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).

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 89 by 2ndRateMind]

I understand it was a joke, but actually many atheist do not like being called sinners. Please PM if you want to discuss it further. This conversation simply distracts from the thread.

[RedEye]

Your "syllogism" is an abomination where you introduce entirely new ideas into the conclusion ("it must be possible", "to create something", "outside of time"). I find it absurd that you could possibly think that your syllogism is valid. You assume that the universe (with time) has been created and yet this premise is nowhere to be found. As I said, not even close...

See above. That I would need to explain to you what anyone at all schooled in logic would find so hilariously wrong tells us something. I'll let you decide what that something is.

Oh, what fun! An unrepentant sinner to redeem! Pass me the thumb-screws, someone...

I'll take that as an admission of you recognizing how bad your "syllogism" really was. Better late than never I suppose. Well done.

So, your alternative explanation is that the universe, and it's necessary component time, has always, does now, and will always, exist? If so, why so?

Because that is what the evidence points to.

Modern physics, incidentally, thinks not, and has traced it's generation to within thousandths of a second after 'the Big Bang'.

Even closer than that. It is called the Planck Epoch. Nothing about that though refutes the idea that the universe has existed for all of time.

If not, why does it now exist?

If there is no beginning to the universe (to time) as is currently believed (eg. the Hartle-Hawking hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2 ... king_state) then your question becomes meaningless.

By accident, maybe, at time T=0?

We don't know that there was a T=0. T=10^−43 seconds is the limit. We can't say anything about the state of the universe "beyond" that. That is why it is meaningless to talk about a beginning.

It spontaneously generated itself, and its governing laws of logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology out of nothing?

No, the universe was always something to the limit of our knowledge. You are merely asserting that it "came into being from nothing".

And you think that account of the universe might be more credible than a fairy story such as Little Red Riding Hood?

No. Firstly, it's not my story - it is a strawman story which you have fabricated. Secondly, is it any more a fairy tale than a Sky Daddy who created the universe ex nihilo?

But I'm happy to amend my syllogism in order to clarify my unstated assumptions, as you expose them:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Things that exist are created or accidental.
C1: The universe, and its constituents mass, energy, time and space were created or accidental.
P3: The universe is too coherent, consistent and comprehensive to be accidental.
C2: The universe was created.
P4: The act of creation is always external to that creation.
C3: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

P1 - Okay.

P2 - (Sort of) true within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality (in a clumsy way).

C1 - Fallacy of composition since we only know P2 to be true within the universe. You can't necessarily apply what is true of the parts (within the universe where time exists) to the whole (the universe itself outside of which time is not known to exist). An obvious fallacy.

P3 - An argument from ignorance (an opinion really). Not accepted.

C2 - Huh? Which premises is this supposed to follow from? This is another very poor attempt at a syllogism.

P4 - Too vague to determine whether this is true or false. When a snowflake is created (forms) what is the external act? Not accepted.

C3 - What? Which premises is this supposed to follow from? This is yet another abysmal attempt at a syllogism.

I'm sorry but you should really have clicked on that link I provided earlier to learn how to construct a valid syllogism. I can't help you if you refuse to educate yourself.

[Don McIntosh]

That is why I appealed to an eternal dimension instead. I would agree that the universe cannot simply emerge from nothing whatsoever, but in principle an eternal dimension where God resides would not be nothing, and thus on theism the creation of time along with the rest of the universe is not necessarily incoherent.

You could appeal to the Tooth Fairy if you like. Appealing to one imaginary concept to help you justify another imaginary concept is yet another fallacy. This has all become very tedious though (continually pointing out the fallacies you love to engage in). What you don't seem to understand is that you must find a flaw in one of the premises of my argument. I am still waiting for that to happen. I suspect I will be waiting a while longer ...

Do you understand what the words "in principle" mean? The point here, for the third(?) time, is not to prove that God exists, but to show that the concept of God (as creator) has not been rendered incoherent by your argument. I trust you can recognize the difference.

