God Probably Exists

C1) The universe never began to exist My argument shall be that the universe never came into being at t, so it wasn’t caused. The argument is phrased syllogistically, valid under modus ponens: P1. If the universe never began to exist, God does not exist P2. The universe never began to exist C. God does not exist Defense of Premise 1 Premise 1 is justified by God’s definition, as the creator of the universe. For the universe to have been ‘created’, it must have begun existing. Philosopher William Lane Craig writes, “e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact.” [1] Defense of Premise 2 My argument shall focus on justification of the second premise. For the universe to have ‘begun’, it must have a distinction between the past, present, and future, i.e. an assumption of a tensed ontology of time being true. If a tenseless ontology of time entails, then the universe only ‘began’ as much as a scale begins with its first inch [2]. I shall proceed to justify a tenseless ontology of time. JUS1: Under special relativity, no two events are absolutely simultaneous. According to relativity of simultaneity, the simultaneity of events is relative to the observer’s motion and speed of observation [3]. Each observer has a plane of simultaneity, a section of spacetime which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer’s present moment. A tensed ontology would entail that space is entirely three-dimensional, but a three-dimensional space wouldn’t explain observers at different motion experiencing separate simultaneity if there is offset in distance [4-5]. Only a tenseless ontology can account for this [6]. JUS2: My JUS2 shall justify a tenseless ontological position known as eternalism, the idea that the past, present, and future are all equally real, and the arrow of time is illusory [7-8]. Experiments from quantum mechanics vindicate eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time, where quantum entanglement results in photons being moved into the past [9]. An experimenter can choose to entangle photons even when they don’t exist in the present anymore. Other experiments also show time is an emergent phenomenon, ‘emerging’ from entanglement [10]. Furthermore, time travel would be metaphysically impossible if the universe began--but we have observed time dilation [11]. JUS3: God’s own nature implies eternalism. God is defined as being ‘omniscient’, meaning he knows everything--about the past, present, and future. Knowledge of past, present, and future means they are *all* real. Knowledge is justified true belief, and truth can only emerge from reality--thus, omniscience entails the past, present, and future are all equally real. So God’s own property of omniscience entails a contradiction by justifying eternalism. The conclusion entails via modus ponens. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. C2) Abductive reasoning Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that uses observations to infer the most likely hypothesis among competing hypothesis. Unlike deductive reasoning, the conclusion is not guaranteed, but a well-established inference [12]. Under abductive reasoning, an inference to the best explanation is formulated using the following criteria. 1. Explanatory power 2. Principle of simplicity 3. Background knowledge With this argument, I shall use observations to derive that God probably does not exist. a) Explanatory Power All functions and mechanisms of the universe are fully explicable under natural laws. Relativity and quantum mechanics predict occurrences and events of the universe with enormous precision, and explain them. These scientific laws together make up the naturalist position. A theistic position, on the other hand, fails to explain any events and occurrences of the universe. Since God is omnipotent, the God hypothesis acts as an ad hoc explanation which can virtually explain everything, but it still fails to posit valid, powerful hypotheses for the functioning of events in the universe. The question of *why* events occur is not sufficiently explained by theism, e.g. in cases of the problem of suffering. As such, naturalism clearly has more explanatory power, acting as a more powerful explanation than theism, entailing less ad hoc hypotheses. b) Principle of Simplicity The ‘principle of simplicity’ basically states that among competing hypotheses, the simplest explanation entails as most likely a priori [13]. The principle states that the explanation with least assumptions is considered simpler, and is more likely than other complex explanations. From a basic viewpoint, theism has a disadvantage against naturalism--naturalism *only* posits the existence of the universe, the physical universe and actual world we have observed, while theism posits the universe we have observed as well as God. Theism also posits additional attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and non-physical intelligence. We have quantitative understanding of none of these properties. Intelligence and omniscience posit a non-physical mind, and the transcendence of God (since God caused the universe and is, thus, spaceless and timeless) indicates that God is disembodied, since for a being to have physical form, it needs spatial constraint. But we have no reason to believe that physicalism, which posits that nothing is non-physical, is false, and the mere logical possibility of physicalism shows that a disembodied mind is a priori unlikely. c) Background Knowledge The sole field of background knowledge used to make predictions about reality, like the God hypothesis does, is science. But physics, chemistry, and biology do not use the God hypothesis to explain inexplicable events--which means naturalism is assumed for the purposes of study. The incompatibility of God with special relativity also demonstrates that naturalism is the position that is in line with background knowledge, and theism cannot hope to do so. As such, I have established naturalism fulfilling the three criteria better than theism, so it entails as the a priori likely explanation. C3) Causality is not necessarily true This argument shall employ modal logic to show that God is necessarily false. In deductive format: 1. G --> []G 2. ~[]G --> ~G 3. ~[]G C. Therefore, ~G Premise 1 is true by definition. God is defined as a ‘necessary being’. This means that the properties of God are non-contingent, meaning that all his properties are necessarily true [14]. But if any attribute of God is not necessary, then God cannot be necessary. Since the existence of God is contingent on his attributes, if any attribute of God is not necessary, God is necessarily false. Premise 2 follows from Premise 1 via modus tollens Let ‘P’ be the proposition ‘G’, i.e. that “God exists”. Q is the proposition “[]G”, i.e. God is a necessary being, and all his attributes are such. So, if ~Q, then ~P. So, all I need to justify is ~Q, and ~P follows from modus tollens [15-16]. I shall justify that the attribute God holds as ‘creator of the universe’ is not necessarily true, i.e. there is not necessarily a creator of the universe. In other words, as the contention heading puts it, I shall affirm that “causality is not necessarily true.” I shall posit that ~[]C (where C is the causality of the universe) with three observations: 1. For the universe to be caused, it began, and it did not necessarily begin 2. Causality needs time directionality and physical constraint to be necessarily true in regards to the universe, and there is no time directionality or physical constraint with causation of the universe 3. We have no reason to believe the universe was caused #1 is justified under my C1--under eternalism or any other tenseless ontology, the universe couldn’t have begun, and classical interpretations of spacetime and the Lambda-CDM model fail. #2 is true since for anything to be caused, it needs the flow of time. Without time, as Sean Carroll notes, nothing can coherently ‘happen’ in a process, and causality is an occurrence that requires the flow of time. Also, for anything to happen physically, there needs to be a standard for what is ‘physical’ in the form of physical laws and constraints. Outside of the universe, there is neither time nor are there physical laws, so causality fails. #3 is true as the sole justification for a caused universe is that the causal principle applies within the universe. This commits the fallacy of composition, since properties of the parts of a whole don’t make up the properties of the whole itself--for example, a property shared by H2 and O2 is that they are gases at room temperature, but 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O, and 2H2O is not a gas at room temperature [17]. Similarly, asserting the universe is necessarily caused is a hasty generalization, since there is only a set example of caused objects, and don’t know if objects that we do not know of require a cause [18]. Since ~[]C, ~[]G, and, from modus ponens, it entails that ~G. The resolution is negated. Over to Pro. == Sources == Sources in comments.