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.

We can argue about whether the premises are true, (ie, whether the argument is sound) later.

And that will inform a further discussion about your contention that you have a derived a 'proof' that God does not exist.

There you have it; my agenda in a nutshell.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 101 by 2ndRateMind]

Incidentally, it may be of interest for you to know that my 'philosophy of religion' position is that it will never be proven objectively and conclusively (in this life) that either God does, or does not, exist. Either way, there would be a gross interference with our freedom with conscience, such that a good God could not countenance, and a non-God could not justify.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Don McIntosh]

You are missing the point. When you state "God is said to ..." you are merely reporting what theists have imagined to be the case. It is not knowledge. It is not falsifiable (as you rightly point out we should insist upon). Therefore it is just an appeal to the unknown and therefore useless. When you state that the theist position is "logically consistent" you aren't talking about logic because logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true. Theists don't start with anything true. They simply seek to prop up one imaginary concept by invoking other imaginary concepts.

Well, I've missed points before. Certainly if the point is that I must be "arguing in a circle" because your argument from the incoherence of theism appears to be a nonstarter, yes, I'm missing that. But is it possible you're missing a point or two yourself?

Certainly it is possible.

Yes, I agree! Thank you. Humans that we are, you and I (and the works we produce) are prone to error. I'm going to take that concession as a sign of progress.

But what point am I missing? You assert that my argument is a nonstarter. It would be great if you could explain why without resorting to fallacies.

Your argument purports to be about the incoherence of a concept, that of God creating the universe. But when someone demonstrates the possibility of its coherence by an appeal to other God-related concepts (like eternity) your argument breaks down; you have to shift the goal posts and assert that God and all God-related concepts are simply imaginary (where imaginary means unreal or nonexistent) in the first place. Why not just come right out and assert that God is an imaginary concept not worth discussing at all rather than waste everyone's time with an argument that is indefeasible in principle?

In other words by importing this additional but unspoken premise (that God and all God-related concepts are imaginary, hence irrelevant or inadmissible) into the argument, you have insulated it against all possible refutation and rendered it, ironically enough, incoherent. If it's a given that God is imaginary, and that imaginary entities don't exist, then obviously God does not exist. But while that argument has strictly nothing to do with the argument you actually presented, the argument you presented cannot hold without it.

Let me try yet another angle here. Consider the argument below:

1. Scientific naturalism (or simply "naturalism") posits that the universe is accurately described by our best scientific theories.
2. Two of our best scientific theories are general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM).
3. GR and QM are fundamentally irreconcilable (why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity for example).
4. Naturalism posits that the universe is accurately described by theories that are fundamentally irreconcilable. (from 1, 2 & 3)
5. Any view of the world that is accurately described by theories that are fundamentally irreconcilable is incoherent.
6. Naturalism is incoherent. (from 4 & 5)

False conclusion. Firstly, GR and QM describe entirely different aspects of the universe (the very large scale and the very small scale) so they are not in direct contradiction with one another.

Quickly, before you go blasting away at my argument for its various purported absurdities, try to keep in mind that it's not one I seriously propose. I only present it to reveal some analogous weaknesses in your own argument. I'll explain my tactic further below. Okay?

Now from what I've been told the very large and the very small do in fact interact in some inescapable way at singularities (e.g. black holes and plausibly the big bang). Are you suggesting that singularities are simply impossibilities or non-entities? In any case I don’t think your reasoning follows. Two properties have to be different in order to contradict. To put it another way, they cannot contradict if they are not different.

Secondly, your conclusion in point 3. is based on an argument from ignorance. They cannot presently be reconciled. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will never be reconciled or are fundamentally irreconcilable. You seem to be under the impression that science has the burden to know everything all at once.

Very good. I am happy to see you come around and agree that GR and QM are irreconcilable, even if only presently. Maybe later you can spell out the important differences between (presently) "in direct contradiction with one another" and (presently) "irreconcilable."

The important thing is that we agree again: if two concepts appear irreconcilable at first blush, that doesn't always mean they are forever, hopelessly irreconcilable. It may be that we simply have more thinking or research to do.