I understand perfectly well what in principle means but where have you established this principle? All you are doing is asserting it. You continue to claim that you are "showing" something but you are showing nothing at all. All you do is appeal to further imaginary concepts. I trust you can recognize the difference between facts and imaginary concepts?

Your argument was essentially that theism is incoherent because the creation of time has to presuppose a time at which it took place. But central to traditional theism is that God dwells in eternity (beyond or outside time), an ever-existing dimension or set of dimensions from which he could, conceivably, create a temporal world.

*sigh* And yet more appeals to imaginary concepts:
eternity - imaginary
beyond or outside time - imaginary
ever-existing dimension - imaginary

See my previous answer on why such appeals constitute a fallacy.

Wow. Alright, let me try another tack.

You like science, right? Well in theoretical science there is a third category beyond simply "real" things and "imaginary" things, namely things whose existence or activity is falsifiable; specifically falsifiable in principle. (I found an article that explains the idea clearly enough, here: http://lucidphilosophy.com/chapter-7-falsifiability/.)

The "in principle" part means there is no epistemic commitment on the part of the theorist to a theory's actual truth status. Thus a theory that is falsifiable in principle may be true, which explains why it has not been falsified, or it may be false, in which case it has not (yet) been subjected to the kind of test that would falsify it. Case Two at the link above, for example, concerns the theory that all swans are white. We know this theory is false because it has been falsified (with the sighting and subsequent confirmation of black swans). But for many years it was thought, with perfectly sound empirical justification, to be true even while it was in fact false. To put it another way, for a long time black swans were from an empirical standpoint strictly imaginary creatures, like unicorns or leprechauns in that respect, and only afterward were recognized to actually exist in the world. So evidently there is no enduring hard and fast division between facts and imaginary concepts, or between real and imaginary entities. Okay?

Now imagine (or envision, if you prefer) that I am not an ignorant, narrow-minded theist but an educated, broad-minded agnostic. I am open to the idea that God exists, but that's as far as I've been willing to go. When you say that theism appears incoherent (because the creation of time must take place in time), as an agnostic I understand you to mean that the very concept of theism appears logically inconsistent. And when I answer that from what I've learned about classical theism God is said to inhabit an extra-temporal dimension (eternity) from which he created the universe, so that maybe theism is not incoherent after all, I mean only that for that reason the concept of theism appears logically consistent (or at least not demonstrably inconsistent). All this suggests is that God is not necessarily strictly imaginary; but I am aware (faithful to my agnosticism) that his being not necessarily strictly imaginary doesn't imply that he therefore exists in reality. So far so good?

In other words, in principle it may be that God created the universe not within time but from an extra-dimensional realm of eternity, so that theism on that score is not necessarily incoherent. Being an agnostic I do not mean to suggest, due to my own remarks about God and eternity, that God exists or that dimensions outside our universe exist, nor even that theism is necessarily coherent; only that for me at the moment the concept of theism remains viable in principle. This entails no fallacy on my part.

And with that I will now take a leap of faith and say: I am confident that you understand me well enough now that we can stop quibbling about this.

[Don McIntosh]

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).

P1 - Doubtful claim but I'll defer criticism since there are more serious problems with the other premises.

P2 - Is a proton a physical object? If so, there is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs. It might, but no-one knows for sure. How about a neutron star? I'm afraid that this premise cannot be accepted on face value.

Also, this claim cannot be accepted unless "forever" is defined. If "forever" is defined as "all of time" then the claim can be rejected if time is a fundamental property of the physical object in question. In that case the physical object can indeed exist for all of the time which the object inherently possesses (ie. forever).

P3 - This is actually a conclusion, not a premise. It should be labelled C1. It fails because P2 cannot be justified (and P1 is doubtful).

P4 - Okay.

P5 - This is also a conclusion rather than a premise and should be labelled C2. It fails because it relies on P3 (C1) which has failed.

P6 - True within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality.

P7 - Given?

C(3) - Fallacy of composition since we only know P6 to be true within the universe. You can't necessarily apply what is true of the parts (within the universe where time exists) to the whole (the universe itself outside of which time is not known to exist). Another obvious fallacy.

Okay. Are you satisfied that your syllogisms fail? Can we now return to finding fault with my syllogisms now that you have been shown how it is done?

Honestly I'm fine with most of that. I'm not too deeply invested in my argument and I'm beginning to lose interest anyway. Just a few items you may want to reconsider before we wrap up:

1. Deductive arguments are not always syllogisms. They may contain any number of premises before arriving a conclusion.

2. Relatedly: I don't believe informal argumentation (most of what we do here) requires changing any premise that doubles as a subconclusion within an argument (such as my P3 and P5 above) from "P" to "C" (the parenthetical "from P1 & P2" and "from P3 & P4" should be sufficient to let you know where we are in the argument). Notation is a matter of convention that seems to vary from one argument to the next. And that's understandable. (After all, a subconclusion is as much a premise of the overall argument is it is conclusion of a subargument.) In fact it's not necessary to accompany premises and conclusions with any formal notations whatever. See for example philosopher Doug Geivett's "Turnaround Argument from Evil to God" found here (and copied below): https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularou ... ght-to-be/ (Premise 4 is apparently a subconclusion as well as a premise.)

• 1. Evil exists.
  2. Evil is a departure from the way things ought to be.
  3. If there is a departure from the way things ought to be, then there is a way things ought to be.
  4. Therefore, there is a way things ought to be.
  5. If there is a way things ought to be, then there is a design plan for things.
  6. If there is a design plan for things, then there must be a Designer.
  7. Therefore, there must be a Designer.

3. The bit about the fallacy of composition is a valid objection, and I think you are correct to call me on it. Note, though, that it basically mirrors what I am saying when I tell you that the universe, to be a creation, need not be created within the context of time. That is: we only intuitively accept your own P1 ("Something can only be created if time exists") because we only have experience of events, like creations, taking place within the universe, and therefore within a temporal context. But obviously the creation of the universe itself is a special case. From that perspective, then, it may help to consider my counterargument something like a reductio drawn from yours.

I do appreciate you taking the time to critique my argument, though.

[RedEye]

That is why I appealed to an eternal dimension instead. I would agree that the universe cannot simply emerge from nothing whatsoever, but in principle an eternal dimension where God resides would not be nothing, and thus on theism the creation of time along with the rest of the universe is not necessarily incoherent.

You could appeal to the Tooth Fairy if you like. Appealing to one imaginary concept to help you justify another imaginary concept is yet another fallacy. This has all become very tedious though (continually pointing out the fallacies you love to engage in). What you don't seem to understand is that you must find a flaw in one of the premises of my argument. I am still waiting for that to happen. I suspect I will be waiting a while longer ...

Do you understand what the words "in principle" mean? The point here, for the third(?) time, is not to prove that God exists, but to show that the concept of God (as creator) has not been rendered incoherent by your argument. I trust you can recognize the difference.

I understand perfectly well what in principle means but where have you established this principle? All you are doing is asserting it. You continue to claim that you are "showing" something but you are showing nothing at all. All you do is appeal to further imaginary concepts. I trust you can recognize the difference between facts and imaginary concepts?

Your argument was essentially that theism is incoherent because the creation of time has to presuppose a time at which it took place. But central to traditional theism is that God dwells in eternity (beyond or outside time), an ever-existing dimension or set of dimensions from which he could, conceivably, create a temporal world.

*sigh* And yet more appeals to imaginary concepts:
eternity - imaginary
beyond or outside time - imaginary
ever-existing dimension - imaginary

See my previous answer on why such appeals constitute a fallacy.

Wow. Alright, let me try another tack.

You like science, right? Well in theoretical science there is a third category beyond simply "real" things and "imaginary" things, namely things whose existence or activity is falsifiable; specifically falsifiable in principle. (I found an article that explains the idea clearly enough, here: http://lucidphilosophy.com/chapter-7-falsifiability/.)

The "in principle" part means there is no epistemic commitment on the part of the theorist to a theory's actual truth status. Thus a theory that is falsifiable in principle may be true, which explains why it has not been falsified, or it may be false, in which case it has not (yet) been subjected to the kind of test that would falsify it.

Let me cut you short there. The above is all well and good. Now what is falsifiable about an "eternal dimension" (whatever you may mean by it)? It's just a phrase you have constructed (or borrowed) with no essential meaning. How would we go about falsifying it?

Now imagine (or envision, if you prefer) that I am not an ignorant, narrow-minded theist but an educated, broad-minded agnostic. I am open to the idea that God exists, but that's as far as I've been willing to go. When you say that theism appears incoherent (because the creation of time must take place in time), as an agnostic I understand you to mean that the very concept of theism appears logically inconsistent. And when I answer that from what I've learned about classical theism God is said to inhabit an extra-temporal dimension (eternity) from which he created the universe, so that maybe theism is not incoherent after all, I mean only that for that reason the concept of theism appears logically consistent (or at least not demonstrably inconsistent).

You are missing the point. When you state "God is said to ..." you are merely reporting what theists have imagined to be the case. It is not knowledge. It is not falsifiable (as you rightly point out we should insist upon). Therefore it is just an appeal to the unknown and therefore useless. When you state that the theist position is "logically consistent" you aren't talking about logic because logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true. Theists don't start with anything true. They simply seek to prop up one imaginary concept by invoking other imaginary concepts.

All this suggests is that God is not necessarily strictly imaginary; but I am aware (faithful to my agnosticism) that his being not necessarily strictly imaginary doesn't imply that he therefore exists in reality. So far so good?

No. God is strictly imaginary by your own criteria (something which should be falsifiable).

In other words, in principle it may be that God created the universe not within time but from an extra-dimensional realm of eternity, so that theism on that score is not necessarily incoherent. Being an agnostic I do not mean to suggest, due to my own remarks about God and eternity, that God exists or that dimensions outside our universe exist, nor even that theism is necessarily coherent; only that for me at the moment the concept of theism remains viable in principle. This entails no fallacy on my part.

Yes, it does. You continue to insist that you can appeal to the unknown in support of another unknown. I'm not sure just how many times I need to point out this same fallacy.

And with that I will now take a leap of faith and say: I am confident that you understand me well enough now that we can stop quibbling about this.

It's not quibbling. You want me to accept a fallacy. I can't do that. I'm sorry.

[RedEye]

The bit about the fallacy of composition is a valid objection, and I think you are correct to call me on it. Note, though, that it basically mirrors what I am saying when I tell you that the universe, to be a creation, need not be created within the context of time. That is: we only intuitively accept your own P1 ("Something can only be created if time exists") because we only have experience of events, like creations, taking place within the universe, and therefore within a temporal context. But obviously the creation of the universe itself is a special case. From that perspective, then, it may help to consider my counterargument something like a reductio drawn from yours.

I do appreciate you taking the time to critique my argument, though.

No problem. It appears we agree that we can only discuss the concept of the creation of the universe if we assume the creation of the universe. I obviously reject that assumption. There's probably not much more to say is there? Thank you for an interesting little debate.

[2ndRateMind]

But I'm happy to amend my syllogism in order to clarify my unstated assumptions, as you expose them:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Things that exist are created or accidental.
C1: The universe, and its constituents mass, energy, time and space were created or accidental.
P3: The universe is too coherent, consistent and comprehensive to be accidental.
C2: The universe was created.
P4: The act of creation is always external to that creation.
C3: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

P1 - Okay.

P2 - (Sort of) true within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality (in a clumsy way).

C1 - Fallacy of composition since we only know P2 to be true within the universe. You can't necessarily apply what is true of the parts (within the universe where time exists) to the whole (the universe itself outside of which time is not known to exist). An obvious fallacy.

P3 - An argument from ignorance (an opinion really). Not accepted.

C2 - Huh? Which premises is this supposed to follow from? This is another very poor attempt at a syllogism.

P4 - Too vague to determine whether this is true or false. When a snowflake is created (forms) what is the external act? Not accepted.

C3 - What? Which premises is this supposed to follow from? This is yet another abysmal attempt at a syllogism.

OK. Let's make this a little abstract, since you seem to have difficulty dealing with the particular material I have put up for your consideration, and this might help separate the structure of the argument from the more contentious issues that have arisen:

P1 Object O has Property P
P2 Objects with Property P also have either property B or property C, but not neither, nor both simultaneously
C1 Object O has either Property B or Property C
P3 Objects with Property B generally have Properties D, E, and F
P4 Objects with Property C do not have Properties D, E and F
P5 Object O has Properties D, E, and F
C2 Object O has Property B
P6 Property B necessarily involves an Agent A with Properties P and G
C3 Since Object O has Property B, Agent A has Properties P and G

Now let Object O be the universe.
Let Property P be existence.
Let Property B be deliberately created.
Let Property C be accidentally created.
Let Properties D, E and F be coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness, respectively.
Let Property G be the independence of the creator to the creation, and all it's components.
Let Agent A be God.

That all should give you something to chew over.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Don McIntosh]

You are missing the point. When you state "God is said to ..." you are merely reporting what theists have imagined to be the case. It is not knowledge. It is not falsifiable (as you rightly point out we should insist upon). Therefore it is just an appeal to the unknown and therefore useless. When you state that the theist position is "logically consistent" you aren't talking about logic because logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true. Theists don't start with anything true. They simply seek to prop up one imaginary concept by invoking other imaginary concepts.

Well, I've missed points before. Certainly if the point is that I must be "arguing in a circle" because your argument from the incoherence of theism appears to be a nonstarter, yes, I'm missing that. But is it possible you're missing a point or two yourself?

Let me try yet another angle here. Consider the argument below:

1. Scientific naturalism (or simply "naturalism") posits that the universe is accurately described by our best scientific theories.
2. Two of our best scientific theories are general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM).
3. GR and QM are fundamentally irreconcilable (why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity for example).
4. Naturalism posits that the universe is accurately described by theories that are fundamentally irreconcilable. (from 1, 2 & 3)
5. Any view of the world that is accurately described by theories that are fundamentally irreconcilable is incoherent.
6. Naturalism is incoherent. (from 4 & 5)

The way I see it, someone could rightly object here and say, "What about string theory? String theory at least potentially offers a viable quantum theory of gravity, in which case it's premature to say that naturalism is incoherent. Your argument is inconclusive."

In reply I could say something like, "Ha! The only 'evidence' for string theory is that by postulating it the inconsistency between GR and QM appears reconciled. You are merely propping up one imaginary concept (naturalism) by invoking another imaginary concept (string theory)." But if I did that, I, not you, would be missing the point: namely that string theory is a serious scientific theory that does hold out promise of unifying the otherwise disparate conceptual domains of GR and QM, regardless of whether there is currently substantial evidence for it or not.

I think you are doing something very similar in dismissing the concept of eternity out of hand in order to preserve the original argument against the coherence of theism. In fact the more I think about it the more I think that by smuggling in an unstated premise (theism is "imaginary") and moving the goalposts back and forth you are actually the one arguing in a circle. Here's how your argument has actually preceded (as opposed to how it's presented it in the OP):

1. Theism is incoherent, because any creation of time must take place in time.
2. (unstated) Theism and any beliefs associated with it are imaginary.
3. Appeals to theistic belief in eternity cannot help theism's incoherence problem, because theism and any beliefs associated with it are imaginary.
4. Therefore: theism is incoherent....

This is why I said that all the stuff about incoherence is really chaff, a distraction from your real target. I think you should just cut to the chase and argue this instead:

1. Any belief that is imaginary is false.
2. Theism is imaginary.
3. Theism is false.

Of course that would mean defending the second premise against a host of challenges. Maybe you could defend it by trying to show that theism is incoherent. LOL

[RedEye]

But I'm happy to amend my syllogism in order to clarify my unstated assumptions, as you expose them:

P1: The universe exists.
P2: Things that exist are created or accidental.
C1: The universe, and its constituents mass, energy, time and space were created or accidental.
P3: The universe is too coherent, consistent and comprehensive to be accidental.
C2: The universe was created.
P4: The act of creation is always external to that creation.
C3: It must be possible to create something including time, outside of time...

P1 - Okay.

P2 - (Sort of) true within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality (in a clumsy way).

C1 - Fallacy of composition since we only know P2 to be true within the universe. You can't necessarily apply what is true of the parts (within the universe where time exists) to the whole (the universe itself outside of which time is not known to exist). An obvious fallacy.

P3 - An argument from ignorance (an opinion really). Not accepted.

C2 - Huh? Which premises is this supposed to follow from? This is another very poor attempt at a syllogism.

P4 - Too vague to determine whether this is true or false. When a snowflake is created (forms) what is the external act? Not accepted.

C3 - What? Which premises is this supposed to follow from? This is yet another abysmal attempt at a syllogism.

OK. Let's make this a little abstract, since you seem to have difficulty dealing with the particular material I have put up for your consideration, ...

Obviously there was no difficulty on my part. I take it that you accept my criticisms above since you want to move on to your latest attempt at producing something valid?

... and this might help separate the structure of the argument from the more contentious issues that have arisen:

P1 Object O has Property P
P2 Objects with Property P also have either property B or property C, but not neither, nor both simultaneously
C1 Object O has either Property B or Property C
P3 Objects with Property B generally have Properties D, E, and F
P4 Objects with Property C do not have Properties D, E and F
P5 Object O has Properties D, E, and F
C2 Object O has Property B
P6 Property B necessarily involves an Agent A with Properties P and G
C3 Since Object O has Property B, Agent A has Properties P and G

Now let Object O be the universe.
Let Property P be existence.
Let Property B be deliberately created.
Let Property C be accidentally created.
Let Properties D, E and F be coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness, respectively.
Let Property G be the independence of the creator to the creation, and all it's components.
Let Agent A be God.

That all should give you something to chew over.

Adding an extra level of abstraction only serves to obfuscate. Let's avoid that and clarify what you are really arguing:

• P1 The universe is an object which exists
  P2 Objects which exist must have been either deliberately created or accidentally created
  C1 The universe has either been deliberately created or accidentally created.
  P3 Objects which have been deliberately created generally have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness
  P4 Objects which have been accidentally created generally do not have coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness
  P5 The universe has coherence, consistency and comprehensiveness
  C2 The universe has been deliberately created
  P6 If something has been deliberately created that necessarily involves God who exists independently of that something and its components
  C3 Since the universe has been deliberately created, God exists independent of the universe and all its components

P1 - It is doubtful that the universe can be classed as an object, but okay for now.

P2 - (Sort of) true within the universe where time exists. You are basically describing causality (in a clumsy way).

C1 - Fallacy of composition since we only know P2 to be true within the universe. You can't necessarily apply what is true of the parts (within the universe where time exists) to the whole (the universe itself outside of which time is not known to exist). An obvious fallacy.

P3 - Generally? Like an invalid proof?

P4 - Generally? Like a snowflake?

