The whole argument rests on the assumption a god exists, then tries to redefine our Universe as something that was created by this god. It's a circular argument.
An empty claim you seem keen to harp on. I will ask you once more: Please prove your claim if you can?
I proved my claim by showing his claim is circular. I just didn't frame it with a bunch of needless verbiage.
Now, all that needs to be done is present the god for testing. Until then, any claim about the god is worthless.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
The whole argument rests on the assumption a god exists, then tries to redefine our Universe as something that was created by this god. It's a circular argument.
An empty claim you seem keen to harp on. I will ask you once more: Please prove your claim if you can?
I proved my claim by showing his claim is circular. I just didn't frame it with a bunch of needless verbiage.
Dear Mt. Man,
So far you've shown diddley squat. You've offered only "a bunch of needless verbiage", to quote your apt description verbatim. And that's a fact by the way. ;) The reason you haven't gone beyond verbiage is your inability to prove your claim of circular reasoning. Don't worry, I can't either when Hatcher is concerned. You're dancing around the issue while spouting ill-aimed logical platitudes. I will now kindly ask you not to post on this thread unless you have something of substance to offer. Try and follow the example of Blü and James for starters.
James, as an atheist and a modal logician you are likely considered an authority around here on matters of logical reasoning. Perhaps you could state for the record if you have noticed any circular reasoning in Hatcher's proof.
Sincerely,
LilWabbit
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
I cannot go along with a hypothesis masquerading as a proof until the god itself is presented for testing. That cannot be done since gods are nothing but myths. The whole god concept comes right out of mythology. A god did not create our Universe, we created the gods.
The "proof" given here is nothing more than a rehashing of the First Cause/Cosmological Argument. Things that exist need a cause, since the claim is a god exists, that thing also needs a cause, and so on. What caused that first cause? Or is it turtles all the way down? Oh, a god is exempt from having a cause? Isn't that special pleading? Or are you claiming a causal loop where this god thing went back in time before it existed and created itself? This creator god has always existed? Well... then so could our Universe. The whole "proof" rests upon the belief that a god exists and created all this. It's circular in that it's premise is the same as it's conclusion; a god exists. While the Professor's "proof" was interesting in showing just how far things can be twisted, it was not at all convincing.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
The "proof" given here is nothing more than a rehashing of the First Cause/Cosmological Argument.
An empty claim. Show us it is nothing more than Aristotle's argument?
Things that exist need a cause
Show us the flaw in the Principle of Sufficient Reason as defined by Hatcher?
...since the claim is a god exists
Show us where Hatcher claims God exists other than in the actual logical conclusion?
What caused that first cause?
It was self-caused. The issue rather is that if we accept Hatcher's premises as reasonable, a self-caused cause of all existing phenomena must exist. If we reject any of his premises, we must be able to give sound rational reasoning for the rejection.
Or are you claiming a causal loop where this god thing went back in time before it existed and created itself?
I nor Hatcher are not claiming anything of the sort, nor does Hatcher need to because it is utterly irrelevant to his proof whether there was an infinite regression in time or not, a causal loop in time or not. If you had understood the first post, let alone the discussion that followed, you would not need to repeat these platitudes.
This creator god has always existed? Well... then so could our Universe.
Irrelevant to the proof. Reasons stated earlier. Hatcher is not advancing the claim of creation ex nihilo (in time) so quit swinging at your straw men.
The whole "proof" rests upon the belief that a god exists and created all this.
The same ole claim again. Your claim is getting tired. Show us how the proof rests on a belief that a god exists and created all this? And please let me have what you're smoking!
It's circular in that it's premise is the same as it's conclusion; a god exists.
Show us which one of Hatcher's premises postulate the existence of God?
While the Professor's "proof" was interesting in showing just how far things can be twisted, it was not at all convincing.
Prove to me you have understood it first and then feel free to offer your unbiased judgment. Before that, your commentary remains needless verbiage par excellence.
