The entire premise in this thread summed up:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:08 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: "I know! I'll dress up the First Cause argument using a lot of text and a bunch of math, then accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me of not reading it or not understanding it! THAT'LL show those ATHEISTS!"


  Yeah, no, I read the whole thing, and it's still bullshit. All you're trying to do is argue/define your god into existence, and it looks like you're making some leaps that don't seem to be supported at all. Presuming the Universe is finite, there's no reason to believe it would take an infinite energy source to generate it. It might take a vast energy source, but I see no evidence here for the assertion that it would have to be infinite.



Furthermore, trying to worm your way into being able to say that "God caused God" doesn't stop your argument from being fallacious and ill-formed; in fact, it doesn't even stop it from being special pleading. If you're positing that God caused God, then you're allowing for the possibility that things can cause themselves, meaning the Universe could have caused itself. If God is the only thing that can cause itself, then you're back to special pleading.


If you're positing a First Cause that is outside space-time, I'd love to know how you know anything about this Cause at all, or how you present evidence for any of the assertions you've made about it. Before you reach for your Bible, remember that the Bible was written by humans whose scientific knowledge would be dwarfed by the average middle schooler. Unless you have some evidence to support the assertion that they would be able to know things from outside space-time, their writings are essentially useless in proving anything (especially since they're technically the claim, and you can't use a claim to prove itself because that's circular).

Within the premises of the proof, anything could be self causing. Your computer, your cat, the car down the street, the Universe, anything. In fact, the proof begins by examining the hypothesis of self-causation of the Universe but ultimately rejects that as an explanation because of the implications of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Also, importantly, the proof does not presume an external cause. In fact, the proof is led there (not assumed there) by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem after the rejection of an internal cause. Due to the implications of the Theorem, the explanation of the Universe must be infinitely great,...God by any other definition. In addition, God is not a violation of any premise of the proof as God can himself be seen as caused, though self-causing - again, not ruled out by the premises. The reality is that your criticisms are in fact, a sharp highlight of the soundness of the premises. But furthermore, your point about energy is misplaced. We are discussing explanations of the Universe not energy - which is a derived mechanism. It's more appropriate to think about this in terms of laws (which then act on or produce energy).

How do I know about anything outside of space-time? The Bible? Lol. Not really. The evidence is literally in the implication of Gödel's Theorem itself. The being (or whatever you want to call it) is necessarily infinitely great to suffice completeness and consistency.

---

(April 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm)LostLocke Wrote: The entire premise in this thread summed up:

You're referring to the problem of evil. There are many, many theodices that explain why an all good, all powerful God would allow evil. The agent theory of free will is the one I most subscribe to.

Time to trot this out again.

(April 1, 2016 at 6:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 5:38 pm)smfortune Wrote: This is Gödel's ontological argument. I do not present Gödel's ontological argument (Gödel was a theist himself); I have no comment on that. I present an argument invoking Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

OK. Then I'll go with the positions stated here.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05...dont-know/

BTW, no amount of arguing, with math or anything else, can ever make a fantasy real.

Well then, there's no convincing you. Good day.

(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 8:04 am)RozKek Wrote: God of the gaps everytime. "We don't know the answer, therefore geud". "We don't see another answer, therefore jebus". Like Rob said: arguments aren't evidence for god.

There's no gap here. We know that scientific explanations will be either incomplete or inconsistent and they are in such a way so that an explanation of the Universe must regress to an infinitely great power, i.e. God. This isn't a gap. It's an inescapable fact.

Actually the gap is the things we don't have an answer to and god is the filler. There are gaps, and god isn't a valid filler. God is like a "super" variable that you put as the answer of every equation even if it's wrong, just because you can't solve the equation. And once you solve that equation, unsurprisingly you see that god wasn't the answer.

I literally speaking see no reason to why not knowing the answer of something makes room for god as the answer? Honestly. Your thinking is very faulty.
If you'd ask a viking: "What causes thunder"? They'd answer "Thor" (which is merely an assumption just like god). Why? Because they didn't know the real answer. According to your logic at that time Thor really was the cause of thunder since there was no other explanation.

