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).

[Elijah John]

[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.

Moderator Comment

Rikuo, please stick to the topic and refrain from piling on with critical comments or observations of other posters.

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.

[shnarkle]

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.

What I posted was:

Classic logic cannot describe the state of being of the universe

You then responded with this:

And yet scientists do it all the time.

So while your memory is correct in that you never made these claims from your own observations, you clearly believe they can be accomplished by scientists.

To describe a state of being is literally a misconception. It simply can't be done, and those who engage in quantum logic have proven this to be the case repeatedly.

I have no idea what you mean by "classic logic" in relation to science either.

My meaning is no different than the accepted meaning.

By your failed logic it would be impossible to prove or disprove anything because we would have to use language to do it.

Language is unnecessary when no proofs are necessary. You are attempting to prove God doesn't exist, and yet you must first assume that God is something, and then that this thing doesn't exist which is a contradiction. Classic logic won't allow you to get past the fact that nothing isn't something. I am only pointing out that it doesn't make any sense to assume a contradiction, and then proceed to prove it doesn't exist.

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.

Despite your protestations to the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming.

Historically, quantum logic derives from von Neumann’s observation that the set of projection operators on a Hilbert space constitute a ‘logic’ of experimental propositions. More than two decades passed from the pioneering work of Birkhoff and von Neumann before interest in quantum logic was re-ignited by Mackey’s probabilistic analysis of quantum theory. Piron’s axiomatization provided a signi�cant extension of Mackey’s formulation, leading to further developments focused primarily on establishing concrete operational foundations to quantum logic, most notably, the empirical framework introduced by Foulis and Randall in the 1980s. Recent advances in the past two decades feature the employment of powerful techniques from pure mathematics, in particular, various algebraic notions taken from category theory and computational logic. Aside from establishing the formal structures characterizing the syntax of quantum logic, there have also been concerted efforts to attribute realist or empiricist readings to the semantic content embodied in the projection lattice of Hilbert space. Some prominent quantum-logical interpretations, at least those critically evaluated in this essay, include Reichenbach’s trivalent logic, Putnam’s realist quantum logic, and Finkelstein’s operational quantum logic.

Finkelstein's work with polarized lenses provides us with a particularly (pun intended) simple proof that classic logic has no way to explain the world around us. Sub-atomic "particles" aren't particles at all. So the physicists are already using figurative speech in their vain attempts to show what can't be shown through language. They admit this themselves. Who better to make these assertions than those who are providing the proofs in the first place? What better proof is there than the one they've provided for our edification?

We can't see sub-atomic "particles" in the first place, so the test obviously isn't dealing with what can't be seen. His proof is dealing with the observable world, and is irrefutable. Classic logic is completely ineffective at beginning to unravel this fact of reality. The case is the same with transcendence.

They are speaking of gods of their own imagination.

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

It isn't language that I am suggesting should be ignored, but the fact that they are speaking about concepts and equating those concepts with nothing but another concept. They believe in the concept of God rather than God. They don't have anything other than the concept, and their own texts point out that this is foolish.

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.

Not the cutting edge science of the last hundred years. It is a well established fact that observations effectively change what is being observed. Moreover, habits change, and these changes are evident at a sub-atomic level. I say "habits" because this is what science sees in the universe; it is habitual, and can change its habits.

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.

Here again, you're contradicting yourself. Disproving an idea based upon false interpretations is not grasping reality at all. A geocentric solar system is based upon a false "grasp" of reality, and can only be corrected by grasping the experienced reality. The geocentric theory still actually works even though it has no connection with reality. Neither theory is utilized in discovering when solar or lunar eclipses will occur. That is exclusively due to previous observations, and are no definite indicator of future events. We can only deal with probabilities and potentialities.

In fact, the scientific method has proven to be the only reliable path to real knowledge about the universe.

The Real Scotsman fallacy.

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.[/quote]

By default, the point is accepted as valid.

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.

Are you seriously giving us a theistic definition of God (arrived at by imagination, not by observation)

No, I'm simply pointing out the accepted definition of words. Omniscient means "all knowing". All doesn't mean "some, part, partly, fractionally, etc.". All means all, and when the knower is known, it is no longer just all-knowing.

and expecting us to accept that the definition adequately describes the reality?

I'm explicitly stating the opposite. Definitions can never describe reality. It's impossible. Again, there is nothing more fundamental than reality, therefore definitions can only be derived from our own reflections upon reality which are themselves secondary to reality.

I mean haven't you been arguing that this is the very thing we can't do?

Yep.

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

What's not to accept? Actually, I did formulate that statement incorrectly. I should have stated: "It's idiotic to ask for proof of transcendence". There is no "what" to do the transcending.

which you can't support

I can easily support it with the accepted definition of the word. It's a Given.

Transcendent: adj. beyond normal limits, surpassing, of transcendent beauty. Being outside or going beyond the limits of possible human experience; (in Kant) going beyond the limits of possible knowledge; being above and independent of the limitations of the material universe.

1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: "fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor" (National Review).
3. Philosophy
a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.