With kind regards,
LilWabbit
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
The question rather is whether you can demonstrate anything seriously flawed about Hatcher's use of causality.
That is the question for you, perhaps. I suppose it would be the question for me if I had set out to show mistakes in his reasoning entirely on his own terms. I was offering a personal reaction, and if he does look at causality differently than myself, this gives me good reason to disregard his "proof" as having any relevance to my personal metaphysics.
However, it appears as if you have mistaken Hatcher's causality to imply "externality" when he employs the term "otherness". This, however, is not the case if you read carefully. For instance, in Hatcher's schematic, for V (the collection of all existing entities) to be "other-caused" simply means that V contains an entity G that is the cause of itself as well as the rest of V. Since G ≠ V, G is therefore "other" than V.
I'll keep this clarification in mind if I decide to give more time to studying his argument, which I just might do considering how novel it is to me personally.
Moreover, you are presenting far more vague terms than Hatcher for a proper logical examination.
Indeed. It was just intended as a quick comment and expression of my views.
One of the strengths of Hatcher's proof is that it need not appeal to time, space, laws of physics, physical constants, metaphysical postulations, or any other "ontological" variables except for the simple assumption that "something exists."
I don't see this as a strength at all, but as a weakness. Leaving out something as important as a time from the issue of causality could easily lead to an excessively rationalistic and abstract treatment of the subject. Rationalistic philosophy tends to be a turnoff for me.
"P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A->A) or other-caused (B->A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason."
There is not sufficent reason or proof the the law or principle of causality existed before existence.
I see no sufficent reason that an "enity" caused existence.
The physcial universe, matter, energy, and space-time did not exist before existence. There was no "time" or "space" or "energy" or "matter" before the big bang.
An "entity" is something that has a "real" existence.
Without "existence" there is no "real" or "entity".
I see no clear reason why if one can claim that that "one" entity existed before the physical-MEST universe that two or twenty or an infinite number of "entities" existed before existence.
Another problem is the claim that "outside the MEST-PHYSICAL" universe "exists".
Then there is the problem of describing what IS "God".
What are the "qualities" and "characteristics" of "God".
Did Mr. Huntington "prove" from a logical point of view "why" the "entity" created?
And what Mr. Huntington is attempting to "prove" is a philosopical secular reason for the existence of "the entitity".
And what about all the other baggage that goes along with the "entity that exists outside of the MEST universe?
Heaven, hell, angels, devils, jinn and the soul?
Of course the fact that Mr. Huntington was a Bahai has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that Mr. Huntington has "proven" that "the entitity" exists does it Lilrabbit.
It would appear that Mr. Huntington was able to do what the Bab or the Bahuallah did not do i.e. prove through reason and logic the existence of "the entitity".
An empty claim. Show us it is nothing more than Aristotle's argument?
Read it.
It was self-caused....
Prove it.
I nor Hatcher are not claiming anything of the sort....
It was an example of several fallacies included in your Cosmological Argument.
Irrelevant to the proof.
No, a reason to dismiss the claim that a god created anything.
The same ole claim again.
Then where did you, or the Professor, get the idea of a god - an idea that came BEFORE you twisted things to fit your belief.
Show us which one of Hatcher's premises postulate the existence of God?
The title of the thread.
Prove to me a god exists. You're the one making claims, not me. You have to provide the proofs, not me. So far your "proofs" have been lacking. Do try better in the future.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
An empty claim. Show us it is nothing more than Aristotle's argument?
Read it.
I've read it only too many times to conclude with certainty that Hatcher's proof is something quite different. Read Hatcher's proof and if you can't understand something (as you repeatedly betray), read it more carefully or ask someone.
Hatcher already did. It repeatedly appears you haven't understood neither the language nor the content of the proof. Every further line you write testifies to this. You would be doing a great service to yourself and the rest of us if you actually understood what you are so vehemently contending.