We humans have limited technology and intelligence, science is either "incomplete" or "inconsistent" because we don't make assumptions, we ask questions, make hypothesis followed by experiments and expand our knowledge based on what the experiment/evidence shows and repeat but this time based on previous knowledge. No scientist claims that our theories are 100% true. But we accept them until we find a better theory if there is any, that is how we make progress. Imagine if people thought the way you did but thousands of years ago, we'd make no progress, really, because at that time our scientific knowledge wasn't nearly as good as now which means (using your logic) we would accept god as the answer and not do any hypothesis, experiments etc. Our knowledge would never increase.

My point is because one doesn't currently know the answer doesn't mean god is the correct answer. That is no evidence for god at all. The closest it comes is a suggestion but fortunately that suggestion has no scientific support at all.

We humans will most likely never know the answer to everything and that doesn't leave room for god as an answer. "It's an inescapable fact".

(April 1, 2016 at 7:14 pm)RozKek Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)smfortune Wrote: There's no gap here. We know that scientific explanations will be either incomplete or inconsistent and they are in such a way so that an explanation of the Universe must regress to an infinitely great power, i.e. God. This isn't a gap. It's an inescapable fact.

Actually the gap is the things we don't have an answer to and god is the filler. There are gaps, and god isn't a valid filler. God is like a "super" variable that you put as the answer of every equation even if it's wrong, just because you can't solve the equation. And once you solve that equation, unsurprisingly you see that god wasn't the answer.

I literally speaking see no reason to why not knowing the answer of something makes room for god as the answer? Honestly. Your thinking is very faulty.
If you'd ask a viking: "What causes thunder"? They'd answer "Thor" (which is merely an assumption just like god). Why? Because they didn't know the real answer. According to your logic at that time Thor really was the cause of thunder since there was no other explanation.

We humans have limited technology and intelligence, science is either "incomplete" or "inconsistent" because we don't make assumptions, we ask questions, make hypothesis followed by experiments and expand our knowledge based on what the experiment/evidence shows and repeat but this time based on previous knowledge. No scientist claims that our theories are 100% true. But we accept them until we find a better theory if there is any, that is how we make progress. Imagine if people thought the way you did but thousands of years ago, we'd make no progress, really, because at that time our scientific knowledge wasn't nearly as good as now which means (using your logic) we would accept god as the answer and not do any hypothesis, experiments etc. Our knowledge would never increase.

My point is because one doesn't currently know the answer doesn't mean god is the correct answer. That is no evidence for god at all. The closest it comes is a suggestion but fortunately that suggestion has no scientific support at all.

We humans will most likely never know the answer to everything and that doesn't leave room for god as an answer. "It's an inescapable fact".

I know what god of the gaps is. If I was guilty of that, I would admit it. But there is no gap. I present no gap and say "god". I'm actually demonstrating the absence of a gap. I don't know what your Thor analogy is about but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

---

(April 1, 2016 at 6:56 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 6:37 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: OK. Then I'll go with the positions stated here.

http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/05...dont-know/

BTW, no amount of arguing, with math or anything else, can ever make a fantasy real.

Well then, there's no convincing you. Good day.

P.S. as per your link, a GUT is not a TOE.

No evidence. All just arguments. You're exploring an imaginary world in your head.

You're assuming you have perfectly modelled not just the contents of reality, but reality itself. Your conclusions rest entirely on you doing this. Yet, you cannot possibly demonstrate your model is correct because you have no evidence. You make no predictions, you run no tests.

(April 1, 2016 at 4:48 pm)smfortune Wrote:

(April 1, 2016 at 2:41 am)Red_Wind Wrote: The fact that the post is not in the original font format probably means it was copy pasted from somewhere.

Most likely OP doesn't even know what he posted or how it works.

It's posted from my website which I can't link here due to being a newbie. I'm actually quite versed in the proof and how it works, I created it.

Do you really think that the prohibition on posting links, particularly self-promoting ones, is an invitation to copy/paste the content here?

Pro-tip: it's not.

Translation: my argument IS the evidence, silly!


Yeah...no, it isn't. No set of logical rules proves the existence of something that affects material reality. To use logic to prove something about extant reality, you have to feed it materially demonstrable facts.

