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).

[RedEye]

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?

You know what my proof demonstrates. Let's not be coy. You also believe that God is the creator of the universe. You have no choice. Your Bible tells you that he is the creator of everything. Genesis 1:1. So let me ask you directly (and please don't hedge):

Do you believe that God created the universe? Yes or no.

Whether God created the universe or not, the truth of his existence would stand independent of any of his actions.

If you could establish that truth, yes. Unfortunately you have just thrown out the one piece of evidence which most theists put forward - the existence of the universe. Where does that leave you evidence-wise?

As I said, who cares about a God who has apparently done nothing?

In the same way a woman's existence is not dependent on her being a mother or not. Can you grasp the difference between the two concepts? If so you may be able to understand the weakness of your argument.

I grasped it the first time. You have not grasped my objection. If the only piece of evidence for the existence of the woman is a boy and you have now said that the boy is not her son, then what else do you have to show that the woman exists? The answer is nothing, nothing at all.

[JehovahsWitness]

As I said, who cares about a God who has apparently done nothing?

Perhaps you would like to start another thread on the topic of what what people care about, I'm sure someone somewhere in the expanse of the internet will be interested enough in that question to respond.

• My understanding however was that you claim to have proven that God does not exist and asked if there was any problem with any of the premises upon which your argumentation was based, I responded yes, and pointed out that existence cannot be dependent on what one has created.

If you would like to address this specific point, fine; perhaps you would like to prove that one cannot exist without creating something. If not, that's fine too. Your call.


JW






RELATED P0STS


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

Does God need to be worshipped?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 144#331144

[RedEye]

As I said, who cares about a God who has apparently done nothing?

Perhaps you would like to start another thread on the topic of what what people care about, I'm sure someone somewhere in the expanse of the internet will be interested enough in that question to respond.

Perhaps you might like to answer direct questions instead of ignoring them. Then people would know that you are arguing in good faith instead of raising red herrings to divert from the actual topic of the thread.

My understanding however was that you claim to have proven that God does not exist and asked if there was any problem with any of the premises upon which your argumentation was based, I responded yes, and pointed out that existence cannot be dependent on what one has created.

And I think I have conveyed that I agree but it is irrelevant to this discussion since I am addressing Christians who do accept the definition of God as stated at the top of the proof. (I have no doubt that this includes you).

[JehovahsWitness]

My understanding however was that you claim to have proven that God does not exist and asked if there was any problem with any of the premises upon which your argumentation was based, I responded yes, and pointed out that existence cannot be dependent on what one has created.

And I think I have conveyed that I agree but {snip} ....

Emphasis MINE

Well if you agree that existence is not dependent on what one has created, then effectively someone can exist without creating anything. Thus, proving that God is not the creator of the universe (which is what your hypothesis presumably set out to do) would not, even if it were successful, prove God does not exist (which is what the heading of this thread claimed to be presenting).

....red herrings to divert from the actual topic of the thread.

I do believe "The topic at hand was a hypothesis as to whether God exists. But you defined God as creator which is a designation that is, logically, entirely separate from his existence. Since you asked in the OP...

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

I do believe my response is entirely in line with the stated topic of the thread. Anyway, If you "agree" with the weakness of the premise (namely that disproving the existence of a "creator" would not disprove the existence of a god), then my work here is done.

Respect,

JW

[Clownboat]

[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.

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the physical universe to a program running on a computer though?
I get your analogy, but am not seeing much for actual comparisons between the universe and a program running on a computer.

[FarWanderer]

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?

The argument concerns God as a creator, not as something created.

[ElCodeMonkey]

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the physical universe to a program running on a computer though?
I get your analogy, but am not seeing much for actual comparisons between the universe and a program running on a computer.

I don't think so. It's one example of how God could exist despite the arguments being posted. God could be some random guy who created a simulation that we now live in. I started another thread elsewhere for that discussion. It can't be proven any more false than a God's existence. Not sure why people keep trying to prove a generic God being as false. Can't be done. We can have inadequate evidence to believe, but that's entirely subjective to the person believing. What's enough for me might not be enough for you. I personally think it's far more likely we're in a Simulation .

[Clownboat]

Isn't it a bit silly to compare the physical universe to a program running on a computer though?
I get your analogy, but am not seeing much for actual comparisons between the universe and a program running on a computer.

I don't think so. It's one example of how God could exist despite the arguments being posted. God could be some random guy who created a simulation that we now live in. I started another thread elsewhere for that discussion. It can't be proven any more false than a God's existence. Not sure why people keep trying to prove a generic God being as false. Can't be done. We can have inadequate evidence to believe, but that's entirely subjective to the person believing. What's enough for me might not be enough for you. I personally think it's far more likely we're in a Simulation .

I don't see any reason to believe that the physical universe is in fact not physical, but just a simulation. You analogy only applies of course if the universe is in fact a simulation. Any reason to suggest it is?

I'm content in believing that the universe I live in is physical. That is what I observe after all. Should I not hold such a belief? If not, I would like to understand why and you will need to do better than "so my analogy can hold".

Much appreciated.

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by Clownboat]

I don't see any reason to believe that the physical universe is in fact not physical, but just a simulation. You analogy only applies of course if the universe is in fact a simulation. Any reason to suggest it is?

There are some well known scientists who at least are happy to say that it just may be the case, and one does not have to venture too far on google to find these ones.

The question becomes 'if it is, then how do we go about proving that?' What science has so far uncovered, generally makes a good case for the likelihood of the universe being a type of simulation.

Of course, the whole idea is an intriguing subject. When it gets down to it, one cannot argue that 'the universe isn't really physical' in relation to the simulation argument, because - as a simulation - experiencing physical stuff to the degree that we can and do, would obviously be the major reason for the simulation and our experience of it, existing.

Certainly we can understand the idea of being within a simulation designed to keep us from easily figuring that out.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 28 by Clownboat]

The analogy doesn't only apply if we're in a simulation. The point is to explain that God is outside our existence and understanding in much the same way. Time as we know it is a part of our existence but not God's. Time from a computer perspective, would be entirely different from time in our own perspective. It didn't have time or any running algorithm or physics until you powered it up. Maybe our universe didn't have time until it was powered at the bang.