The above is all way off-topic though. I have no idea where you are going with this or how it relates to the subject of this thread. If you are trying to demonstrate how to create an argument which is easily refuted, you have succeeded.

Then I have succeeded. Again I will explain momentarily.

Here's the problem with that analogy. String Theory is an attempt (based heavily on physics and mathematics) to describe the underlying reality of the universe, a universe we know to exist. (It hasn't been accepted yet because of the lack of supporting experimental evidence and that is as it should be). What you are doing is attempting to support the notion of God (who is not known to exist) with other imaginary concepts (eternity, extra dimensions, etc.) based on nothing more than meaningless word pairings. Do you see the difference?

The difference is the result of a false dichotomy. Are you still maintaining that unconfirmed or unverified concepts are strictly imaginary (and therefore not worthy of discussion even in a conceptual context)? The whole story I shared with you about the discovery of black swans was designed to disabuse you of that notion. Maybe that explains why you opted to ignore it.

Recall that there is presently no solution to the conceptual tension between GR and QM. By your own declarations and stated terms here, that would make the solution imaginary (something we can conceptualize but not confirm or verify). Recall also that we agreed that a solution may yet be forthcoming. So then "imaginary" would mean not simply "unreal" but could include concepts whose underlying reality is "as yet unconfirmed" or "in need of further exploration or elaboration."

Note also that for many (including smart people like Alvin Plantinga) God is an object of knowledge (known to exist); while for many others (including smart people like Nick Bostrum) what we call the universe is most likely not a reality that exists independently of our thoughts at all, but is rather the product of an elaborate computer simulation (which incidentally would mean it was created). Again you've overstated the degree to which we all embrace your particular version of the real/imaginary distinction.

Could I implore you to stop creating strawmen of my argument (and ridiculous ones at that), effectively putting words into my mouth, and actually address the argument I have presented? If my argument is circular as you claim then you should have no problem identifying which of my premises encodes that circularity. Don't make caricatures of my argument. Deal with the real thing. If you can.

I'd be happy to, but unfortunately, the "real thing" has turned out to be something else entirely. An argument said to be about the incoherence of a concept has turned out to be instead a naked assertion that all objects of theological inquiry (God, eternity, etc.) are strictly imaginary quite regardless of whether they are conceptually coherent or not.

And that brings us at last to why I keep presenting these various counter-arguments and alternative arguments. You appear to be committed, understandably, to the success of your argument. But one unfortunate by-product of that sort of commitment is a refusal (or perhaps inability) to see its weaknesses when an opponent points them out directly.

On the other hand, you appear to have no qualms whatsoever about attacking and ridiculing arguments that are not your own (mine for example). So I have presented counterarguments and alternative arguments bearing important points of similarity with yours, in the faint hope that when you perceive weaknesses in them, you might also perceive weaknesses in your own.

[jeremiah1five]

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).

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.

[RedEye]

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.

We can argue about whether the premises are true, (ie, whether the argument is sound) later.

And that will inform a further discussion about your contention that you have a derived a 'proof' that God does not exist.

There you have it; my agenda in a nutshell.

Yes, I certainly do see that you have an agenda.

(This critiquing of your so-called proofs has become rather tedious since you don't seem interested in educating yourself. I probably won't respond to any similar attempts in this thread).

[RedEye]

You are missing the point. When you state "God is said to ..." you are merely reporting what theists have imagined to be the case. It is not knowledge. It is not falsifiable (as you rightly point out we should insist upon). Therefore it is just an appeal to the unknown and therefore useless. When you state that the theist position is "logically consistent" you aren't talking about logic because logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true. Theists don't start with anything true. They simply seek to prop up one imaginary concept by invoking other imaginary concepts.

Well, I've missed points before. Certainly if the point is that I must be "arguing in a circle" because your argument from the incoherence of theism appears to be a nonstarter, yes, I'm missing that. But is it possible you're missing a point or two yourself?

Certainly it is possible. But what point am I missing? You assert that my argument is a nonstarter. It would be great if you could explain why without resorting to fallacies.

