Oct 3, 2011 -- 1:04PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Some can, some can't. Actually the proof is not all that complex, but indeed does require some familiarity with the basics of first-order logic and set theory.

Then it should be much easier to explain in plain words than say, quantum mechanics, no?

Logicians themselves tend to be a rather eccentric lot who shun pop science like plague.

What do you mean by pop science? It doesn't speak well of them to shun science.

Besides, most science reporters these days tend to be atheistically biased. Not most scientists.

I don't notice that trend. A good science reporter just reports good science. If Hatcher's proof were good science, we'd have heard about it by now from the scientific community.

Oct 3, 2011 -- 1:04PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Hatcher's proof is neither a con nor a word game. It's quite legit. Hatcher couldn't afford to con without being quickly exposed by his fellow logicians and mathematicians.

So, do you mean legit in the sense of a first-order logic exercise? Or legit in the sense that it actually proves the existence of God in reality?

Oct 3, 2011 -- 1:15PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Wouldn't it be convenient if it were only word play. 

Let me put it a different way;

As used in the axioms:

Define "entity".

Define "God".

G'morning all,

Nobody on this thread has so far managed to demonstrate any errors in Hatcher's premises nor in his reasoning. Undemonstrated claims abound, no doubt. So do irrelevant comments like "why isn't the proof breaking news on CNN" or "man, its too abstract". Whether or not Hatcher has been covered by the Daily Post of Williston N. Dakota is utterly irrelevant to the fact that his proof hasn't been demonstrated to contain significant errors. As I said, it does not easily lend itself to the viewing of non-logicians (including the rest of the scientific community, let alone the general public). This is one of the many reasons it never "made" the big news in its day. If we are to conclude a theory or a study irrelevant if it does not make the evening news, we should abandon the bulk of modern science. Only an offspring of pop generation would even entertain such a ridiculous notion. Hatcher's proof may yet emerge in the decades to come as it is understood by more and more people. Or then it won't. My friend, a professional cosmologist, told me recently how little Stephen Hawking features in contemporary professional journals. His major contribution was in the seventies. Pop culture has embraced him and take his continuing speculations as facts while the professionals pay little serious attention to him.

Let me quickly formulate Hatcher's premises (+ one ontological assumption) in lay terms. In brief, Hatcher deduces God from the following four premises as a logical necessity.

P1 in lay terms: Phenomena are either self-caused or other-caused.

P2 in lay terms: The cause of a composite entity (consisting of parts) is also the cause of its parts.

P3 in lay terms: A composite entity (consisting of parts) cannot pre-exist its parts.

A0 in lay terms: Something exists.

Hatcher proves that these three premises and the fourth assumption logically imply a self-caused cause of the universe which does not consist of parts (non-composite). According to Hatcher these qualities qualify that entity as God in a minimalist sense. In religious terms, Hatcher proves that premises P1-3 and assumption A0 logically imply that a Single Self-Sufficient Creator of the Heavens and the Earth exists.

These are not difficult premises. If any of them are to be rejected as reasonable, valid arguments must be set forth for their rejection. "They are too abstract for the general public" is not a valid argument by any measure.

The premises of the theory of general relativity are highly abstract and far less obvious. Its verbalization in lay form far more difficult. E=mc²  captures even less of relativity than "P1-3 + A0 implies God" captures Hatcher's schematic.

With kind regards,

LilWabbit

Oct 3, 2011 -- 11:57PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

G'morning all,

Nobody on this thread has so far managed to demonstrate any errors in Hatcher's premises nor in his reasoning. Undemonstrated claims abound, no doubt. So do irrelevant comments like "why isn't the proof breaking news on CNN" or "man, its too abstract". Whether or not Hatcher has been covered by the Daily Post of Williston N. Dakota is utterly irrelevant to the fact that his proof hasn't been demonstrated to contain significant errors. As I said, it does not easily lend itself to the viewing of non-logicians (including the rest of the scientific community, let alone the general public). This is one of the many reasons it never "made" the big news in its day. If we are to conclude a theory or a study irrelevant if it does not make the evening news, we should abandon the bulk of modern science.

Well some fundamentalists consider much science to not only be irrelevant, but have contempt for it.  The fact is most people are indifferent to science while it goes on describing our universe with excellent precision.  It ends up being relevant to them despite their indifference.

Only an offspring of pop generation would even entertain such a ridiculous notion. Hatcher's proof may yet emerge in the decades to come as it is understood by more and more people. Or then it won't. My friend, a professional cosmologist, told me recently how little Stephen Hawking features in contemporary professional journals. His major contribution was in the seventies. Pop culture has embraced him and take his continuing speculations as facts while the professionals pay little serious attention to him.

Well look at how it happens: great promotion.  And religion is excellent at promoting its ideas despite having no basis in reality.  Hawking is a pop star like Sagan was, yet these people do bring science into the worlds of many lay people.

Let me quickly formulate Hatcher's premises (+ one ontological assumption) in lay terms. In brief, Hatcher deduces God from the following four premises as a logical necessity.

P1 in lay terms: Phenomena are either self-caused or other-caused.

P2 in lay terms: The cause of a composite entity (consisting of parts) is also the cause of its parts.

P3 in lay terms: A composite entity (consisting of parts) cannot pre-exist its part.

A0 in lay terms: Something exists.

Hatcher proves that these three premises and the fourth assumption logically imply a self-caused cause of the universe which does not consist of parts (non-composite).

He still doesn't account for the possibility that existence isn't caused at all.  As for the stuff of the universe it has likely always existed, no self-cause, no other caused needed.  And what if we accept the self-cause premise instead of the one that leads down the path to a creator?  Shouldn't you equally advocate for no creator at all?  To be fair?

According to Hatcher these qualities qualify that entity as God in a minimalist sense. In religious terms, Hatcher proves that premises P1-3 and assumption A0 logically imply that a Single Self-Sufficient Creator of the Heavens and the Earth exists.

Here's that giant leap again.  Heavens and Earth?  Really?  What about the creator of the hawaiian Islands?  What about the galaxy (or is that "heaven" too?)?  What about all those other billions of galaxies?  But it is irrelevant to go this far when the logic is only an exercise in thought, not a model for reality. Would you agree?

These are not difficult premises. If any of them are to be rejected as reasonable, valid arguments must be set forth for their rejection. "They are too abstract for the general public" is not a valid argument by any measure.

Nor is the leap to a "creator of heaven and earth".  You seem too eager to make these leaps.  Why is that?

The premises of the theory of general relativity are highly abstract and far less obvious. Its verbalization in lay form far more difficult. E=mc²  captures even less of relativity than "P1-3 + A0 implies God" captures Hatcher's schematic.

Except relativity and E=mc² represents real phenomenon.