Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Author

Message

Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertsing.

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Post subject:

Tvebak
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 277

Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:44 pm Post subject: Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Is it possible to disprove "god"? Many would think it is not possible with the knowledge we have today. However this person on youtube puts forward a good and interesting argument. It is on the matter of the relationship between creation and time. He has put up an almost complete narration of the video in the description of the video, I have also posted it below if someone has problems watching the video.

Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Quote:

People seem to think that it is impossible to disprove God. Part of this is due to the fact that God is sometimes defined differently by different people, therefore I will use the most basic quality that most people attribute God's underlying nature, which is that god is the creator of all things.

So then it would suffice to disprove a creator, in which case we would need to understand what creation means. The dictionary defines creation as the act of producing or causing to exist. With respect to religion, it is defined as the original bringing into existence of the universe by God

This is the same as the first definition so it will be adequate to use the former, since it is more general. Let us begin to dissect the definition, but first I will define God as the creator of everything except himself. Therefore he is the fundamental cause for all things besides himself.

The definition of creation is the act of producing or causing to exist. This means at some point in time nothing existed. But wait, time didn't exist either since God hadn't created it. So we must throw away the whole concept of time and space, if we are to get at the crux of creation.

If we throw away time, we have to throw away words like before and after too, since these, in this context, are words involved with time. So what does this supposed divine creation really mean?

If one took the position of a divine creator, then you would also have to assume that the creator created everything essentially instantaneously, since there is no time, there is no time duration. Lack of time duration is instantaneous.

was there ever a time when there was nothing besides god? Well within the question you would be assuming time existed along with god.

In this case, time would be a fundamental property of existence, without the creator demanding it to be so, therefore not being the fundamental cause for everything besides himself.

I am not assuming you need time to exist. I am stating that to go from one state to another, time is certainly required. The act of creation requires time since it is going from one state to another, that is nonexistence, to existence.

You might be saying, nonexistence is not a state, but a lack of every state. However, for the case of a creator, there is no complete nonexistence. There would be the state in which it is just the creator, and then the state with the creator and everything else.

So for a creator to create anything, this being would need to first create time. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else is not the fundamental reason for everything.

Thus, any divine creator of everything is impossible. Since God is defined as the divine creator of everything, there is no God. However, if you want to define God as existence itself or something of the like, then surely existence exists.

You can see that any other attempt to bring a God into the picture is simply a matter of language and terminology. To account for how we see things seemingly created everyday is a matter of illusion, I will get into this further in other videos.

Thank you for viewing, I am open to any arguments against mine. I just hope that logic will play an important role in your perspective. Logic will lead us to truth more aptly than faith. This will be another video topic, since some people seem to think the reverse.

What do you think?

Cheers
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:15 am Post subject:

I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies. Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist. Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet. You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.

Mutley
Senior Member

Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249

Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Disproving a Creator (God) ?

Tvebak wrote:

Quote:

The human, conceptualizing mind creates time as a measurement of movement or change.

Quote:

So we must throw away the whole concept of time and space, if we are to get at the crux of creation.

Agreed, but for a different reason

Quote:

If we throw away time, we have to throw away words like before and after too, since these, in this context, are words involved with time. So what does this supposed divine creation really mean?

If one took the position of a divine creator, then you would also have to assume that the creator created everything essentially instantaneously, since there is no time, there is no time duration. Lack of time duration is instantaneous.

was there ever a time when there was nothing besides god? Well within the question you would be assuming time existed along with god.

In this case, time would be a fundamental property of existence, without the creator demanding it to be so, therefore not being the fundamental cause for everything besides himself.

Time is just an invention of the human conceptualizing mind that helps us measure motion and/or change.

Quote:

I am not assuming you need time to exist. I am stating that to go from one state to another, time is certainly required.

No. Movement and/or change is required.

Quote:

The act of creation requires time since it is going from one state to another, that is nonexistence, to existence.

That's not time, that's change. Time can't exist without movement or change happening first.

Quote:

You might be saying, nonexistence is not a state, but a lack of every state. However, for the case of a creator, there is no complete nonexistence. There would be the state in which it is just the creator, and then the state with the creator and everything else.

So far, you mean the creator had to be alone at first, put simply.

Quote:

So for a creator to create anything, this being would need to first create time.

I disagree. I believe we created that. The creator merely needed to set things in motion.

Quote:

But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed.

And again, I disagree.

Quote:

If time existed without needing to be created,

time didn't need to create itself, we needed to create it as a measurement tool for motion/change

Quote:

then whatever may have created anything else is not the fundamental reason for everything.

You're actually talking about cause.

Quote:

Thus, any divine creator of everything is impossible. Since God is defined as the divine creator of everything, there is no God. However, if you want to define God as existence itself or something of the like, then surely existence exists.