I nor Hatcher are not claiming anything of the sort....
It was an example of several fallacies included in your Cosmological Argument.
Hatcher does not appeal to the classical Cosmological Argument. This is one of the many strengths of his argument. You would have realized it if you had read or understood Hatcher's proof. As I said, every further line you write testifies to your unfamiliarity with formal logical proofs. The problem is you fail to man up and to admit it. There is nothing wrong in admitting to being a dilettante in formal logic. I certainly admit I am. None of us are experts in all fields. There are only so many Avicennas and Da Vincis for each period.
Show us which one of Hatcher's premises postulate the existence of God?
The title of the thread.
The title of the thread! Now there's a premise! I really need that joint from you! :) For the record, you have repeatedly and consistently failed to show which one of Hatcher's premises postulate the existence of God. Therefore, you have failed to back up your claim that Hatcher's argument is circular. You have succeeded, with honours, in repeatedly advancing your empty claim of circularity without any evidence to back it up. I must therefore conclude you're not interested in actual rational dialogue but rather in personal anti-theistic propaganda.
"P1. The principle of sufficient reason: All phenomena are either self-caused (i.e. A->A) or other-caused (B->A; B is not equal to A) but not both. Put another way, this principle says that the question "why?" is always meaningful. Everything happens for a reason."
There is not sufficent reason or proof the the law or principle of causality existed before existence.
You are now confusing a logical principle for understanding reality (P1) with reality itself. I fail to see how Hatcher (not Mr. Huntington, btw ;) ) has ever claimed that P1 is a kind of a natural law that exists as an ontological principle, or that it has "existed" before existence.
I see no sufficent reason that an "entity" caused existence.
The physical universe, matter, energy, and space-time did not exist before existence. There was no "time" or "space" or "energy" or "matter" before the big bang.
An "entity" is something that has a "real" existence.
Without "existence" there is no "real" or "entity".
I see no clear reason why if one can claim that that "one" entity existed before the physical-MEST universe that two or twenty or an infinite number of "entities" existed before existence.
Another problem is the claim that "outside the MEST-PHYSICAL" universe "exists".
Then there is the problem of describing what IS "God".
What are the "qualities" and "characteristics" of "God".
Did Mr. Huntington "prove" from a logical point of view "why" the "entity" created?
And what Mr. Huntington is attempting to "prove" is a philosopical secular reason for the existence of "the entitity".
And what about all the other baggage that goes along with the "entity that exists outside of the MEST universe?
Heaven, hell, angels, devils, jinn and the soul?
Hatcher is merely showing that if we are to accept premises P1-3 and the assumption that "something exists", then it logically follows that a single entity must exist which is both self-caused and the cause of all other existing entities. It also must be non-composite by logical necessity. Hatcher suggests that the acceptance of P1-3 and the assumption that "something exists" is more reasonable than accepting their alternatives. All other considerations or "baggage" are external and irrelevant to his proof. They can be discussed separately after we have either accepted or rejected Hatcher's premises on account of reason.
Of course the fact that Mr. Huntington was a Bahai has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that Mr. Huntington has "proven" that "the entitity" exists does it Lilrabbit.
Of course it has everything to do with it. As a believer, and as a logician, he is naturally curious as to the possibility of proving the existence of God based on first-order logic. To assume without evidence that Hatcher's prior beliefs seriously affect his logical proof (like Mountain Man and some others here have done) amounts to an unfair and disrespectful (and I might add "fearful") treatment of Hatcher, by not giving him the benefit of the doubt before studying and understanding his proof. As a devoted Bahá'í, he was very committed to the ethic of honesty, frankness and vigilance that his personal feelings do not get in the way of logic. As a logician, he was committed to the principles of logic and the logical imperative of formulating universally acceptable premises for any logical proofs, rather than premises that are flavoured by religious, philosophical or political ideology.
