Refute a first cause which most people would call G-d AKA Deism

[Simon Moon]

I'm posting in the Atheist section because a lot of people say Deism has more in common with Atheism then it does with Theism. I shall now proceed to make a simple argument for a Deist G-d.

1. Everything in our natural world AKA universe is either matter or space time.

2. Nothing in our universe can be created or destroyed. (I'm aware of quantum fluctuation and the creation of virtual particles but I do not count that as creation because the new matter is not stable and conservation laws are still upheld.)

3. Therefore the universe which is made up of matter and space time cannot of created itself via the laws of physics alone because the laws of physics don't permit such self creation.

4. Therefore the universe was created or a better term caused by something which is not composed of space time or matter.

5. This thing that must be the cause of the universe existence which is not composed of matter or spacetime is commonly called G-d.

Can anyone refute this proof of a first cause or Deism G-d?

If you cannot refute Deism then I don't see why one should call themselves an Atheist.

Your argument is not logically valid.

There is a fallacy of equivocation with regards to the definition of 'created'. P.2 uses 'created' to describe creation ex material. P.3 uses 'created' to describe creation ex nihilo.

There is also a fallacy of composition with regards to what occurs within the universe compared to the existence of the universe itself. You can't extrapolate the behavior within the universe to the universe as a whole.

Your conclusion may be true, but it is not supported by your argument.

[xdrgnh]

I'm posting in the Atheist section because a lot of people say Deism has more in common with Atheism then it does with Theism. I shall now proceed to make a simple argument for a Deist G-d.

1. Everything in our natural world AKA universe is either matter or space time.

2. Nothing in our universe can be created or destroyed. (I'm aware of quantum fluctuation and the creation of virtual particles but I do not count that as creation because the new matter is not stable and conservation laws are still upheld.)

3. Therefore the universe which is made up of matter and space time cannot of created itself via the laws of physics alone because the laws of physics don't permit such self creation.

4. Therefore the universe was created or a better term caused by something which is not composed of space time or matter.

5. This thing that must be the cause of the universe existence which is not composed of matter or spacetime is commonly called G-d.

Can anyone refute this proof of a first cause or Deism G-d?

If you cannot refute Deism then I don't see why one should call themselves an Atheist.

Your argument is not logically valid.

There is a fallacy of equivocation with regards to the definition of 'created'. P.2 uses 'created' to describe creation ex material. P.3 uses 'created' to describe creation ex nihilo.

There is also a fallacy of composition with regards to what occurs within the universe compared to the existence of the universe itself. You can't extrapolate the behavior within the universe to the universe as a whole.

Your conclusion may be true, but it is not supported by your argument.

Yes you are right I was being sloppy how I used the term creation in P.2 vs P.3 I'll edit it to P.3 as cause because creation does not make sense outside of the universe or from ex nihilo.

Your 2nd point I'll dispute. We know that the universe is finite and came into existence at a point in time. Therefore the existence of the universe is a contingent existence. An contingent existence cannot come into existence on it's own. In other words it's a potential till something makes it an actual. Without getting into contingency if you accept the universe is made up of only mass, space and time we know from the laws of physics those quantities cannot create themselves on there own within the universe . So something has to have cause there initial existence.

---

Also in regards to the composition fallacy it's questionable if it can be applied to the universe. We know if we only look at the inside of a cow we see meet and bone but if we look at the whole cow we see flesh. If you wish to invoke the composition fallacy to the universe then you must assume that something besides space time and matter exist in the universe. But how could space time and mass exist within a universe which itself is not of space time and mass. And hence we get a contradiction.

[Ryantology]

How G-d or even the Theist G-d have intelligence if intelligence is something that is characteristic of living organism which are carbon based and are made out of space time and matter where G-d is neither of those. G-d has no intelligence. A Deistic view of G-d and creation would not even require a designer of the universe just a creator. The universe could of been made without a plan and done in a random way. But the existence of the universe would still need a first cause who is not a material being because material cannot create other material from nothing.

That didn't address my point. Why give the name 'god' to a random and natural process, whether or not it is material in origin? It seems like an unnecessary and ornamental title to something we have absolutely no capacity to understand. much less describe, right now, and to what end? Calling it 'god' does not help reveal this mystery. All it does is legitimize the injection of religious phraseology into this discussion without justification.

[xdrgnh]

How G-d or even the Theist G-d have intelligence if intelligence is something that is characteristic of living organism which are carbon based and are made out of space time and matter where G-d is neither of those. G-d has no intelligence. A Deistic view of G-d and creation would not even require a designer of the universe just a creator. The universe could of been made without a plan and done in a random way. But the existence of the universe would still need a first cause who is not a material being because material cannot create other material from nothing.

That didn't address my point. Why give the name 'god' to a random and natural process, whether or not it is material in origin? It seems like an unnecessary and ornamental title to something we have absolutely no capacity to understand. much less describe, right now, and to what end? Calling it 'god' does not help reveal this mystery. All it does is legitimize the injection of religious phraseology into this discussion without justification.

Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.

[downbeatplumb]

Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.

You have found a gap to cram your god into.

You'll forgive me if I think that the idea lacks a little something.

[xdrgnh]

Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.

You have found a gap to cram your god into.

You'll forgive me if I think that the idea lacks a little something.

What evidence? In mathematics you don't prove something using evidence. You prove it using logic and reason alone. That is what I've done here.

[Jackalope]

We know that the universe [...] came into existence at a point in time.

Do we know this? Really? You treat this as a settled issue in cosmology and physics, when in fact it is not.

[xdrgnh]

We know that the universe [...] came into existence at a point in time.

Do we know this? Really? You treat this as a settled issue in cosmology and physics, when in fact it is not.

Science can disprove not prove. We disproved a eternal universe via experiment. Therefore if the universe is not eternal it's existence must of started in a point in time or 13.7 billion years ago plus or minus.

[Jackalope]

Do we know this? Really? You treat this as a settled issue in cosmology and physics, when in fact it is not.

Science can disprove not prove. We disproved a eternal universe via experiment. Therefore if the universe is not eternal it's existence must of started in a point in time or 13.7 billion years ago plus or minus.

So it is your contention that the Big Bang was creation ex nihilo, and not a transformation of (something, we know not what) that was already existent? And that we somehow have been able to rule out the latter?

Because if that's true, and you can demonstrate it, that would be news to a whole bunch of physicists that have been working on that particular problem.

Your Nobel prize awaits.

[downbeatplumb]

You have found a gap to cram your god into.

You'll forgive me if I think that the idea lacks a little something.

What evidence? In mathematics you don't prove something using evidence. You prove it using logic and reason alone. That is what I've done here.

You seem to be answering a question I didn't ask.

But as you mentioned evidence. Put up or shut up. Logic and reason are insufficient on their own for real world application.

You can skew logic to prove black is white, (and then get killed at the next pelican crossing) and reason can be misused as well.

The ancient philosophers used these things alone and screwed up many things until science came along with EVIDENCE.