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).

[Don McIntosh]

Something can only be created in time if time already exists, yes, but like many philosophers and physicists I see no reason why time itself (as we understand and experience it) could not be created along with the rest of the universe, and many reasons to think the universe was in fact created.

Then you would have to explain how that kind of imagined creation is possible without time. As I stated in my support for the 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.

I'm not sure that's right. For the universe to be created there must be a creator. And for time to be created there must be a timeless creator. Since it is not incoherent to suppose that the universe consists of space and time bound together, it is not incoherent to suppose that time was created along with space at the creation. The difference is that the context is eternal rather than temporal.

I won't disagree that your assertion appears plausible enough, but that may be due to the simple fact that we are inhabitants of the very universe whose cause and origin we are trying to ascertain. Clearly we are not in the best position to make objective or authoritative pronouncements on those matters. As the old proverb has it, "If you want to know what water is, don't ask a fish."

Yes, from everything we have ever experienced the creation of an object requires a temporal context. But here the created object in question is the entire universe that contains ourselves along with all our experiences. Given this woeful lack of perspective it makes sense to at least seriously consider the answer provided by revelation, that an external agent inhabiting an eternal dimension created our universe by means wholly inaccessible to us.

I would therefore suggest the following to be a better argument:

P1) The universe is a physical object.
P2) Physical objects do not exist forever (assumption).
P3) The universe has not existed forever (from P1 & P2).
P4) Any object that has not existed forever came into existence at some point.
P5) The universe came into existence at some point (from P3 & P4).
P6) Any object that came into existence at some point either brought itself into existence or was created by an external agent.
P7) The universe did not bring itself into existence (given).
C) The universe was created by an external agent (from P6 & P7).

Let's just say that I'll leave it to you to defend it. I'm sorry but I still prefer my proof.

Okay, but if you want to successfully advance the notion that the universe could not have been created apart from a temporal context, based on the premise that the universe is essentially just another physical object, then you have to not only present your own argument but be prepared to answer counter-arguments (like mine) that are based on that same premise.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 61 by Don McIntosh]

Given this woeful lack of perspective it makes sense to at least seriously consider the answer provided by revelation, that an external agent inhabiting an eternal dimension created our universe by means wholly inaccessible to us.

"An external agent inhabiting an eternal dimension" ...

Looks like the stuff of imagination to me.

I would like to see a hint of something outside the imagination before I started to even think about considering it.

"The answer provided by revelation" ...

"Revelations" seem to me to only happen inside the heads of the suggestible ....

If you are inferring that your version of "God" is the "external agent" ...

Please don't be shy about it.

Everyone's god loves them to proclaim their name.

Please name you god ...

And back up the creation claims for YOUR god with sweet, independently verifiable evidence.

[Don McIntosh]

[Replying to post 61 by Don McIntosh]

Given this woeful lack of perspective it makes sense to at least seriously consider the answer provided by revelation, that an external agent inhabiting an eternal dimension created our universe by means wholly inaccessible to us.

"An external agent inhabiting an eternal dimension" ...

Looks like the stuff of imagination to me.

I would like to see a hint of something outside the imagination before I started to even think about considering it.

Honestly, I don't think it's possible for me to show you the truth of something that you are not willing to think about or consider.

(For anyone else who may be following along: note that my call to "at least consider" an external, eternal agent or revelator of creation was based on the fact that there seem to be no other means for us to objectively analyze the origins or causes of the universe while trapped within it. Also I provided an argument which concluded with the existence of said agent or revelator, an argument that StuartJ here has apparently not even attempted to rebut.)

"The answer provided by revelation" ...

"Revelations" seem to me to only happen inside the heads of the suggestible ....

And what seems to you, only happens within your own head. Or would you like to set about demonstrating that what seems to you seems also for the rest of us?

If you are inferring that your version of "God" is the "external agent" ...

Please don't be shy about it.

Everyone's god loves them to proclaim their name.

Please name you god ...

I've gone on record here many times that I am a firm believer in the God who created the universe, who appeared to Moses and spoke through the prophets, and who was manifested in the flesh through Jesus Christ.

And back up the creation claims for YOUR god with sweet, independently verifiable evidence.

Okay, but understand that the evidence for Christianity is quite varied and abundant, so that I'm never sure just where to begin. A brief list can be found here: https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... oof.html#6

But now it's your turn to break out of your bashfulness. Please describe for me your own philosophical worldview. Are you a naturalist? A materialist? A physicalist? (Note: "atheism" doesn't count, since atheism is nothing more than a denial or negation of theism.)

And then support your own philosophical worldview with the same sort of independently verifiable evidence you expect of Christians who preach the truth of Christianity. Get busy!

[RedEye]

Something can only be created in time if time already exists, yes, but like many philosophers and physicists I see no reason why time itself (as we understand and experience it) could not be created along with the rest of the universe, and many reasons to think the universe was in fact created.

Then you would have to explain how that kind of imagined creation is possible without time. As I stated in my support for the 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.

I'm not sure that's right. For the universe to be created there must be a creator.

Yes, but you assume that the universe was created. Why do you assume this?

And for time to be created there must be a timeless creator.

Who says time was created?

Since it is not incoherent to suppose that the universe consists of space and time bound together, it is not incoherent to suppose that time was created along with space at the creation.

What creation? You assume your conclusion, which is circular reasoning.

I won't disagree that your assertion appears plausible enough, but that may be due to the simple fact that we are inhabitants of the very universe whose cause and origin we are trying to ascertain.

Assuming that there is a cause and origin. Here is the problem. Theists are happy to accept that their god has no cause or origin. Why do they have difficulty accepting that the universe has no cause or origin?

Yes, from everything we have ever experienced the creation of an object requires a temporal context. But here the created object in question is the entire universe that contains ourselves along with all our experiences.

See above. Why do you assume that the universe is a "created object"?

[Don McIntosh]

Something can only be created in time if time already exists, yes, but like many philosophers and physicists I see no reason why time itself (as we understand and experience it) could not be created along with the rest of the universe, and many reasons to think the universe was in fact created.

Then you would have to explain how that kind of imagined creation is possible without time. As I stated in my support for the 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.

I'm not sure that's right. For the universe to be created there must be a creator.

Yes, but you assume that the universe was created. Why do you assume this?

You've misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain myself well; it's always a possibility). I was not simply "assuming" that the universe was created. Rather I was pointing out that your proposed argument for concluding that the universe was not created was not, all things considered, a good argument.

And for time to be created there must be a timeless creator.

Who says time was created?

Lots of people: theists, most of them.

I confess, I can't see much of a purpose behind your questions.

Since it is not incoherent to suppose that the universe consists of space and time bound together, it is not incoherent to suppose that time was created along with space at the creation.

What creation? You assume your conclusion, which is circular reasoning.

Look, I'm happy that you have learned the name of a fallacy. That doesn't mean I have committed it.

Seriously, I don't see where you're getting this. You argued that the very concept of the creation of the universe (including both space and time, and quite regardless of whether such a creation has actually occurred or not) is incoherent; I argued to the contrary that the concept of the creation is not incoherent; and now you come out of left field to accuse me of "circular reasoning."

(Now if I wanted to play the "spot the fallacy" game with you, I would go ahead and assert what I'm beginning to suspect, namely that your misguided charge of circular reasoning here is little more than a red herring.)

I won't disagree that your assertion appears plausible enough, but that may be due to the simple fact that we are inhabitants of the very universe whose cause and origin we are trying to ascertain.

Assuming that there is a cause and origin. Here is the problem. Theists are happy to accept that their god has no cause or origin. Why do they have difficulty accepting that the universe has no cause or origin?

From everything we can gather the universe is a physical entity; it has certain physical properties like size, average mass, average temperature, and so on (age is said to be another of those properties by the way). And from everything we can gather physical entities do not exist forever. I'm no physicist, but entropy appears to be one of the major factors limiting the shelf life of physical entities.

Yes, from everything we have ever experienced the creation of an object requires a temporal context. But here the created object in question is the entire universe that contains ourselves along with all our experiences.

See above. Why do you assume that the universe is a "created object"?

Why do you assume that a proposition is a naked assumption? Again, the universe being a created object (or not) was the topic of discussion, and participating in that discussion requires no prior commitments on which position is actually true. But since you asked: the universe being created by God seems to be the best explanation for its origin and limited duration, its awe-inspiring immensity and beauty, and the various fine-tuned constants and values that permit intelligent, morally sensitive, meaning-seeking beings like you and me to thrive within it.

[RedEye]

You've misunderstood (or maybe I didn't explain myself well; it's always a possibility). I was not simply "assuming" that the universe was created. Rather I was pointing out that your proposed argument for concluding that the universe was not created was not, all things considered, a good argument.

I must have missed it. Where did you do that pointing out and refuting of my argument?

And for time to be created there must be a timeless creator.

Who says time was created?

Lots of people: theists, most of them.

Exactly. Why should anyone else accept those claims?

I confess, I can't see much of a purpose behind your questions.

Well, before we can discuss something we have to reach agreement about some basic premises. One of your premises seems to be that the universe (including space-time) was created. I'm afraid that I don't accept that premise which you have been basing your reasoning on.

Since it is not incoherent to suppose that the universe consists of space and time bound together, it is not incoherent to suppose that time was created along with space at the creation.

