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).

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 310 by shnarkle]

God, by definition is omniscient, therefore he cannot be known in the first place.

Whatever God is by definition, it has never demonstrated any of the attributes it is alleged to possess.

[RedEye]

It works fairly well using classic logic, but fails when using quantum logic. Classic logic cannot describe the state of being of the universe, you, or anything else for that matter.

And yet scientists do it all the time. I take it you cannot attack any of my premises?

Scientists have never been able to describe the state of the universe using classic logic. Classic logic relies upon symbols, and while one can represent the universe with a symbol, this can't be the universe. By definition a symbol signifies something else. In other words, symbols are not what they signify. They can't be without negating the definition of the word. I didn't attack your premises. I simply pointed out that they only work with symbols, and God is not a symbol. The fact is that you can't prove symbols don't exist when you're using them in your proof.

I don't remember ever arguing that scientific theories were meant to be the universe so you are attacking a strawman. I have no idea what you mean by "classic logic" in relation to science either. Anyway, you better be quick and publish your papers where you prove that the dozens of scientific theories we are teaching our young people in universities all around the world are not describing the universe. (Don't use any symbols in those proofs though!). Irreparable harm is being down to our youth. Your computer could stop working at any moment because science's description of atomic theory is wrong. You had better send out an alert to nuclear power stations too. Our understanding of radioactivity is impossible according to you because it is based on the use of symbols. Hurry man, time is of the essence!

Btw, I wasn't using any mathematical symbols in my proof. I was using words. You know, those things you use too. If you think I was attempting to disprove the word/symbol "God" then you might need a refresher course on how language works, ie. that words are a convenient code humans have developed to represent real world objects and phenomena. By your failed logic it would be impossible to prove or disprove anything because we would have to use language to do it. Wow.

Btw, quantum logic applies to the quantum level and has nothing to do with the question of the existence of God. Unless you are suggesting that God is a subatomic particle?

Quantum logic applies to the world as it exists, not in symbolic terminology. Quantum logic deals with quantum theory which consists in considerably more than just sub atomic particles.

No it doesn't. You thought you were saying something profound but you have been caught out attempting to bamboozle people with things you don't really understand.

The problem is in the way we think and the fact that words, language, symbols etc. are insufficient to describe the world around us.

Actually they do a pretty good job of describing the world around us. That is their job after all!

Words refer to meanings, definitions, descriptions, etc. which themselves are just more words. Words can never actually refer to anything other than other words. Assigning a word to an object doesn't actually convey the object to us; just a referent.

That's exactly how we use language to describe the world. Thank you for your agreement.

For example, the word or idea of water can never quench one's thirst.

Another strawman. (I'm sorry but I don't know what "thirst" means because you are using language and I have no idea what that word/symbol conveys. ).

(If we follow your reasoning then we should ignore the words of theists too since they are also using language. Right?).

Yep. They are speaking of gods of their own imagination. There can be no referent for God other than the word itself. Hence the introduction to John's gospel states: "in the beginning was the word". He never says anything approaching the ideas of "In the beginning was God".

Well, good. I should ignore your words too since you are also using language. Right?

Nonsense. It has nothing to do with "experience" (if by that you mean personal experience) and everything to do with observation.

Yep, observation is one of the cornerstones of science. The problem isn't in what is observed, but the process of observation itself which is subject to fallibility.

And here we go with the gish gallop. (Science has long accounted for fallibility by insisting on repeatability). Ignored.

Your original assertion was "There is nothing more fundamental than reality itself, and classical proofs are useless in proving or disproving what only experience can grasp". To the contrary, science has consistently proved or disproved ideas which humans have come up with via only their "experience", eg. the miasma theory of disease and a geocentric solar system. In fact, the scientific method has proven to be the only reliable path to real knowledge about the universe.

The latter is how we know the world.

