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).

[ElCodeMonkey]

Firstly, the universe is a closed system. A computer simulation cannot be closed, by definition, since it relies on the underlying computer hardware and software which is not part of what is being simulated.

This is confusing the energy of the simulation with the energy to run the computer. The universe itself is not the computer, the computer simulates the universe. So any energy we perceive is simply part of the programming. Our energy is the Redstone of Minecraft. It has nothing to do with the energy feeding the computer. So we can still be a closed system despite being run on hardware. Minecraft creates energy out of thin air within infinite redstone torches. Has nothing to do with the computer itself.

Secondly, it leads to infinite regression. Even if we accepted that what we perceive as reality is some kind of simulation, the suggested solution does not solve the problem of existence. You would still need to explain the programmer and the computer system the simulation is running on. Are they a simulation too? It's a case of turtles all the way down. Nothing has been achieved.

I have not proposed an answer to all of existence. I am merely proposing an answer to our existence. Yes, more answers about who created us would be necessary. And they may be real or simulated, made by a God, or created through universal happenstance. Who knows. Not trying to solve everything. I'm merely providing a relatable example for how we might understand how God could be outside our universe's constraints.

Thirdly, you relegate God to being no more than an advanced alien in some other universe. He could be a teenager performing a computer experiment. I'm not sure that theists would be comfortable with calling such a being God.

Doesn't really matter if people are fine with it or not. Again, however, in this thread, I was merely giving examples to express how God can be outside our universe in a similar way.

Lastly, you ignore the problem of time. Time is a fundamental part of the universe we find ourselves in. If you are trying to assert that our time is completely independent of the time of the simulator world (the clock the computer is using to execute the instructions of the program), then it creates a dilemma. From the perspective of the programmer, all of the time of the simulation (our universe) would pass and the programmer would be none the wiser. He would see absolutely nothing happening from his own frame of reference. Obviously that contradicts the very idea of the universe being a simulation. You can only overcome this by having our universe time being dependent on the clock of the computer running the simulation. That won't work either since then time would not be a fundamental aspect of the universe as we know it is. Catch-22.

In the simulation analogy, time, too, is merely a construction of programming. This is not to say time does not exist outside our time, but it's impossible to say anything about the reality outside our universe. Mario could never fathom our world any more than we could fathom God's. Time, to a simulation, is relative to the things perceiving it. If I see a second pass, that second could have taken 1000 years under slow processing power, but since I am a part of that simulation, I might only perceive one second. Similarly, 100 years could pass from my perspective but only a second pass in the real world. They could have a knob which slows or speeds time in the simulation. They could even reverse it. Ever play Braid? It's a game where time can be reversed! Time is a fundamental part of its universe and yet entirely separate from our own and yet entirely bound by it. The things we think we "undid" still actually occurred within our timeline, but the character would have zero knowledge or recollection of it. Maybe he'd get Deja Vu.....?

[RedEye]

Firstly, the universe is a closed system. A computer simulation cannot be closed, by definition, since it relies on the underlying computer hardware and software which is not part of what is being simulated.

This is confusing the energy of the simulation with the energy to run the computer. The universe itself is not the computer, the computer simulates the universe. So any energy we perceive is simply part of the programming. Our energy is the Redstone of Minecraft. It has nothing to do with the energy feeding the computer. So we can still be a closed system despite being run on hardware. Minecraft creates energy out of thin air within infinite redstone torches. Has nothing to do with the computer itself.

No, I don't agree. The analogy breaks down. The universe is internally self-consistent from the Planck Epoch onward. It's a closed system. You yourself state that energy comes out of thin air within Minecraft. That means that the game is not a closed system. It's even worse than that in the case of a game because it involves interaction with a player who is external to computer program.

Secondly, it leads to infinite regression. Even if we accepted that what we perceive as reality is some kind of simulation, the suggested solution does not solve the problem of existence. You would still need to explain the programmer and the computer system the simulation is running on. Are they a simulation too? It's a case of turtles all the way down. Nothing has been achieved.

I have not proposed an answer to all of existence. I am merely proposing an answer to our existence. Yes, more answers about who created us would be necessary. And they may be real or simulated, made by a God, or created through universal happenstance. Who knows. Not trying to solve everything. I'm merely providing a relatable example for how we might understand how God could be outside our universe's constraints.

No, you didn't propose an answer to all existence but you certainly pushed the problem up one level. That is my point. It doesn't solve anything. Wherever you eventually draw the line, that line could just as easily be only our universe existing without any requirement for anything external to it.

Thirdly, you relegate God to being no more than an advanced alien in some other universe. He could be a teenager performing a computer experiment. I'm not sure that theists would be comfortable with calling such a being God.

Doesn't really matter if people are fine with it or not. Again, however, in this thread, I was merely giving examples to express how God can be outside our universe in a similar way.

I think that you may be missing the point. Christians believe that their God is the source of everything and that he is dependent on nothing else for his existence. By asserting that "God" is running the universe as a highly detailed simulation you assume that "God" is doing so in some equivalent of time. You need something analogous to time in order to be able to do things. That means you now require an explanation for this time that "God" is now contingent upon. You have effectively diminished God down to "God". You can claim that this doesn't matter much to you. However it makes all the difference in the world to Christians.

