Post Reply
Page 8 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 1:44PM #71
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 2:07PM #72
Crowhed
Posts: 1,625

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


Wouldn't it be convenient if it were only word play. The absence of substantive arguments and repeated attacks against Hatcher's person (con) are telling enough in terms of the real score in this debate.




I have not attacked his person. You included those paragraphs describing God's relationship and qualities in context of what humans display, right? Those are Hatcher's words, right? They are his extrapolations justified by his proof, right?


 

“We are all without god – some of us just happen to be aware of it.” Monica Salcedo (Does anyone know who this is?)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 2:21PM #73
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

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?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 2:46PM #74
F1fan
Posts: 10,697

Oct 3, 2011 -- 8:17AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Bahá'u'lláh asserts that even the notion of God's "eternity" does not describe God positively but represents a mere "creation" for us humans to imagine His greatness, no matter how inadequately:


"O Son of Man! My eternity is My creation, I have created it for thee." (Arabic Hidden Words)

Indeed, if God be ever accepted by an atheist, the only logical and meaningful concept of God is something along these lines. By stating this I am not assuming anyone to accept it.




I find such statements increasingly narcissistic when maintained and believed in our modern era.  It's quite obvious that the universe and our planet (even eternity which seems quite irrelevant given what we know about the future of life) isn't designed around humans.  It's taken some nearly 5 billion years for humans to evolve, and I doubt our species will last all that long (I say that since I'm not all that impressed by the wisdom of most humans).  Why wasn't eternity made for dinosaurs?  Or cats and dogs?  I suggest that some humans create a spiritual dilemma for themselves when they believe in eternity as an eventual state for humans.  


The only form of god that seems plausible given our experiences as human beings is a deist type, and is completely indifferent to us.  If that is the case we need not award it any more attention and importance than house dust.  Well, house dust eventually demands our attention after a while, but we get rid of it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 2:49PM #75
Crowhed
Posts: 1,625

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".


 


 

“We are all without god – some of us just happen to be aware of it.” Monica Salcedo (Does anyone know who this is?)
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 2:54PM #76
F1fan
Posts: 10,697

Oct 3, 2011 -- 12:54PM, redshifted wrote:


Oct 3, 2011 -- 12:47PM, farragut wrote:


Some things, red, have to be cloaked in arcane verbosity in order to give them the aura of intellectual invincibility.  Fortunately, however, we do not have to buy every con that comes down the pike.





True, it seems this proof has all the signs of style over subtance. Plus, even if it's internally consistent, that doesn't mean it represents anything true about reality. Anyone can make a valid logical syllogism that has nothing to do with the real world.




This is exactly what i was thinking this morning.  The proof has to represent something in reality to be helpful as a model.  The model can't force a "truth" to be accepted as reality.  I find the premises to be way too abstract to mean anything.  

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 03, 2011 - 11:57PM #77
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

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

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 04, 2011 - 12:31AM #78
mountain_man
Posts: 38,042

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. ...


They have. You're just in denial.


Phenomena are either self-caused or other-caused.


Wrong right from the start. What causes radioactive decay? What caused the god you're claiming did something? What caused it to cause something? Infinite regression again. Or are you defining 'phenomena' differently than others?


All your "P"s have similar problems or are entirely based on claims.


Yes, something exists, but not gods. They're nothing but myths.

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.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 04, 2011 - 12:48AM #79
F1fan
Posts: 10,697

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Oct 04, 2011 - 1:56AM #80
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Howdy Dave,


Oct 4, 2011 -- 12:31AM, mountain_man wrote:


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. ...


They have. You're just in denial.



I never deny a valid counter-argument. I am quite open even to the possibility that Hatcher's proof may be refuted in the future. It is not a basis of my belief in God. So far nobody has been able to refute his reasoning or offer better alternatives for his premises. This thread is no exception.


Oct 4, 2011 -- 12:31AM, mountain_man wrote:

Phenomena are either self-caused or other-caused.


Wrong right from the start. What causes radioactive decay?



You repeatedly glibly dismiss some basic rules of rational dialogue while insisting that others play by the rules. Now you responding to a rational premise with a question. In logic, a question is never a counter-argument. I really hope these are not the kind of "valid" counter-arguments that you feel have been offered in abundance in this thread. But let's look at your question despite being somewhat ill-placed. Radioactive decay is caused by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (all isolated systems either remain constant or increase in entropy). In other words, the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus (entity) is other-caused. Hatcher's P1 contradicts with the known causes of radioactive decay in no way. Your question is answered. Show me P1 is inconsistent with radioactive decay if this indeed is your claim.


Oct 4, 2011 -- 12:31AM, mountain_man wrote:

What caused the god you're claiming did something? What caused it to cause something? Infinite regression again.



Dave, to logically conclude the existence of a self-caused cause of all phenomena (notice: including itself) does not logically result in an infinite regression of causes. It results in a first cause. What Aristotle did was to postulate a first cause. Hatcher has done no such thing. What Hatcher did was to arrive at a first cause as a necessary logical conclusion from far less problematic premises.


Oct 4, 2011 -- 12:31AM, mountain_man wrote:

All your "P"s have similar problems or are entirely based on claims.



Then show me what are the "similar" problems rather than claiming so? P2 and P3 are classical logical principles rather than just some empty claims. If you reject P2 and P3, you're basically rejecting the basis of all logical reasoning, set theory and consequently the basis of all physical theories that you have come to accept as true.


F1fan wrote:


"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."


Yes he does by stating that P1 is based on the notion that the question "why?" is always reasonable, and that it is in fact the basis of all science. In his slideshow presentation (page 39) he discusses the notion of causelessness (being neither self-caused or other-caused) and writes on page 42:


"P1 says that the "why" question is always meaningful (even if we never find the answer). If we ask "why B?" the answer "there is no reason, that's just the way it is" is not acceptable. The Principle of Sufficient Reason is thus the fundament and basis of (scientific) rationality. It is the essential logical precondition for all of science."


In short, should we reject the POSR (P1), then we should stop discussing the origins of the universe this minute. All science, cosmology and philosophy should quit wasting our time. "The universe just exists without any cause, you'd better accept it and ask no further questions" is a dogmatic and unscientific response. However, should we accept that it is always reasonable to ask "why something exists?", "why the universe exists?", then we should accept P1 as a rational foundation for any inquiry. No scientist of repute, including Stephen Hawking, rejects P1. However he seeks to explain the universe as self-caused rather than appealing to the absurdity that it is without a cause.


The counter-claim of P1 is absurd: A phenomenon exists although there is no reason for it to exist. What Hatcher says is that P1 is more reasonable than its alternative, no-P1, and hence P1 holds its ground as a reasonable foundation not only for his proof but for all rational pursuits of mankind.


F1fan: "Except relativity and E=mc2 represents real phenomenon."


Actually E=mc2 represents a theory. Hatcher goes further and presents a proof for a theory based on reasonable premises.


With kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook