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]

Please review my post #97 and Redeye's response #99 on this thread. If, having done so, you still have queries, I will do my best to answer them.

I've updated my response to you in post #120. That is the one you need to address if you wish to be taken seriously. Also, pointing someone else to my critique of your "proof" hardly answers the question that poster asked in good faith. Your post #97 does nothing but attempt to obfuscate what your real argument is.

Be patient. There is plenty of meat on the bare bones of the argument to chew on, and I am sure we will cover all your objections in due course. But the first priority is to establish the shape of the skeleton.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 123 by Wootah]

Moderator Warning

Hi 2RM

Please focus on the civil part.

Please review our Rules.

Hmmm. If you read the thread, you will find that RedEye has been continuously uncivil to me. His latest transgression was to call my reasoning 'a joke' and accuse me of being 'plain ignorant'. I was merely responding, as politely and constructively as possible, I thought, in kind.

I wonder why he is allowed to be offensive to me, but I am not allowed to respond? If I administered a slap on the wrist, it was only because he thoroughly deserved it. Even Jesus chided His disciples when they misbehaved.

Best wishes, 2RM

Moderator Comment

Just report. Don't respond in kind. Jesus might have said something on this subject.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[2ndRateMind]

Please review my post #97 and Redeye's response #99 on this thread. If, having done so, you still have queries, I will do my best to answer them.

Also, pointing someone else to my critique of your "proof" hardly answers the question that poster asked in good faith.

As per my post #102, I do not pretend to offer a proof. As I stated there, I do not think God has so contrived the universe as to ever offer us an objective, conclusive proof or disproof of His existence.

More what I think my argument to be is, to use a Buddhist phrase, 'a finger pointing at the moon'. It is our choice as to whether to contemplate the moon above us or the mud beneath us.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 130 by 2ndRateMind]

P1 The universe is an object which exists
P2 Objects which exist must have been either deliberately created or accidentally created or always existed in some form or other.
C1 The universe has either been deliberately created or accidentally created or always existed in some form or other.
P3 Objects which have been deliberately created generally have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness, but not necessarily always.
P4 Objects which have been accidentally created do not have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness, but this has not been demonstrated as necessarily true.
P5 The universe has coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness, but this has not been demonstrated as actually true.
C2 The universe has been deliberately created is not necessarily a valid conclusion.

[jeremiah1five]

Nothing you see in the night sky requires God. It may be mind-blowing but there are perfectly natural explanations for all of it going right back to the Big Bang.

But then that's the God I serve. He's not logical and he blows minds.

What you really mean is that the concept of God blows your mind. You can't serve what you don't know to exist. You only serve the idea of a God.

That's your opinion. My position is one of experience. I know there is a God because I feel Him and thus I know He exists.

I'm not going to engage in this (although I could refute everything quite easily) because a subjective statement of belief is not evidence of anything and is completely off-topic to boot. I invite you once again to read the OP and to critique the proof presented against the existence of God if you are able.

That's OK. I really think you're not being honest with my Scripture.
That means my Bible.
But that's OK. If you are a child of God then that's between you and me. If you're not a child of God then that's between you and He.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 130 by 2ndRateMind]

P1 The universe is an object which exists
P2 Objects which exist must have been either deliberately created or accidentally created or always existed in some form or other.
C1 The universe has either been deliberately created or accidentally created or always existed in some form or other.

Thank you for your comments, brunumb. I intend to take them one by one, and let you have space to comment further as we proceed.

So, there is some debate among physicists as to whether the universe always existed, or whether it came into existence some 13.8 billion years ago. Currently, those limiting the age of the universe seem to have the upper hand. Whether the universe existed prior to this in some other form is speculation I am not qualified to comment on, but the thinking is that, at that stage t=0 in time, the universe started to expand from a point source of mass, energy and space, and time began to unfold. How to calculate whether the universe might have existed in some form before it's necessary component of time is a metaphysical puzzle I leave for you to solve; I am happy to accept that before there was time, there was no universe. And I think this to be the common sense view.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

P3 Objects which have been deliberately created generally have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness, but not necessarily always.

Indeed not. That is what I meant by 'generally'. Fortunately for me, 'necessarily always' is not required for the cogency of the argument.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Clownboat]

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.

I comprehend it every time I look up at night and/or through the lens of my telescope.
The first time I saw the rings of Saturn through my scope was a mind-blower.
But then that's the God I serve. He's not logical and he blows minds.

Your faith in a god is not in question.
Please start your own thread and then inform the readers of your faith.

Informing people of your faith is of no interest in this thread, nor does it belong.

Perhaps a soap box and a street corner are what you are in need of to scrath this 'people must know of my faith' itch.

[jeremiah1five]

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.

[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.

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.

I comprehend it every time I look up at night and/or through the lens of my telescope.
The first time I saw the rings of Saturn through my scope was a mind-blower.
But then that's the God I serve. He's not logical and he blows minds.

Your faith in a god is not in question.
Please start your own thread and then inform the readers of your faith.

Informing people of your faith is of no interest in this thread, nor does it belong.

Perhaps a soap box and a street corner are what you are in need of to scrath this 'people must know of my faith' itch.

Disagree. Every time a question is asked of a true born child of God that has to do with God and His faith it has to do with a person's faith in God.

Even here. But the athiest can never fully understand. There will always be questions even to their dying day unless God intervenes in their life/lives and changes their mind. Psst, that's called repentance - to change your mind.