You seem to be elevating the intellect to a superior position above the other senses. Here again this spotlights what I'm talking about in that you are positioning the intellect as fundamental to reality when it can only reflect reality. It is to place one's understanding as standing under reality itself.

More gish gallop ignored.

In the case of God there is no observation so all we can do is fall back on logical disproofs.

The problem here is in not comprehending the definition of words. God, by definition is omniscient, therefore he cannot be known in the first place.

More hypocrisy. Are you seriously giving us a theistic definition of God (arrived at by imagination, not by observation) and expecting us to accept that the definition adequately describes the reality? I mean haven't you been arguing that this is the very thing we can't do?

Frankly, it is idiotic to ask for proof of what transcends existence. There is nothing to prove.

Yeah, it might be if we accepted your premises which you can't support but can only assert (as defined that way) to make them impervious to refutation. This is the classic tactic used by theists: "I define my God to be beyond disproof". That is how we get a phrase like "transcends existence" which is essentially meaningless.

The lack of observation alone is enough but mine is an attempt to show the contradictory nature of the concept of God put forward by theists.

The concept of God is not God.

And yet that is all we have to go on. If we had God in front of us this thread would not exist. Right?

Proving a concept doesn't exist is pointless as concepts don't exist as anything other than concepts. Theists can only believe in their own concepts of God, but to then suppose that a concept can be proven is pointless. To attempt to disprove what, by definition, can't exist in the first place is just as pointless.

I beg to differ. If theists have a certain concept of their God and you can show that the concept is contradictory then theists would be forced to discard that concept of God. That is my aim in this thread. Did you really think that I was here to disprove actual God (which is a self-contradiction) rather than the Christian concept of God? If the concept is bad then what that concept describes cannot exist in reality. Is there some flaw in this reasoning?

The simple fact is that you can't even prove you exist. The best anyone can do is to associate ideas with bodies which doesn't prove anything.

If you don't believe that I can prove I exist then you should have no problem with a proof against the existence of God.

Other than the fact that proving nothing doesn't exist is pointless and blatantly ignores the accepted meaning of words, no.

See above. It is your fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of this thread and your obfuscations about language which are the real issue.

Things exist because existence exists, but God is not a thing. There is no referent for God, but more importantly, there is no referent for you either.

I see claims. From whence does your knowledge come from?

It's not my knowledge. I don't own knowledge.

Oh, I see. You make claims but you have no clue where your knowledge comes from. Thank you for the enlightenment. Not.

Weren't you just telling us that "words, language, symbols etc. are insufficient to describe the world around us".

Yep, and until you prove me wrong, I will continue to stand by that claim.

I'm sorry but I find your words incomprehensible because you are attempting to describe things which can't be described.

Yet here you are using words and language to describe what you believe exists in the world around us. Hoisted with your own petard?

No, I never made any claims to beliefs, or anything existing other than the things themselves, and God and you are not any thing.

Wow. "The simple fact is that you can't even prove you exist". That sounds like a (false) belief you have. You do realize I hope that you are arguing with someone who you can't be sure exists? This is hilarious.

People are reading my post (as you have agreed).

I haven't agreed to that assumption.

Yeah, you did. "Most reading this would then object by asking ...".

One could just as easily point out that it is literally eyes that are viewing these posts. Unless you are an eye, it isn't actually you that is reading this post. Your brain is processing what the eyes read. There are all sorts of other processes going on that allow all of this to occur, but none of these processes are who you are. These are all happening within your body, and it is grammatically incorrect to equate you with your body. The second person singular verb to be is not equivalent to the genitive of possession.

You are not a human having or a human doing, but a human being. That is what you are, not who you are.

LOL. I was expecting something a little more intellectual. This is a real letdown. Why don't we waste time and energy arguing what a human being is and what is meant by the pronoun "you", eh? What better way to derail a thread on a disproof of God?

< Further derail nonsense snipped >

Note: I probably won't reply to any further posts you make. If you have no interest in the thread subject then I have no interest in correcting your misconceptions about science and the use of language. As far as I am concerned this is all a monumental derail of the thread.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 312 by RedEye]

Just off hand, I think shnarkle is taking thinking like this a bit too seriously, and applying it to well...everything



The French means "This is not a pipe", if you are unfamiliar with this image.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 310 by shnarkle]

God, by definition is omniscient, therefore he cannot be known in the first place.

Whatever God is by definition, it has never demonstrated any of the attributes it is alleged to possess.

God doesn't possess attributes. Attributes are, once again by definition; applied by others. Attributions are not inherent in what or who they are attributed to. In this case, they are being applied to an argument. Logic dictates that "all" does not allow for "some", or "none".

Logic also points out that what knows is not what is known. The scientist observes a specimen. The scientist is not what is observed. Those who know, know what is known, but what is known is not the knower. In the case of all knowing, there is simply no room for anything to be known within omniscience.

What is known is not God, therefore the so-called gods that are known are not actually gods at all, but products of one's imagination. They are created gods.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 314 by shnarkle]

The scientist observes a specimen. The scientist is not what is observed. Those who know, know what is known, but what is known is not the knower. In the case of all knowing, there is simply no room for anything to be known within omniscience.

Ya know...you actually do make a weird kind of sense here. At the time of my typing this comment, I really want to agree with you. I'm going to have to go now, got business to take care of, but I wanted to leave this here to let you know that I am not dismissing entirely what you said.
Are you saying that the concept of omniscience is self-contradictory? If so, that's something I've always maintained myself but for a different reason - the problem of unknown unknowns.

What is known is not God, therefore the so-called gods that are known are not actually gods at all, but products of one's imagination. They are created gods.

So let me see if I can understand you. The following is a stream of consciousness writing, me trying to break down what you say as I think it.
A scientist observes a specimen, as you said. So there has to be a clear divide between the observer and the thing being observed (observee). The two cannot be one and the same. I can look at my hand, but my hand is not the be all & end all of me.
However, if someone claims there is a thing (for lack of a better word, I will use thing) called God, and they say God is omniscient, that God knows all, this raises red flags for you. To you, it sounds like this person is saying this thing called God is observing itself, which violates the 'rule' of a divide between observer and observee. This runs into conflicts with other popular Christian theological dogmas, such as that God is separate from the universe, that first there is God, and then God said "Let there be light".

Hmm...have I got you right? Have I got the essence of what you're saying here?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 312 by RedEye]

Just off hand, I think shnarkle is taking thinking like this a bit too seriously, and applying it to well...everything



The French means "This is not a pipe", if you are unfamiliar with this image.

In the field of psychology ink blot tests are used to determine the grasp test subjects have on reality. Those who are on their way to losing their grasp on reality will say things like, "That is a woman in a dress" rather than "That looks like a woman in a dress".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 316 by shnarkle]

In the field of psychology ink blot tests are used to determine the grasp test subjects have on reality. Those who are on their way to losing their grasp on reality will say things like, "That is a woman in a dress" rather than "That looks like a woman in a dress".

Never had a Rorschach test, but are you serious? Does the examiner demand absolute precision of language in order to say they have all their mental faculties? If I say "That's a woman in a dress", will the examiner say I'm losing my marbles (or whatever the correct professional terminology is)?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 314 by shnarkle]

The scientist observes a specimen. The scientist is not what is observed. Those who know, know what is known, but what is known is not the knower. In the case of all knowing, there is simply no room for anything to be known within omniscience.

Are you saying that the concept of omniscience is self-contradictory?

Only insofar as concepts are not omniscient, and when one starts talking about what is known about omniscience they are contradicting themselves. Nothing can be known about what or who is all knowing. Even that isn't accurate because nothing cannot be known. We can't talk about nothing. We can only talk about the concept of nothing, which is a concept. It isn't nothing.

What is known is not God, therefore the so-called gods that are known are not actually gods at all, but products of one's imagination. They are created gods.

So there has to be a clear divide between the observer and the thing being observed (observee).

Not a divide, but they can be distinguished. They are inseparably linked. What is observed necessarily requires an observer for observation to take place.

The two cannot be one and the same.

Observation is not two things.

if someone claims there is a thing (for lack of a better word, I will use thing) called God, and they say God is omniscient, that God knows all, this raises red flags for you.

Not as far as omniscience goes, but in that God is not a thing. God cannot be defined, described, imagined, or articulated. There is only the idea of God, or as the gospel writer points out, "the word". The word is not a thing either.

To you, it sounds like this person is saying this thing called God is observing itself, which violates the 'rule' of a divide between observer and observee.

Within the context of the Old and New Testaments, yes. God cannot be observed, nor observe, e.g. "The kingdom does not come with observation". It isn't subject to observation. It isn't a kingdom that can be subjected or subjugated and remain a kingdom.

This runs into conflicts with other popular Christian theological dogmas, such as that God is separate from the universe, that first there is God, and then God said "Let there be light".

Yes, in that there is no "first". The "word" already "was". Only the word exists, but not as a "what". If this is the case, then the word simply is eternal existence. No thing can exist without the reality of existence. So the things are not fundamental. Existence is fundamental.

Hmm...have I got you right? Have I got the essence of what you're saying here?

Not quite. There can be no beginning to existence. However, our minds necessarily create its opposite, i.e. non-existence. Non-existence, by definition cannot exist, but this doesn't negate the fact that existence and non-existence are co-eternal. It is a contradiction in terms to refer to non-existence as being or existing. I am not contradicting myself. Existence may have no beginning, but it sponaneously originates in non-existence. Being and nothingness are essentially the same.

What does the observer observe when there is nothing to observe? If there is no thing to observe, there is also no thing to do the observing. There is no observation taking place. There is no thing to do. There is only be-ing and nothingness...

Paul and Christ both point this out when they talk of self sacrifice. When the self is anihilated, there is only Christ in, with, and throughout all.

Science has proven that the scientist cannot extricate himself from what they are observing. They cannot perform any experiments without affecting the outcome. They are intricately involved in affecting what they are observing. The double slit experiment is one prime example.

By simply looking at the starlight in the night sky we have changed its path to our eyes. The light that took some billions of years to reach our retina is instantly changed. It defies logic.

Classical logic fails to mediate reality. The intellect, reason, science, or any of our powers of observation cannot be utilized to come to any lasting conclusions. There can be nothing more fundamental than reality, and that can only be revealed through reality (itself). Any other mediator results in ignorance.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 318 by shnarkle]

Being and nothingness are essentially the same.

That's all I can say to that...

[Elijah John]

--

Hurry man, time is of the essence!

---

If you think I was attempting to disprove the word/symbol "God" then you might need a refresher course on how language works,

----

No it doesn't. You thought you were saying something profound but you have been caught out attempting to bamboozle people with things you don't really understand.

---


And here we go with the gish gallop.

---

More gish gallop ignored.

---

More hypocrisy.

---

Oh, I see. You make claims but you have no clue where your knowledge comes from. Thank you for the enlightenment. Not.

---

LOL. I was expecting something a little more intellectual. This is a real letdown. Why don't we waste time and energy arguing what a human being is and what is meant by the pronoun "you", eh? What better way to derail a thread on a disproof of God?

---

< Further derail nonsense snipped >

---

Note: I probably won't reply to any further posts you make. If you have no interest in the thread subject then I have no interest in correcting your misconceptions about science and the use of language. As far as I am concerned this is all a monumental derail of the thread.

Moderator Warning


Up to this point, you've only ever recieved comments from the moderation team. For this string of incivility and mockery, you've earned a warning.

Also, it is your right to decline engagement with those you find evasive or whatever. Uncivil to announce it.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.