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).

[Willum]

[Replying to ElCodeMonkey]

What I am getting at is your analogy breaks down when you say your computer cant perceive it consumes energy from outside, nor can asks itself why it is analyzing.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to ElCodeMonkey]

What I am getting at is your analogy breaks down when you say your computer cant perceive it consumes energy from outside, nor can asks itself why it is analyzing.

If I create a true AI, it could ask those questions. Even if it couldn't I'm not sure where the argument is breaking down. What's not lining up?

AI = People
Computer Simulation = Universe
Man Creating Computer = God Creating Universe

AI/People Cannot Perceive the world outside Simulation/Universe where Man/God created it. They can only know what the program/physics are of the simulation/universe.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 10 by ElCodeMonkey]

Well, if it becomes sentient, we can assume it learns entropy, and suddenly it must realize something exists outside to fuel it.

Now we have no such indicators.

[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.

[RedEye]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]
Time itself is a part of the universe's structure as you explained. Therefore it need not and cannot exist as a prerequisite to creating it if it itself is created. The logic is thus circular. How something can be created without time I have no idea, but that's because we are bound by the space-time in which we live. God is not. It could, however, be similar to creating a computer with a time clock and all it knows is it's own time and not our space-time. So Premise 1 is where the argument fails.

Your reasoning assumes that I must accept that the universe was created. Why would I accept this? Therefore there is no circular reasoning on my part. As far as I am concerned the universe has existed for all of time - there is no "creation event" necessary.

[RedEye]

William Lane Craig likes to just deny that causes come before effects. His examples are such that he can't possibly misunderstand; we know he's lying.

Yes, I believe he terms it "simultaneous causation" which is a nonsensical concept. When you ask for an example of such you are given the universe coming into existence. No circularity there.

My response is to point out that we don't need a creator god unless causes precede effects. If causes needn't precede effects, then the cause of the universe may be some experiment in the Large Hadron Collider that hasn't happened yet.

Requiring causes to precede effects is how theists work their way back towards a first cause. Without that requirement, they have no argument at all.

There's another angle on that. Causation relates to time. Without time it is incoherent to talk about causation. Time is part of the space-time "fabric" of the universe to the best of our knowledge. Therefore there cannot be a cause for the universe. It's the composition fallacy. What is true within the universe (where time exists) is not necessarily true of the universe itself.

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.

P2 may be true, but I've no idea how to tell. Asimov and Hawking hedge. They say that time began at the big bang, but then they say something like, "Or at least we don't know what happened before that, so we may as well call that the beginning of time." I'm not aware of any scientific consensus that that was the actual beginning of time.

Why does there have to be a beginning? When we go back to the "first" tiniest fraction of a second (the Planck Epoch) all known physics breaks down. We can't say anything about the state of the universe there at all. We assume a beginning there but we have at least one cosmological hypothesis (Hartle-Hawking) suggesting that time has no boundary there and therefore that there is no beginning. The no-boundary solution.

Christians on the internet sometimes claim such a consensus, but they provide no evidence. One of them was sufficiently insistent that I went up on campus and found me a cosmologist. I asked him whether there was a scientific consensus. He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang! Nobody knows what happened before the big bang! Nobody knows what happened before the big bang!"

If you want to claim that time began at the big bang, then you must base that claim on either personal authority or scientific consensus.

I avoid that problem by not accepting a beginning without evidence.

P3 - Follows from conclusion C1.
P4 - Follows from the definition of God.

No, it doesn't. Nor is it useful to your argument. Defining god as the creator of the universe says nothing about what else he might be necessary for.

I fail to see how extraneous information matters. P4 does follow if God is defined as being the creator of the universe. Christians have no choice but to define him this way (whatever else they may claim about him).

[RedEye]

Definitions:
God - the creator of the universe.

Can anyone fault this logical proof? Which premises (if any) are wrong?

Of course: The definiton.

Being a Creator is descriptive of what God has done (in the same way a woman is a mother by reason of her having a child) it doesn't mean that a woman that does not have a child cannot exist. Thus the whole suggestion that anything springing from such a narrow definition is bogus.

So God exists but he didn't create the universe?
Then who cares?

[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.

I can roll with that too.

[JehovahsWitness]

So God exists but he didn't create the universe?
Then who cares?

What are you claiming to have proved, whether God exists or whether someone cares that he exists?

Whether God created the universe or not, the truth of his existence would stand independent of any of his actions. In the same way a woman's existence is not dependent on her being a mother. Can you grasp the difference between the two concepts? If so you may be able to understand the weakness of your argument.

If (as the thread heading suggests) you are claiming to have proved that God does not EXIST then you are going to have to begin with a wider definition of God than "Creator" since by definition that which does not create can still exist.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

How about...

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

Since God was not created, how can this be extrapolated to concern Him?




RELATED P0STS

What is faith (definition)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 479#904479

Can a person be sure God exists?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 506#901506