Your argument purports to be about the incoherence of a concept, that of God creating the universe. But when someone demonstrates the possibility of its coherence by an appeal to other God-related concepts (like eternity) your argument breaks down; you have to shift the goal posts and assert that God and all God-related concepts are simply imaginary (where imaginary means unreal or nonexistent) in the first place. Why not just come right out and assert that God is an imaginary concept not worth discussing at all rather than waste everyone's time with an argument that is indefeasible in principle?

Once again I see nothing relating to the soundness of the premises in my argument. You are yet again putting words into my mouth. The word "eternity" appears nowhere in my proof. You seem to want to continually attack strawman versions of my proof rather than the real thing. Why is that?

Here's the problem with that analogy. String Theory is an attempt (based heavily on physics and mathematics) to describe the underlying reality of the universe, a universe we know to exist. (It hasn't been accepted yet because of the lack of supporting experimental evidence and that is as it should be). What you are doing is attempting to support the notion of God (who is not known to exist) with other imaginary concepts (eternity, extra dimensions, etc.) based on nothing more than meaningless word pairings. Do you see the difference?

The difference is the result of a false dichotomy. Are you still maintaining that unconfirmed or unverified concepts are strictly imaginary (and therefore not worthy of discussion even in a conceptual context)? The whole story I shared with you about the discovery of black swans was designed to disabuse you of that notion. Maybe that explains why you opted to ignore it.

I'm sorry if the actual point I was making has been lost on you. I can only suggest that you reread my last reply and note the real difference I was pointing out. It is of little value to be talking past each other.

Could I implore you to stop creating strawmen of my argument (and ridiculous ones at that), effectively putting words into my mouth, and actually address the argument I have presented? If my argument is circular as you claim then you should have no problem identifying which of my premises encodes that circularity. Don't make caricatures of my argument. Deal with the real thing. If you can.

I'd be happy to, but unfortunately, the "real thing" has turned out to be something else entirely. An argument said to be about the incoherence of a concept has turned out to be instead a naked assertion that all objects of theological inquiry (God, eternity, etc.) are strictly imaginary quite regardless of whether they are conceptually coherent or not.

I'll take that as an admission that you can't fault either the validity or soundness of my proof. Thank you for that concession.

On the other hand, you appear to have no qualms whatsoever about attacking and ridiculing arguments that are not your own (mine for example).

Firstly, you invited me to do so. Therefore you can hardly complain. Secondly, note how I did it. I didn't resort to strawmen. I didn't try to put words into your mouth. I didn't go off-topic to unrelated subjects. I did what you should be doing - showing why one or more premises cannot be justified or why a conclusion doesn't follow from the preceding premises.

So I have presented counterarguments and alternative arguments bearing important points of similarity with yours, in the faint hope that when you perceive weaknesses in them, you might also perceive weaknesses in your own.

It's not my job to perceive weaknesses in my own argument. That would be your job (and theists in general) to point them out. You must be confused as to how this works.

[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.

[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'.

And you can certainly introduce, included in a proposition, an object, agent or property whenever you want. Or no argument would ever get started.

eg.,

P1 All men are mortal
P2 Socrates is a man
C1 Socrates is mortal.

Would you complain then that Socrates 'got introduced out of nowhere?' Or men? Or mortality?

If you have any further objections to the structure of the argument, let me know. Otherwise, we can start to examine the truth-value of the premises.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RedEye]

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.

And you can certainly introduce, included in a proposition, an object, agent or property whenever you want. Or no argument would ever get started.

eg.,

P1 All men are mortal
P2 Socrates is a man
C1 Socrates is mortal.

Would you complain then that Socrates 'got introduced out of nowhere?' Or men? Or mortality?

The name Socrates is simply used as an instance of a man. (Perfectly valid since Socrates was indeed a man). That is not what you have done. You have put forward God as the only agent capable of a deliberately creative act. Where has that come from? Absolutely nowhere. It's just an assertion. This is the form of the abomination you have produced:

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

Absurd, right?

God cannot even be used as an example of an entity capable of creative acts since you are assuming your conclusion if you are trying to prove that God exists! As I said, what you have is a complete and utter shambles. The fact that you can't see it and acknowledge your faulty (and that is an understatement) reasoning is what makes this so tragically funny.

Is this becoming tiresome for you? It certainly is for me.

[2ndRateMind]

dupe