What creation? You assume your conclusion, which is circular reasoning.

Look, I'm happy that you have learned the name of a fallacy. That doesn't mean I have committed it.

Sure you have. To argue for a creator for the universe you assume that the universe was created. That is perfectly circular reasoning. You must first show that the universe was created, then argue for a creator.

Seriously, I don't see where you're getting this. You argued that the very concept of the creation of the universe (including both space and time, and quite regardless of whether such a creation has actually occurred or not) is incoherent; I argued to the contrary that the concept of the creation is not incoherent; and now you come out of left field to accuse me of "circular reasoning".

Firstly, you would need to counter my argument that such a concept is incoherent. I haven't seen you do this. Secondly, you can't then just assume that the universe was created without addressing the incoherence in the notion of something being created without time. All I see from you is a hand-waving away of the incoherence problem. You will need to do better than that.

I won't disagree that your assertion appears plausible enough, but that may be due to the simple fact that we are inhabitants of the very universe whose cause and origin we are trying to ascertain.

Assuming that there is a cause and origin. Here is the problem. Theists are happy to accept that their god has no cause or origin. Why do they have difficulty accepting that the universe has no cause or origin?

From everything we can gather the universe is a physical entity; it has certain physical properties like size, average mass, average temperature, and so on (age is said to be another of those properties by the way). And from everything we can gather physical entities do not exist forever. I'm no physicist, but entropy appears to be one of the major factors limiting the shelf life of physical entities.

That is certainly true within the universe (where time exists). What makes you think that what is true inside the universe is true of the universe itself? It's true that no part of an aeroplane can fly unassisted. Does that mean that the aeroplane itself can't fly?

You haven't answered my question in relation to what theists believe about God being exempt from cause and effect. Why is that?

Yes, from everything we have ever experienced the creation of an object requires a temporal context. But here the created object in question is the entire universe that contains ourselves along with all our experiences.

See above. Why do you assume that the universe is a "created object"?

Why do you assume that a proposition is a naked assumption?

Because you have stated it that way!

But since you asked: the universe being created by God seems to be the best explanation for its origin and limited duration, its awe-inspiring immensity and beauty, and the various fine-tuned constants and values that permit intelligent, morally sensitive, meaning-seeking beings like you and me to thrive within it.

All I see are continuing assertions followed by an argument from personal incredulity.
- the universe has an origin (assertion)
- limited duration (assertion)
- fine-tuned constants and values (assertion)

You can't imagine how the universe exists in the state that it now does so you think that no-one else does and so you have to invoke a supernatural explanation. I'm sorry but an argument from ignorance is another fallacy.

(Btw, the universe is very, very hostile to life like you and me. About 99.999....99% of the universe is lethal to us without spacesuits and radiation shielding. You look at the thin biosphere of one planet among eight in our solar system and you conclude that the universe was designed for you. There may be life on planets in other solar systems but we have no knowledge of that. It could be that we are the only intelligent life in our galaxy of 300 billion stars. And you think the universe is a place for beings like us to thrive in? That's just silly. You're engaging in what is called puddle thinking : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tune ... ar_culture).

[Don McIntosh]

Well, before we can discuss something we have to reach agreement about some basic premises.

Yes. If we agree on nothing else (and it appears we agree on precious little), at least there's that.

One of your premises seems to be that the universe (including space-time) was created. I'm afraid that I don't accept that premise which you have been basing your reasoning on.

If you honestly think I was trying to simply assert that the universe was created in order to "prove" that a creator exists, then I don't blame you for objecting. I certainly did not mean to argue along those lines, and I agree wholeheartedly that such an argument would be, as Dawkins would say, "transparently feeble."

Best I can tell our central misunderstanding began where I said this:

"For the universe to be created there must be a creator."

Now that was neither a premise nor the conclusion of an argument for theism. It was a rebuttal to your statement on the necessity of a temporal context for any creation:

"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."

When I said "For the universe to be created there must be a creator" I was only trying to suggest that a transcendent being of unlimited power could, in principle, create a space-time universe from a timeless (eternal) dimension. An act of creation might or might not, that is, require a prior context of ongoing time, but it certainly does require the context of a preexisting creator. That was my point. There was no attempt there to argue that because a creation requires a creator, therefore the universe was actually created and therefore a creator must actually exist.

The problem I have with trying to move this discussion forward is that the above bit of confusion is but one instance of many. You have charged me with several fallacies, each of which I believe I'm innocent of having actually committed but which also would consume more time than I am willing to dedicate to something as uninteresting as, well, arguing over how many fallacies I personally have or have not committed. Seems to me if I agreed to those terms you could arbitrarily indict me on various fallacies ad infinitum, and I would have to spend all my time trying to dispel the accusations.

