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).

[ElCodeMonkey]

[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.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

God wasnt created so from what I can see the whole argument is moot.

If the universe had no beginning so be it.. that's two things that are infinite... the universe and God. At the very least that proves an infinite God is possible.




JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by JehovahsWitness]

If the universe had no beginning so be it.. that's two things that are infinite... the universe and God. At the very least that proves an infinite God is possible.

Can you explain please why you, the Christian theist, are seemingly okay with the idea/concept of an infinite universe/universe having no beginning? Wouldn't that lead to the conclusion that there was no universe being created by an external actor (God)?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by ElCodeMonkey]

Forgive the physics lesson, however, Time is an electromagnetic phenomenon.
I any state where there are no charges, time cannot be said to occur.
For example, one could look at an atom, see it is composed of a charged nucleus and electrons. These create electromagnetic phenomenon, and so time.

Now in bosonic states, there is no communication of charge, no time. This is usful usuall when talking about events before the Big Bang, when matter was condensed so tightly that atoms nuclei and its electrons were one, time could not be said to occur.

V/R

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 5 by Willum]

But again, you're viewing from within the Universe. The programs I create in a computer cannot determine that they could not have been created simply by analyzing the algorithms that I put into play for their software. It's an entirely different world than reality. For all we know, the same is true of our Universe. God exists outside of it and can create all those laws as he desires. So physics can be argued all they want, but it's just the program trying to limit the programmer. Kinda silly.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 6 by ElCodeMonkey]

What indicators do you have that there is an "outside" the universe? What happens when you include that outside, as within, as a simple change in definition?

You say you can also create a program that doesn't interact with the outside world, in fact, how would you create a program as you say? You can't, this program as you say is analyzing, processing, etc., something outside itself. Even a program that did nothing would still consume energy, and utilize logic not of itself...

and so...

[wiploc]

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.

Again, I don't know why you style this as a syllogism but don't bother to make it valid. If you say it this way,

Something can only be created if time exists, but time is a fundamental part of the universe, so the universe cannot have been created.

then people can say, "I get it. I see what you're saying." But if you style it as if you were attempting a syllogism, then the reaction will almost always be, "That doesn't work."

Let's see if we can get closer to syllogistic rigor:

P1: Effects are always preceded by causes.
P2: Nothing preceded the universe.
C: Therefore, the universe is not an effect.

I don't know if that's valid, but you can see the syllogistic rhythm there. We're at least getting closer.

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.

P4 isn't helping you at all. It just confuses. It doesn't help you get from P3 to C2. One might as well write,
-P1: All men are mortal.
-P2: Socrates is a man.
-P4: God is only necessary as an explanation for the origin of the universe.
-C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Maybe something like,
P3: God is the creator of the universe. (Definition)
P4: The universe has no creator. (C1)
C2: God does not exist. (from P3 and P4)

That's terrible, not even close to valid, but we're getting closer.

P3: God exists only if the universe had a creator. (Definition)
P4: The universe did not have a creator. (C1)
C2: God does not exist. (P3 and P4)

That may be a valid syllogism. At least we're getting close.

P: If X then Y.
P: Not Y.
C: Not X.

That's a valid form, and it wouldn't be hard at this point to bend our argument into that form. Validity can be had!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Or estoppel. In argument with Christians, you can often base it on estoppel. You can say something like, "You claimed that time started at the big bang, so you are estopped from denying that when you respond to my argument. Either that, or you can deny it now, but admit that, in doing so, you have refuted your own argument."

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

You may well announce "another proof that God doesn't exist" by defining God as a banana. And then write a series of "logical" steps to prove there were no banana before the universe .... ergo God doesn't exist. And repeat the same by defining God as for a cantaloupe, a pineapple and a sting of pork sausages. But while you would then have a number of posts to feel pleased about they would still just represent bogus argumententation against the existence of God.



JW

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 6 by ElCodeMonkey]

What indicators do you have that there is an "outside" the universe? What happens when you include that outside, as within, as a simple change in definition?

You say you can also create a program that doesn't interact with the outside world, in fact, how would you create a program as you say? You can't, this program as you say is analyzing, processing, etc., something outside itself. Even a program that did nothing would still consume energy, and utilize logic not of itself...

and so...

There really needs to be no indicators of an outside for there to be one. If I create an AI in my computer that becomes truly sentient within its own computer-universe, it does not need to know that I exist or that I programmed it in order for it to be true. And while it consumes my real-world energy to continue the source of its own universe, it would never know it. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at.