It would appear that Mr. Huntington was able to do what the Bab or the Baha'u'llah did not do i.e. prove through reason and logic the existence of "the entitity".
I'm starting to like this Mr. Huntington! Actually Hatcher's (not Huntington) logical proof is based on certain verses of Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892) which were further elaborated by his son 'Abdu'l-Bahá (1844-1921) in his response to the renowned Swiss neuroanatomist and entomologist Auguste Forel with whom he had formed a close friendship. Auguste Forel expressed in his letters to 'Abdu'l-Bahá that he considered himself a Bahá'í in almost every respect, and was an admirer of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, but could not bring himself to accept the existence of God and the immortal soul. In his response, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, among other things, discusses that logically there are only three possible types of real formations (collections, systems): formations without a cause, formations that are self-caused and formations that are other-caused. What Hatcher has done is to have established a proof based on these premises using contemporary notions and principles of formal logic.
I see that it may take a while for you to fully understand the language of the proof. Until you do, it is proving increasingly uneconomical for me to re-clarify its terms to every new poster that has not taken the trouble to read the whole thread carefully.
As usual, I appreciate your sincere questions.
With kind regards,
LilWabbit
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
One of the strengths of Hatcher's proof is that it need not appeal to time, space, laws of physics, physical constants, metaphysical postulations, or any other "ontological" variables except for the simple assumption that "something exists."
I don't see this as a strength at all, but as a weakness. Leaving out something as important as a time from the issue of causality could easily lead to an excessively rationalistic and abstract treatment of the subject. Rationalistic philosophy tends to be a turnoff for me.
Everything can be analyzed to death, I agree. However, I do not think over-rationalizing is what Hatcher is up to with his proof. The contention regarding time has already been discussed on this thread. In my response to Blü I offered the following lines:
Post #17: To repeat, I, neither Hatcher, have not stated that a cause must precede its effect in time. Neither have we inferred any such fallacy. Logic, as well as physics, knows many different kinds of causalities. One of the well-known causalities is of the time-independent kind where precedence in time is absolutely unnecessary. For instance it would be inaccurate and, in fact, naive in physics to say that "the moon exerts a gravitic pull and then the tides rise." According to Newtonian mechanics gravity is rather a constant observable relationship among the masses. It causes physical bodies to behave in certain ways without preceding them in time in any way. Also it is philosophically and cosmologically completely logical to ask "what caused time?" If someone were to dispute the logic of such a question, he would be obliged to prove the logical error inherent in the question -- a feat that is impossible with any known principle of first-order logic. Since it is reasonable to ask "what caused time?", it is perfectly logical to understand the notion of a time-independent causality.
Post #20: ...You are also constraining your terms of causality a priori by the predicate time. Thirdly, you are ignoring that time itself can be logically regarded as an effect (caused for instance by a more elementary physical force or by the theoretical God). There is nothing illogical about the well-known category of time-independent causes.
Post #20 cont'd: Can you show me how does the gravitic pull of the moon precede the rising of the tide in time, when no known physical observation and calculation so far has been able to? Yet you would not deny the rising of the tide to be an effect/change caused by the gravitic pull of the moon. The earth and the moon indeed revolve in time, but that is a totally different question. The gravitic pull of the moon effects the earth without any delay, yet precedes the effect causally. When the seas face the moon, the gravitic pull of the moon exerts an undelayed influence on them - the very moment any portion of the sea faces the moon. In fact, the gravitational time dilation observed in physics (and predicted by Einstein) indicates that time itself is impacted by gravity. In other words, gravity acts as a cause that affects the rate at which time passes in regions with different gravitational potentials. Until you demonstrate how gravity is suddenly a causality in time and how causality in time is the only logical form of causality, there is no rational reason to discard the notion of time-independent causality. Your suggestion is simply untenable in light of both contemporary logic and physics. Like the joint-puffing hippie would blurt in utter awe: "That's radical, man!" ;)
With kind regards,
LilWabbit
"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