You can see that any other attempt to bring a God into the picture is simply a matter of language and terminology. To account for how we see things seemingly created everyday is a matter of illusion, I will get into this further in other videos.

rrrmmmmmmm.......

Quote:

Thank you for viewing, I am open to any arguments against mine. I just hope that logic will play an important role in your perspective. Logic will lead us to truth more aptly than faith. This will be another video topic, since some people seem to think the reverse.

Quote:

What do you think?

Cheers

rrrmmmmmmm.......
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello

careperson
New Member

Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 18

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum...=6291dd7e0f812cec2d389a41838eb2ce _________________ I care

Tvebak
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 277

Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject:

Hello Mutley

I figured that you would like to argue his position

Actually I'm just gonna post his respond/clarification on the video linked above, mainly because I find them thoughtprovoking. But in this video he argues that causality "needs" time and that could be seen as a respond to your issues with the former video.

Impossibility of Creating Time

Quote:

this is a response to the disproving a creator video. I have decided it is necessary to clearly show the inherent connection between time and creation. It is best to achieve this by getting at the definition itself since that is what it is defined to be.

I posit that by what time and creation are defined to be, they are inexorably linked. Let us look into this further... The most general definition of time is...

the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

Now let us look at the definition of creation.
the act of producing or causing to exist.

So you can see there is a causal nature in all of this. So it must also be necessary to define causality, which is...defined as the relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the consequence (result) of the first.

If there is a creator, there would be two separate events because the creator is causing the existence of something. Causality demands there be two consequential events, which is the cause itself and the effect of the cause. In other words, causality demands time.

Thus, creation which is characterized as a cause and effect, also demands time. In conclusion, the idea of creating time is inherently impossible. Much like it is impossible for a circle to have a vertex, by definition of what it means to be a circle.

Cheers
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...

Tvebak
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 277

Location: Around
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject:

kafir forever wrote:

I have never encountered this argument before, but I have encountered several others that take a definitional approach and demonstrate logical inconsistencies.

Anyone interested in the concept of time might find this interesting.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm

And this from the same site with many articles that show the common definition(s) of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics.
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/physical_cosmology.htm
What these arguments say are, IF God has the characteristics commonly associated with God, then God cannot exist. Now, that does not mean some other set of characteristics might be consistent with modern physics, but I have not seen any yet.

You don't have to agree or disagree, but I have found this site very interesting.

Hi KF

Yes that site seems definitly worth looking at. Thanks for the links. But will refrain from commenting on it untill I have read some of it thouroughly.

Cheers
_________________
Yes, we have a "soul"; but it's made of lots of tiny robots. - Daniel Dennet

It's mine "." ...

Mutley
Senior Member

Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249

Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:33 am Post subject:

Tvebak wrote:

Hello Mutley

I figured that you would like to argue his position

Quote:

Cheers

If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello

HomoErectus
Moderator

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 333

Location: Germany
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:02 am Post subject:

Mutley wrote:

If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?

Hi Mutley

When I come home, my two cats are waiting for me to come and open the door to the balcony, so they can get out...

Is it "time" they have to wait for me, or do they not sense "time" ?

Or is it just us, humans, applying our rule of time also on cats ?

But then, my cats ARE waiting, whether I'm there or not... and they can only get out on the balcony when I come home, later on, in time !

hmm....

My cats are also quite "unforgiving", when I'm gone for more than a day, they will be pissed at me, they remember the time I havent let them out, although they waited... for so long !

And... when there is a forward-movement of time, can't it also go in reverse-mode, maybe... ?

And if "time" can be "warped", how much of warping can be done - can it be made to run in circles, or a spiral, or a... standstill ?

.
_________________
Upright is better than bent-over !

kafir forever
Senior Member

Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 4:43 am Post subject:

Mutley and HE: See the link http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_time.htm to Quentin Smith's website for some interesting, though highly technical, papers on the Philosophy of Time, including some discussions on the Absolute Theory of Time where times are event-independent moments. The point is that the assertions being made in the videos as if they are given, and not questionable, are themselves questionable. I am not expressing an opinion, just pointing to some other interpretations.

Mutley
Senior Member

Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249

Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:59 am Post subject:

HomoErectus wrote:

Mutley wrote:

If nothing in the universe moved, not even cells in your brain that would allow you to tick off seconds in your mind, could time be said to have elapsed?

Hi Mutley

When I come home, my two cats are waiting for me to come and open the door to the balcony, so they can get out...

Is it "time" they have to wait for me, or do they not sense "time" ?

That was covered when I said not even the cells in your brain moving in order to tick off time in your mind. So, I repeat the question.

_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello

FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT