Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Veritas

Impossibility of God creating the universe

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Can anyone here tell me if my formulation follows? I think it is air tight, but I want an outsiders perspective. 

 

God did not create the universe

Here are two difference and separate classifications of which by definition do not overlap or entail any attribute of the other.

God = ( -P)
Universe = (P)

That the universe exist is self evident. Any part of the universe or all of the universe can both be referred to as “something”.

Let’s let “something” = S, which is equal to P since the universe is self evidently something.

Both P and S are logically the same. It can then be said that P = S or S = P

Anything that is not S is “nothing” Nothing contains no attributes of  something. Let’s call nothing N.

It follows then that N must not be P or S. So it can be said that N is the same as -P or -S.

It is self evident that something can never come from nothing. In other words nothing cannot logically be the cause of something. From the above we see that “nothing” is the same as -P and “something” is the same as P.

It therefore follows that since it is a fact that P exists that it could not have come from -P

If God is something other than the universe in every quality and attribute then it stands to reason God could not have been the cause of anything that exists.

It follows further that for anything to exist it must have within itself that attribute of P and never -P

P must have always been and -P is inconsequential to the existence of -P

Therefore God could not have created the universe. (P = -P)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your disproof reminds me of Parmenides. Respectfully, though, I think a more "Objectivist" approach would be to start by asking why you're trying to disprove something that there is no reason to believe in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't establish that God is not something. You begin by labelling the universe as "something," arbitrarily denying God the same undefined label. God is indeed something. It is an idea. It is a word. And it is these things self-evidently.

Also, you couldn't deny that God is something by giving a materialistic definition for "something," because then the universe would not fit your definition. The universe is not a material object. It is an idea, word, similar to God. It is a collective noun referring to the group of everything that exists, including ideas in people's heads.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 12:55 PM, William O said:

Your disproof reminds me of Parmenides. Respectfully, though, I think a more "Objectivist" approach would be to start by asking why you're trying to disprove something that there is no reason to believe in the first place.

I would definitely agree with that concerning an "Objectivist" approach and I can appreciate the veracity of "the burden of proof principle". Someone asked me to take a "rationalistic" approach to the argument so I did this intentionally. Just was wanting to see if it works under scrutiny. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 1:19 PM, MisterSwig said:

You can't establish that God is not something. You begin by labelling the universe as "something," arbitrarily denying God the same undefined label. God is indeed something. It is an idea. It is a word. And it is these things self-evidently.

Also, you couldn't deny that God is something by giving a materialistic definition for "something," because then the universe would not fit your definition. The universe is not a material object. It is an idea, word, similar to God. It is a collective noun referring to the group of everything that exists, including ideas in people's heads.

I am contrasting the universe from God because they cannot be the same from a classical definition. God is what "created" everything so by definition cannot have in his own "nature" what isn't created yet. He is "Spirit" (whatever that means) and what he created is the material universe by definition. The material universe is the "something".

I am not sure why you say that the universe being a collective noun means that it is not a collective noun referring to a matter. Ideas, words, etc are emergent properties of matter. Matter is a primary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Veritas said:

I am contrasting the universe from God because they cannot be the same from a classical definition. God is what "created" everything so by definition cannot have in his own "nature" what isn't created yet.

Why not? You're dealing with an omnipotent being. Of course he could create himself and everything else from nothing. He can do anything. You are beginning from a semi-logical context trying to inject a bit of common sense into a concept of god. If you're going to do that, you might as well just define god as a figment of the imagination and go watch some TV instead of struggling with your formulations.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Veritas said:

God is what "created" everything so by definition cannot have in his own "nature" what isn't created yet. He is "Spirit" (whatever that means) and what he created is the material universe by definition. The material universe is the "something".

So matter created God? Is God an Emergent property?

I have never been able to prove the "absence" of god in this universe, because there has to be a God that is absent. And if there is no God, no "absent god" can be demonstrated/shown/proved.

But it is easy to prove the nonexistence of omicience or omnipotence which I assume you have already been introduced to. But there are definitions of God that don't incorporate those traits as in the first mover.

The only solid indication of the non existence of god is that the idea that god created this or that, started this and that, is an unnecessary complication in addition to being arbitrary. Existence exists is complete, demonstrable, already proven out of the box. But it seems that the attraction to the God concept is that the universe having no purpose, is an uncomfortable thought for some. In fact it can be a very disturbing experience. The idea of a God has a purpose that is unknowable to us cures that issue. The existence of God is an emotional requirement not a metaphysical entity observed.

(there also are other psychological motivations to want God to exist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 12:23 PM, Veritas said:

If God is something other than the universe in every quality and attribute then it stands to reason God could not have been the cause of anything that exists.

This sounds okay, but it isn't something that at least Christian believers would disagree with. In the same way you and I would say that existence is eternal and has no beginning, god is eternal. The difference is that god is sentient. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Veritas said:

I am not sure why you say that the universe being a collective noun means that it is not a collective noun referring to a matter. Ideas, words, etc are emergent properties of matter. Matter is a primary. 

So when exactly did God not create the universe? A long time ago when there was no life or consciousness? Or a couple days ago when you were thinking up this topic? Maybe he created everything five seconds ago and our memories of yesterday are artificial implants. How constrained to logic and scientific fact is your concept of god? Because you don't need a dozen sentences to say that you can't create something ex nihilo.

I'm just stressing the fact that the arbitrary is not true or false, so you can't prove it true or false. Some dork can always come along and throw arbitrary objections at you, like the universe could have been created yesterday with people and pets and politicians even.

Also, you begin your formulation like this:

On 2/19/2020 at 9:23 AM, Veritas said:

God did not create the universe

Here are two difference and separate classifications of which by definition do not overlap or entail any attribute of the other.

You're dealing with "classifications"? In other words, abstractions. Your premise already assumes the existence of something that can form concepts.

Furthermore, "classifications" don't exist outside the mind, so they have nothing to do with how a material universe was or wasn't created. You aren't starting with anything objective, not the real or alleged referrents of these "classifications," but the "classifications" themselves. Then you do switch to referrents, but treat them as if they were your earlier abstractions.

And finally, if "God" is a "classification," what does it classify? That which did not create the universe? Well, lots of things didn't create the universe.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Why not? You're dealing with an omnipotent being. Of course he could create himself and everything else from nothing. He can do anything. You are beginning from a semi-logical context trying to inject a bit of common sense into a concept of god. If you're going to do that, you might as well just define god as a figment of the imagination and go watch some TV instead of struggling with your formulations.

Well, I am trying to to show the absurdity of the claim, "God created the universe". Really, I am trying to show that nothing created the universe, that it has always been by necessity. I guess the error is trying to show that by adding a necessary component (the concept of God) to refute it doesn't make much sense? Is that what you are getting at?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Veritas said:

Well, I am trying to to show the absurdity of the claim, "God created the universe".

So there are ways to do that without falling into the mindset of trying to disprove it at the metaphysical level. Point out internal problems with the logic, like asking who then created God? Typically you'll encounter a wall of faith, then you can move on to attacking faith. At least then you can expose their hostility to reason and be done with them.

34 minutes ago, Veritas said:

Really, I am trying to show that nothing created the universe, that it has always been by necessity. I guess the error is trying to show that by adding a necessary component (the concept of God) to refute it doesn't make much sense? Is that what you are getting at?  

Good luck, because you're struggling with one of the most difficult problems there is in philosophy. The fact is that the debate falls on the meaning of the word create, because that's the action posited. If create includes arbitrary miracles, you're going to lose the argument. It will always go epistemological, and then you'll be confronted with the faith bomb. 

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Veritas said:

Really, I am trying to show that nothing created the universe, that it has always been by necessity.

All you showed is that god is not made of matter. The idea of creation (to a Christian) is that god created the physical universe, not that he created existence. Existence is eternal, it doesn't need to be created because it always existed. This is the Objectivist position. The difference is just the demand for a sentient being. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 11:23 AM, Veritas said:

Here are two difference and separate classifications of which by definition do not overlap or entail any attribute of the other.

 

God = ( -P)
Universe = (P)

This is a contradiction. There is always some property that some thing has from which we can deduce that another thing has it too.

Proof:

Let g be "God" and let u be "universe". Let P be any property.

First, suppose that "P(g) or not P(g)". Then, by the law of excluded middle we have,

"P(u) or not P(u)".

By implication introduction this gives,

"if 'P(g) or not P(g)', then 'P(u) or not P(u)'".

Now, let the property Q(x) be defined as "P(x) or not P(x)". We now derive,

"if Q(g), then Q(u)".

The proof of the converse is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 1:44 PM, Eiuol said:

All you showed is that god is not made of matter. The idea of creation (to a Christian) is that god created the physical universe, not that he created existence. Existence is eternal, it doesn't need to be created because it always existed. This is the Objectivist position. The difference is just the demand for a sentient being. 

 

I am confused now as to where what I was showing could be reduced to showing that God was not made of matter? I suppose after considering this further what I have concluded is that this type of response that I have made above is not necessary. My goal was to show that the implications of “something can’t come from nothing” is that God could not have created the physical universe because in order to do that God would not be able to be any part of what the universe is. Since God by definition is something or that all that the universe is then it is a contradiction to say that he created it. 

It is all a contradiction. Which actually makes the claim incoherent. That was my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SpookyKitty said:

This is a contradiction. There is always some property that some thing has from which we can deduce that another thing has it too.

Proof:

Let g be "God" and let u be "universe". Let P be any property.

First, suppose that "P(g) or not P(g)". Then, by the law of excluded middle we have,

"P(u) or not P(u)".

By implication introduction this gives,

"if 'P(g) or not P(g)', then 'P(u) or not P(u)'".

Now, let the property Q(x) be defined as "P(x) or not P(x)". We now derive,

"if Q(g), then Q(u)".

The proof of the converse is left as an exercise to the reader.

 

 

 

 

I don’t see how it could follow “if P(g) or not P(g)n then P(u) or not P(u)”.

I am arguing that in order for God to “create” U then (u) must be a part of God in some manner, but since (u) is not a part of God in any manner then U could not be from God, it must be necessity be eternal. It is a fact that in in order for there to be existence it must have identity. Existence has identity and that identity is the universe. The universe is what has always exists The form might have changed over time but not its existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Veritas said:

Since God by definition is something or that all that the universe is then it is a contradiction to say that he created it. 

Indeed, which is why any believer would say that he created the physical universe, but there was a nonphysical part of the universe before that. So you would just say that god is sentient yet has no physical form. Yeah, something can't come from nothing. But it doesn't demonstrate a strong argument for the impossibility of god because it's easy to get around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Veritas said:

I don’t see how it could follow “if P(g) or not P(g)n then P(u) or not P(u)”.

We assumed that "P(g) or not P(g)". We then derived "P(u) or not P(u)" by excluded middle. Since we assumed one and then derived the other, we can use implication introduction to infer

"If P(g) or not P(g), then P(u) or not P(u)".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...