone, find forgiveness and finally restoration. I assure you the process was not easy, or 'wishful thinking', or just cognitive dissonance, with which I am also familiar.

So, what exactly was the process?

Hmmm. As I recall, the first step was, confronted with ultimate goodness, to realise how far short of that ideal I reached. And to regret that. That's the repenting part.

The second step was to be earnestly sorry and deeply remorseful for each and every way I fell short, and each and every specific circumstance in my life that demonstrated that falling short. And all such examples were raised up in my consciousness for me, no matter how deeply I had buried and tried to forget them. That was the atonement part, the hard part, to confront moral reality as it is, rather than as I might wish it to be, and compare myself to what really is good, and find myself considerably wanting.

And once I'd done that, I found myself 'forgiven'. No further punishment was necessary, or inflicted.

And once I'd discovered that lack of further sanction (much to my surprise), I found myself restored to the kind of individual I would have been, had I never committed my crimes and sins at all.

And all that psychological process tends to leave one grateful, and determined to commit no further crimes or sins, to the best of one's ability.

Best wishes, 2RM

Perhaps it is a good thing that you found this god concept!

For those of us that are not naturally 'far from goodness', those of us that are naturally good, kind and merciful, unlike yourself it would seem from your narative. What would those of us like I describe need in a god concept?

I get that you were not good, and that you think the religious beliefs made you better. I myself became a more loving and accepting person when I was set free from my religious beliefs. Therefore, for me, losing my religion helped me to become a better person.

I submit that we are both humans being humans and that there is not a god helping us to be good or bad people. This theory applies to both of us. That a god made you to be a better person only is accurate for you and it does not apply to me. Therefore, I find my hypothesis to better reflect reality.

Don't tell the gods though!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 269 by 2ndRateMind]

But I have had cause to repent, atone, find forgiveness and finally restoration. I assure you the process was not easy, or 'wishful thinking', or just cognitive dissonance, with which I am also familiar.

So, what exactly was the process?

Hmmm. As I recall, the first step was, confronted with ultimate goodness, to realise how far short of that ideal I reached. And to regret that. That's the repenting part.

The second step was to be earnestly sorry and deeply remorseful for each and every way I fell short, and each and every specific circumstance in my life that demonstrated that falling short. And all such examples were raised up in my consciousness for me, no matter how deeply I had buried and tried to forget them. That was the atonement part, the hard part, to confront moral reality as it is, rather than as I might wish it to be, and compare myself to what really is good, and find myself considerably wanting.

And once I'd done that, I found myself 'forgiven'. No further punishment was necessary, or inflicted.

And once I'd discovered that lack of further sanction (much to my surprise), I found myself restored to the kind of individual I would have been, had I never committed my crimes and sins at all.

And all that psychological process tends to leave one grateful, and determined to commit no further crimes or sins, to the best of one's ability.

Best wishes, 2RM

I'm not seeing a mention of God in there at all. All I'm seeing is a series of mental exercises you undertook, all of which I have undertaken myself and still undertake...and yet you and I come to opposite conclusions with regard to the Christian God.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 275 by 2ndRateMind]

Thank you for your honest response. Forgive me for being dismissive, but it seems to me that you just reflected on the bad things you have done and then forgave yourself. No biggie in my book.

Fair enough. As I have previously pointed out, one cannot relate to a psychological procedure that one has never experienced. So, I write not to persuade, simply to provide the conceptual apparatus necessary to understand the process one goes through, should one ever come to the faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 253 by 2ndRateMind]

I think John is quite clear on this, when he wrote the reverse: 'he that loveth not, knoweth not God'.

John may be clear, but that doesn't mean he is correct. But it does make perfect sense to say that when you are contriving religious propaganda.

John is consistent with my own experience. That is why I think John is correct on this matter. And not only my experience, but that of millions of Christians.

As for 'propaganda, why should John not have said; he that despiseth not Jews, knoweth not God? Or he that hateth not the rich, knoweth not God? Or he that careth for people of colour, or gays, knoweth not God? All these assertions have been used for propaganda purposes, and quite effectively, at that.

But John stuck to the truth of the matter, even when it might have been more effective to select an 'out-group' and denigrate them, and he simply said; he that loveth not, knoweth not God. And love is a tough call. It leaves us vulnerable to much pain, though it allows us access to much pleasure. And that is how love, and God, is; equal parts agony and joy, and wholly ecstasy. And if this lies outside your experience, then truly, you do not know God, and will not recognise Him, come the end of days. But if it is within your compass, you do know God and you will recognise Him, and that is all that matters.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 253 by 2ndRateMind]

I think John is quite clear on this, when he wrote the reverse: 'he that loveth not, knoweth not God'.

John may be clear, but that doesn't mean he is correct. But it does make perfect sense to say that when you are contriving religious propaganda.

John is consistent with my own experience. That is why I think John is correct on this matter. And not only my experience, but that of millions of Christians.

As for 'propaganda, why should John not have said; he that despiseth not Jews, knoweth not God? Or he that hateth not the rich, knoweth not God? Or he that careth for people of colour, or gays, knoweth not God? All these assertions have been used for propaganda purposes, and quite effectively, at that.

But John stuck to the truth of the matter, even when it might have been more effective to select an 'out-group' and denigrate them, and he simply said; he that loveth not, knoweth not God. And love is a tough call. It leaves us vulnerable to much pain, though it allows us access to much pleasure. And that is how love, and God, is; equal parts agony and joy, and wholly ecstasy. And if this lies outside your experience, then truly, you do not know God, and will not recognise Him, come the end of days.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You being able to relate to John, does not make John correct. See relating to Hitler and then try your logic out. Your argument ad populum doesn't need to be addressed...

To the bold... can you not do better than scare tactics? I understand that this is very effective when leveled at children, but here... come on man.

If you had a god behind you, I submit you could do better than this. I say, let's leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. Your mileage may vary...

[2ndRateMind]

To the bold... can you not do better than scare tactics? ...

...If you had a god behind you, I submit you could do better than this. I say, let's leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. Your mileage may vary...

Hmmm. Not sure why advocating universal, unconditional love might be considered a scare tactic. Or, indeed, deploying the notion that those who do not love necessarily cannot know a God who is love. Perhaps you can explain?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 286 by 2ndRateMind]

Not sure why advocating universal, unconditional love might be considered a scare tactic.

Because God's alleged love is most definitely not unconditional.

Or, indeed, deploying the notion that those who do not love necessarily cannot know a God who is love.

God is not love. That is just a greeting card slogan that Christians have adopted.

God cannot be known because he does not exist. It's as simple as that. The rest is just mind games and a lot of smoke and mirrors. Indoctrination and self-delusion help to propagate the idea from generation to generation.

[2ndRateMind]

God cannot be known because he does not exist.

Yes, I think we have all gathered, by now, brunumb, that that is your opinion. And your deductions and assertions follow from that premise. And if that is what makes you happy, then I wish you your every solitary happiness.

But, as Hamlet puts it: 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'. And there are no limits more confining than those we impose upon ourselves. So, free yourself and dream. That is how progress happens.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 288 by 2ndRateMind]

And your deductions and assertions follow from that premise.

Actually, it was the consideration of unsupported assertions followed by deductions that led me to eventually discard the notion of all things supernatural, including gods. Bible God went quite early because of its innate absurdity, but ultimately even a creator god became unnecessary.

And if that is what makes you happy, then I wish you your every solitary happiness.

Solitary happiness? A somewhat back-handed wish. May I suggest that more of that personal reflection might be in order.

But, as Hamlet puts it: 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy'. And there are no limits more confining than those we impose upon ourselves. So, free yourself and dream. That is how progress happens.

Yes, Christianity is all about dreams and wishes. I thankfully freed myself from the limits imposed on me by irrational beliefs at an early age.

[Clownboat]

To the bold... can you not do better than scare tactics? ...

...If you had a god behind you, I submit you could do better than this. I say, let's leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. Your mileage may vary...

Hmmm. Not sure why advocating universal, unconditional love might be considered a scare tactic. Or, indeed, deploying the notion that those who do not love necessarily cannot know a God who is love. Perhaps you can explain?

Best wishes, 2RM.

How easily you forget your own words, even when provided in bold to you.

Copy/paste: "And if this lies outside your experience, then truly, you do not know God, and will not recognize Him, come the end of days."

Why you invent some unconditional love to be the scare tactic you think I am addressing seems disingenuous to me.

Also, if your god is the god of the Bible, then this claim of unconditional love is a claim and not something actually reflected in the book itself. It's a religious promotional saying IMO. Nothing more.

Do you believe the religious promotional material available to you that comes from Muslims? Of course not. Now, not to hurt your feelings, but you are the Muslim in this scenario shouting allahu akbar. Sure, allahu akbar may be a powerful statement to yourself and the rest of the choir, but you got to understand how it sounds to anyone else. No? "God is love" is not different I submit.