Bottom line is that for whatever reason you and I are simply not communicating well. Rather than accuse you of arguing in bad faith or deliberately reading what I say as uncharitably as possible, I will go ahead and blame myself for any misunderstandings and move on to other discussions with other participants. Thanks for your input though.

In the meantime my actual argument has still not been directly challenged, let alone refuted. Maybe someone else would like to discuss:

P1) The universe is a physical object.
P2) Physical objects do not exist forever (assumption).
P3) The universe has not existed forever (from P1 & P2).
P4) Any object that has not existed forever came into existence at some point.
P5) The universe came into existence at some point (from P3 & P4).
P6) Any object that came into existence at some point either brought itself into existence or was created by an external agent.
P7) The universe did not bring itself into existence (given).
C) The universe was created by an external agent (from P6 & P7).

[RedEye]

One of your premises seems to be that the universe (including space-time) was created. I'm afraid that I don't accept that premise which you have been basing your reasoning on.

If you honestly think I was trying to simply assert that the universe was created in order to "prove" that a creator exists, then I don't blame you for objecting. I certainly did not mean to argue along those lines, and I agree wholeheartedly that such an argument would be, as Dawkins would say, "transparently feeble."

Okay.

Best I can tell our central misunderstanding began where I said this:

"For the universe to be created there must be a creator."

Now that was neither a premise nor the conclusion of an argument for theism. It was a rebuttal to your statement on the necessity of a temporal context for any creation:

"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."

Then you would have to explain how it is a rebuttal. Firstly, I don't even agree with your statement since it assumes a being doing the creating. It would be better phrased as:

"For the universe to have been created (be an effect) there must have been a cause."

For example, when the solar system was "created" there was no creator. It all happened through entirely natural processes. When a snowflake is created there is no creator present. Therefore you can't arbitrarily rule out the same thing for the universe.

Secondly, as I said, I don't see that your statement refutes anything. Basically it is nothing more than speculation. In effect you are saying that "If the universe was created then a creative cause is required". The problem is the "If". You would need to establish that the universe was indeed created. Then we have something to discuss. Right now the fact that you consider mere speculation to be a rebuttal of some kind is where you have a serious problem. I have tried to explain this to you already.

When I said "For the universe to be created there must be a creator" I was only trying to suggest that a transcendent being of unlimited power could, in principle, create a space-time universe from a timeless (eternal) dimension.

And that is more speculation piled on speculation. To make a reasoned argument you need to start with things that we can all agree are true. Instead you start with speculation and then top it with further speculation. (Your point about unlimited power is irrelevant if something is not logically possible, eg. Can God create a weight which he cannot lift? It's exactly the same thing with creating something sans time. It makes no logical sense as I have explained. You make no attempt to refute my argument. Instead you try to sidestep it by ignoring the logic of it).

An act of creation might or might not, that is, require a prior context of ongoing time, but it certainly does require the context of a preexisting creator. That was my point. There was no attempt there to argue that because a creation requires a creator, therefore the universe was actually created and therefore a creator must actually exist.

Assuming I grant all that, then how does it serve as a rebuttal of my proof as you have claimed? You say you are making a point but what is that point in relation to the proof I presented?

The problem I have with trying to move this discussion forward is that the above bit of confusion is but one instance of many.

Repeatedly accusing your opponent of "confusion" seems to be your way of avoiding my arguments.

You have charged me with several fallacies, each of which I believe I'm innocent of having actually committed but which also would consume more time than I am willing to dedicate to something as uninteresting as, well, arguing over how many fallacies I personally have or have not committed.

Yeah, you committed them but we'll let the gentle reader decide.

[RedEye]

In the meantime my actual argument has still not been directly challenged, let alone refuted. Maybe someone else would like to discuss:

P1) The universe is a physical object.
P2) Physical objects do not exist forever (assumption).
P3) The universe has not existed forever (from P1 & P2).
P4) Any object that has not existed forever came into existence at some point.
P5) The universe came into existence at some point (from P3 & P4).
P6) Any object that came into existence at some point either brought itself into existence or was created by an external agent.
P7) The universe did not bring itself into existence (given).
C) The universe was created by an external agent (from P6 & P7).

Can I suggest that you start your own topic instead of co-opting mine?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 63 by Don McIntosh]

But now it's your turn to break out of your bashfulness.

You're probably the only one here who thinks I'm bashful ...!

Check out any of the threads I've started.

However:

A world view[1] or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view

I don't fit into any such box/es.

And you still didn't give us your god's name.

They all have them.

And you still didn't demonstrate that your version of "God" created anything more than sparkles in your synapses.