Transcend: v.t. to be or go beyond the limits or powers of, to transcend belief; to surpass, excel, it transcended all our hopes; (philos., theol., of God or a god) to be above, separate from or independent of (experience, the material universe)

but can only assert (as defined that way) to make them impervious to refutation.

The accepted definition of these words makes them impervious to refutation. Pretending to ignore the definitions of words doesn't prove much of anything.

This is the classic tactic used by theists: "I define my God to be beyond disproof".

This isn't my position. There is no God to disprove. My position is that attempting to prove what can't be proven in the first place is a contradiction and pointless.

That is how we get a phrase like "transcends existence" which is essentially meaningless.

It is essentially and effectively coherent. To say that transcendence does not transcend existence is a blatant contradiction. Transcendence is transcendent. While this is blatantly obvious and redundant, it doesn't negate its meaning which is still quite coherent. It is tediously consistent.

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.

You have just accepted my position.

If we had God in front of us this thread would not exist. Right?

No. Only what can be observed can be right in front of us, and transcendence, by definition; cannot be observed.

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.

Not at all. In fact, I have repeatedly shown that their concepts are not only self contradictory, but contradict their own religious texts. They are all the more convinced in their concepts of God.

More importantly, with regards to this topic, the concepts utilized in classic logic provide us with the same dilemma. It is pointless and redundant to make the claim that nothing doesn't exist, and this is effectively what you're attempting to prove.

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?

I made no assumptions. I merely pointed out that regardless of which scenario you prefer, neither makes any sense. See above and below.

If the concept is bad then what that concept describes cannot exist in reality. Is there some flaw in this reasoning?

Most certainly. The geocentric or heliocentric concepst doesn't negate what they attempt to describe in reality. The reality is what it is, and most certainly exists regardless of the accuracy of any concepts. All concepts are feeble and inept at describing reality. More to the point, reality is not affected by feeble concepts. A feeble concept can't negate reality. Concepts have no power in and of themselves to do anything.

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

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

The purpose of this thread is to provide a proof that God does not exist. I have simply pointed out that the accepted definition of words spotlights that your premise is pointless and redundant.

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.

It doesn't matter where it comes from. What matters is its validity. Prove me wrong, and we can move on.

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.

No, I'm not the one attempting to describe states of being, or the world around us. I'm not describing anything. While I can't help but agree with you that most of what I am posting is incomprehensible to you, nonetheless you are comprehending something which you believe is coherent enough to respond; albeit with predominantly irrelevant content.

"The simple fact is that you can't even prove you exist". That sounds like a (false) belief you have.

It's the conclusion to an observation.

You do realize I hope that you are arguing with someone who you can't be sure exists?

My contention isn't that I am participating in a debate with others who may or may not exist, but that who you think you are doesn't actually exist. You can't tell anyone who you are because you don't actually know who you are. The best you can do is to identify an idea with a physical body, and associating one with the other doesn't establish who you are beyond identification. As closely related as identification is to identity, identification is not identity.

More to the point, an identity is something one has, and what one has or possesses is not who they are. The dramatic irony is in the insistence on equating possession with identity; most notably by those who profess to believe in such things as demons. It is still just as bewildering to see it claimed by those who prefer to ignore English grammar.

In other words, this is your sincerely held belief, and while I am in no way attempting to sway you from these sincerely held beliefs, it should be perfectly acceptable to point out the problem between one's beliefs and the contradictions produced by those beliefs. Wouldn't you agree?

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.

There are no more potent examples of a misconceptions in this thread than to equate a description to a state of being, or the verb to be with the genitive of possession.

My points are integrally related to the topic of this thread in that I am pointing out that redefining words is not an effective way to prove much of anything

While using classic logioc to point out that nothing doesn't exist may seem to be proving something, the basic definition of words is more than enough to point out this fact.

[shnarkle]

[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)?

It's pointing out the test subjects grasp of reality. Those who say it is a woman in a dress do not have quite the same grasp of reality that those who are able to articulate that it has the appearance of a woman in a dress.

Faith comes by hearing, but if what you're hearing isn't accurate, it will only lead to ignorance, delusions, insanity etc.

Here's another one of my favorites:

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 323 by shnarkle]

Those who say it is a woman in a dress do not have quite the same grasp of reality that those who are able to articulate that it has the appearance of a woman in a dress.

Or they just don't say the extra words when the plain meaning is still the same. For your logic here to make sense, the psychiatrist shouldn't be satisfied with "That looks like a woman in a dress" either but rather "That's a series of ink-blotches on a piece of paper that somewhat resemble a woman wearing a dress".
There is such a thing as economy of language.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 323 by shnarkle]

Those who say it is a woman in a dress do not have quite the same grasp of reality that those who are able to articulate that it has the appearance of a woman in a dress.

Or they just don't say the extra words when the plain meaning is still the same. For your logic here to make sense, the psychiatrist shouldn't be satisfied with "That looks like a woman in a dress" either but rather "That's a series of ink-blotches on a piece of paper that somewhat resemble a woman wearing a dress".
There is such a thing as economy of language.

Yep, now you're catching on. The test subject could respond with, "I see that I am being presented with this test to ascertain my ability to articulate reality which is ultimately impossible". The most accurate response is silence. Those who follow that method will most likely never find themselves being subjected to that test in the first place.