Lastly, you ignore the problem of time. Time is a fundamental part of the universe we find ourselves in. If you are trying to assert that our time is completely independent of the time of the simulator world (the clock the computer is using to execute the instructions of the program), then it creates a dilemma. From the perspective of the programmer, all of the time of the simulation (our universe) would pass and the programmer would be none the wiser. He would see absolutely nothing happening from his own frame of reference. Obviously that contradicts the very idea of the universe being a simulation. You can only overcome this by having our universe time being dependent on the clock of the computer running the simulation. That won't work either since then time would not be a fundamental aspect of the universe as we know it is. Catch-22.

In the simulation analogy, time, too, is merely a construction of programming. This is not to say time does not exist outside our time, but it's impossible to say anything about the reality outside our universe.
< snipped >
Time is a fundamental part of its universe and yet entirely separate from our own and yet entirely bound by it.

No. A computer program executes instructions at the clock speed of the CPU. Whatever time is programmed into the game is irrevocably dependent on the speed at which instructions are executed by the CPU. That dependency probably won't be one to one, but there will be a dependency. The faster or slower the instructions are fetched and processed, the faster or slower the time within the game universe progresses. It's even worse if you consider player interaction which trivially links the progress of the game to the time-frame of the player.

The problem is that as soon as you admit the above, you no longer have a closed system (which you don't anyway because of the problem with energy). You can deny that the universe is a closed system but that immediately puts you at odds with modern physics.

As I stated above, it is fairly obvious that if our universe is a computer simulation it is not possible for our time to be completely independent of the computer system (or its equivalent). Why? Because if there is nothing governing the speed of the simulation then everything in it would happen all at once as far as the "external" computer was concerned. There would be nothing to check or control the speed. In effect nothing would appear to happen at all. That is an obvious contradiction.

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 42 by RedEye]

I am not saying we are a simulation that "God" created. I'm saying that God's relation to us can be similar to us creating a simulation. It's just a method of understanding what makes little sense from a "God is not bound by our universe" concept. That is all it was intended to be (in this thread).

Just because Minecraft makes energy come from thin air does not mean it could not have been programmed a different way. I can easily program a closed system myself. Adding real AI would be difficult, but in a few years even that might not be far off. There is nothing about this universe we live in that could not be simulated with enough programming prowess. We could probably do it now but it would be so slow that a second to the simulation might be years to us. Not quite worth it, but we could still program it. Once we have better hardware abilities, even that becomes a moot point.

As for time in a computer, I am a computer scientist and game developer so I'm fairly familiar with what I'm trying to explain. Games have "Frames" that are determined for each "thing" that happens. Each object loops through its code once for each frame and determines all the reactions of all things around it. Depending on the complexity of the frame to calculate, it sometimes takes more clock cycles than other frames. But if my ability to think is frame-dependent, then each frame, from my perspective is some constant speed of time even if it took longer for me to get that frame of data. I'm not sure how better to explain it than that without a huge lesson in programming and computer architecture.

[1213]

So clocks measure nothing at all?

Clocks just count things, for example how many times Cesium atom energy level changes. Now, if it would happen that the energy level wouldn’t anymore change, time would stop and you could do things really fast, because time has stopped. 😃

Times is very subjective and relative matter. It seems to exist only in person’s mind.

So stasis and God cannot act. You can't create anything if there is no time. That refutes a universe creating God.

I don’t see any reason to believe that.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by Clownboat]

The universe being physical is just one of those assumptions I personally am willing to make.

As I wrote;

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.

Similar to how I assume I am an actual thinking being and not some simulation myself.

There is no point in having a simulation if there is no actual thinking being to either create it or experience it.

I assume you do as well about our universe, but if you don't, please provide your best evidence for why we should consider it to be a simulation.

It is not so much any particular piece of evidence which strongly suggests we are experiencing a simulation but how the current evidence available is interpreted in that manner.
This is also why I wrote;

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.

AS far as I personally understand things, the universe being a simulation is the best option we have to explain not only its existence but our existence within it.
As far as creation theories go, simulation theory overall provides the best answer as well.

As far as the OP goes, with simulation theory in mind...

Definitions:
God - the creator of the universe simulation ("God" is not necessarily the Abrahamic idea of GOD either)

Syllogisms:
P1: Something can only be created if time exists. (a simulation can only be created by a creator. Time itself is simply a measurement made within this simulation)
P2: Time is a fundamental part of the universe. (This because the universe has a beginning)
C1: The universe cannot have been created. (Incorrect conclusion. Anything which has a beginning can indeed have been created)

P3: It is not possible for the universe to have a creator (from C1).(Incorrect conclusion. Anything which has a beginning can indeed have been created)
P4: God is only necessary as an explanation for the origin of the universe. (as yet there is no explanation for the origin of the universe but the general consensus is that it has an origin.)
C2: God, as defined, does not exist. (GOD as defined is 'the creator of the universe' and as the universe exists, so too must GOD, as defined.)

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. (Time is interwoven with the universe and began when the universe began. It is not a separate entity from the universe. When we speak of time, we speak of this universe.)
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. (as GOD is defined in the OP as the creator of this universe, GOD has to have existed before the creation of this universe. If GOD is defined as 'Consciousness' then this explains why consciousness is experiencing this universe from within. GOD therefore is both that which created the universe AND that which is consciously experiencing this universe through various forms which make up this universe. This idea does not break from the OP definition of GOD...it simply expands upon it.)

Hopefully you will offer more than, "so ElCodeMonkey's analogy can be accepted".

ElCodeMonkey writes;

We are just characters in this universe and God is outside of it.

This is based on the idea that GOD is separate from us, rather than we are all aspects of GOD-consciousness having this experience.

My own understanding is that GOD is both inside and outside of this universe. IOW - Where there is consciousness, GOD is evident therein.

My members notes expand on this idea, and the interested reader can peruse those notes as they will.

♦ What I think about consciousness in relation to this reality.

♦ Zeros And Ones

♦ The Dangers of Separating Human Consciousness From Any Idea of GOD

♦ The evolution of the understanding of the idea of GOD

etc...

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by JehovahsWitness]

Since God was not created, how can this be extrapolated to concern Him?

How do you know God was not created?
It says he is a creator, but not that he himself was not created...
Whatcha got?

[ElCodeMonkey]

[Replying to post 45 by William]

Sounds logically laid out. Where things get confusing is when discussing consciousness. We can't properly define what it is so it makes it difficult to discuss. For all we know, there is indeed a consciousness that is derived from all the communicating minds of humans as if they were each a neuron in a brain. Neurons simply send communications to one another and magically we have consciousness. Do the neurons know they are making a consciousness? Well, only if they are conscious themselves could they know, but I doubt they could know any more than we could know if we've made a larger consciousness. Where it gets confusing though, is that consciousness appears to be the "something greater" than the "sum" of what makes it up. I'm not sure I could agree that a consciousness existed before "stuff" existed. And for the "stuff" to make consciousness, I feel as if that would take time. So I can be fine with the universe itself simply "being" but not necessarily a consciousness simply being. The consciousness would have to come later. And even if it does come later, it would likely have no more control over the smaller parts than we do of each and every neuron and cell of our bodies. So I can't imagine it would be "God" as a creator. From where would a consciousness be derived without anything to comprise it?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by ElCodeMonkey]

So if you understand the analogy, I do not understand why you are asking for these. Just because I cannot show you them, being the Marios of our universe, doesn't mean we are not the Marios of our universe.

Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument that we are a Mario, within a simulation, but that you cannot show us that we are.
Why should anyone believe it? Would it be rational to believe we are a Mario when one cannot show that we are?

Mario does not need evidence he is in a game in order for it to be true.

But if he wants to convince Luigi or Princess Peach or Bowser, then yes he does.

I think you are confusing "is it possible" with "should I believe it." I have given no reason that you should believe it, just that it is a possibility in order to explain other things.

That's cool then. One of my favourite Youtubers, Darkmatter2525, has a series of animations he's done where our world is a simulation run according to a being called Yahweh, who is actually from another world who is all powerful within our simulation but is unaware of his true origins. He honestly believes himself to be the source of all things.
It's apparently a school test, if I recall correctly, where they make the test-takers amnesiac to their origin.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 40 by RedEye]

Secondly, it leads to infinite regression. Even if we accepted that what we perceive as reality is some kind of simulation, the suggested solution does not solve the problem of existence. You would still need to explain the programmer and the computer system the simulation is running on. Are they a simulation too? It's a case of turtles all the way down. Nothing has been achieved.

Just as a fun aside, it is possible to do this with computers, to have multiple layers. One could take a standard desktop running Windows XP, install the application No$GBA, which is an emulator for the Gameboy Advance, emulate a cartridge that (among other games) contains a video game originally written nearly 20 years earlier for the Atari 2600.
I've done it myself. I've run the application PCSX2, which is an emulator for the Playstation 2, and run Playstation 1 games on it (which is how the actual PS2 ran PS1 games, it was all in software, at least for the Slim model PS2's).

[ElCodeMonkey]

Okay, so let's say for the sake of argument that we are a Mario, within a simulation, but that you cannot show us that we are.
Why should anyone believe it? Would it be rational to believe we are a Mario when one cannot show that we are?

That's what is being discussed here. So we can pick up the signs of a simulation on that thread.

Mario does not need evidence he is in a game in order for it to be true.

But if he wants to convince Luigi or Princess Peach or Bowser, then yes he does.

Agreed.

That's cool then. One of my favourite Youtubers, Darkmatter2525, has a series of animations he's done where our world is a simulation run according to a being called Yahweh, who is actually from another world who is all powerful within our simulation but is unaware of his true origins. He honestly believes himself to be the source of all things.
It's apparently a school test, if I recall correctly, where they make the test-takers amnesiac to their origin.

That sounds amazing. Please link it .