C2 - Terrible "logic". What if the universe is an exception to your general rule regarding so-called accidental creation? It is absurd to base a syllogism on what may be generally true. You only need a single exception to invalidate it. I urge you again to read up on how to construct a valid syllogism.

P6 - An assertion and therefore rejected. My car has been deliberately created but God had no part in its construction.

C3 - Fails because C1 and C2 failed and P6 is an absurd premise.

Now, would you like to try yet another level of abstraction or can we finally return to the subject of the OP which you seem to not want to touch with a 10-foot barge pole?

[RedEye]

You are missing the point. When you state "God is said to ..." you are merely reporting what theists have imagined to be the case. It is not knowledge. It is not falsifiable (as you rightly point out we should insist upon). Therefore it is just an appeal to the unknown and therefore useless. When you state that the theist position is "logically consistent" you aren't talking about logic because logic is a method of reasoning that involves a series of statements, each of which must be true if the statement before it is true. Theists don't start with anything true. They simply seek to prop up one imaginary concept by invoking other imaginary concepts.

Well, I've missed points before. Certainly if the point is that I must be "arguing in a circle" because your argument from the incoherence of theism appears to be a nonstarter, yes, I'm missing that. But is it possible you're missing a point or two yourself?

Certainly it is possible. But what point am I missing? You assert that my argument is a nonstarter. It would be great if you could explain why without resorting to fallacies.

Let me try yet another angle here. Consider the argument below:

1. Scientific naturalism (or simply "naturalism") posits that the universe is accurately described by our best scientific theories.
2. Two of our best scientific theories are general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM).
3. GR and QM are fundamentally irreconcilable (why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity for example).
4. Naturalism posits that the universe is accurately described by theories that are fundamentally irreconcilable. (from 1, 2 & 3)
5. Any view of the world that is accurately described by theories that are fundamentally irreconcilable is incoherent.
6. Naturalism is incoherent. (from 4 & 5)

False conclusion. Firstly, GR and QM describe entirely different aspects of the universe (the very large scale and the very small scale) so they are not in direct contradiction with one another. Secondly, your conclusion in point 3. is based on an argument from ignorance. They cannot presently be reconciled. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will never be reconciled or are fundamentally irreconcilable. You seem to be under the impression that science has the burden to know everything all at once. Thirdly, you can't assert that science (naturalism) consists of just two theories which describe the entirety of the universe and if those two theories can't be meshed then all of science (naturism) is incoherent. That is an absurd proposition.

The above is all way off-topic though. I have no idea where you are going with this or how it relates to the subject of this thread. If you are trying to demonstrate how to create an argument which is easily refuted, you have succeeded.

I, not you, would be missing the point: namely that string theory is a serious scientific theory that does hold out promise of unifying the otherwise disparate conceptual domains of GR and QM, regardless of whether there is currently substantial evidence for it or not.

Here's the problem with that analogy. String Theory is an attempt (based heavily on physics and mathematics) to describe the underlying reality of the universe, a universe we know to exist. (It hasn't been accepted yet because of the lack of supporting experimental evidence and that is as it should be). What you are doing is attempting to support the notion of God (who is not known to exist) with other imaginary concepts (eternity, extra dimensions, etc.) based on nothing more than meaningless word pairings. Do you see the difference?

Here's how your argument has actually preceded (as opposed to how it's presented it in the OP):

1. Theism is incoherent, because any creation of time must take place in time.
2. (unstated) Theism and any beliefs associated with it are imaginary.
3. Appeals to theistic belief in eternity cannot help theism's incoherence problem, because theism and any beliefs associated with it are imaginary.
4. Therefore: theism is incoherent....

Could I implore you to stop creating strawmen of my argument (and ridiculous ones at that), effectively putting words into my mouth, and actually address the argument I have presented? If my argument is circular as you claim then you should have no problem identifying which of my premises encodes that circularity. Don't make caricatures of my argument. Deal with the real thing. If you can.