(March 31, 2016 at 11:39 pm)smfortune Wrote: Hello atheists,
 
I welcome critique on a proof of God (if you don’t know first predicate logic, just follow the text).
 
The proof is found below.
 
*** Please read the notes at the end of the proof which help establish the soundness of the premises ***
 
If the proof is valid (which it is) and sound, then God is proved!
 
I hope one day to offer a reward to anyone capable of dismissing the proof.
 
Thanks!
 
>>>>> 
 
PROOF >>>
 
There are no uncaused things. : From Cosmological Arguments
 
The Universe is a thing.
 
The Universe is caused (be it internally [self-caused] or externally).
 
∀x[Tx → Cx], Tu: Cu
1. ∀x[Tx → Cx]                 P (Premise)
2. Tu                                  P
Proof:
3. Tu → Cu                        1 UI (Universal Instantiation)
4. Cu                                  2, 3 MP (Modus Ponens) [END OF PART I]
 
It follows that for all caused things, there is an explanation.
 
The Universe is caused.
 
The Universe has an explanation.
 
∀x[Cx → Ex], Cu: Eu
1. ∀x[Cx → Ex]                 P
2. Cu                                  P
Proof:
3. Cu → Eu                        1 UI
4. Eu                                  2,3 MP [END OF PART II]
 
By definition: an ultimate explanation of the Universe must be complete and consistent (i.e., fully explained either through natural self-causation [TOE (Theory of Everything)] or otherwise).
 
Eu ↔ Ku
 
A formal system of explanation (basically, any scientifically compatible explanation) is complete and consistent only in the infinite (recall that higher type formal systems can always be formulated into the transfinite). : From Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem. This rules out a TOE and leads to the rest of this proof.
 
∀x[Kx ↔ Ix]
 
An infinite formal system of explanation is logically equivalent with the “Greatest” one imaginable.
 
Ix ↔ Gx
 
The last two premises mean that our Universe is ultimately only explainable by an infinitely great power. It is also easy to see that...
 
Any characteristic “Greatest” refers to God. : From Ontological Arguments
 
∀x[Gx ↔ Ĝx]
 
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of the Universe can only be God.
 
Eu ↔ Ĝx
 
Proving God in 20 statements:
Eu ↔ Ku, ∀x[Kx ↔ Ix], Ix ↔ Gx, ∀x[Gx ↔ Ĝx]: Eu ↔ Ĝx
1.   Eu ↔ Ku                                   P
2.   ∀x[Kx ↔ Ix]                             P
3.   Ix ↔ Gx                                    P
4.   ∀x[Gx ↔ Ĝx]                           P
5.   (Eu → Ku) & (Ku → Eu)           1 Equiv (Equivalence)
6.   Eu → Ku                                   5 Simp (Simplification)
7.   Ku → Eu                                   5 Simp
8.   (Kx → Ix) & (Ix → Kx)             2  Equiv
9.   Kx → Ix                                    8 Simp
10. Ix → Kx                                    8 Simp
11. (Ix ↔ Gx) & (Gx → Ix)              3 Equiv
12. Ix → Gx                                    11 Simp
13. Gx → Ix                                    11 Simp
14. (Gx → Ĝx) & (Ĝx → Gx)           4 Equiv
15. Gx → Ĝx                                   14 Simp
16. Ĝx → Gx                                   14 Simp
17. Eu → Ĝx                                   6, 9, 12, 15 UI, HS (Hypothetical Syllogism)  
18. Ĝx → Eu                                   16, 13, 10, 7 UI, HS
19. (Eu → Ĝx) & (Ĝx → Eu)            17, 18 Conj (Conjunction)
20. Eu ↔ Ĝx                                   19 Equiv [END OF PROOF]
 
Notes
(i) Critics often refer to Quantum Theory to show the possibility of something from "nothing" but in fact, at a minimum, a Quantum Vacuum is needed along with scientific laws. Hardly "nothing" I would say.
 
(ii) The Cosmological Argument used here does not argue for an external cause but ONLY a causation - which is not contentious.
 
(iii) God is “first cause” by definition and therefore not needed to be caused; however, God still does not necessarily violate the premise that all things are caused because the premise allows for self-causation, which can be applied to God: God causes God to exist.
 
(iv) “Explanation” as sought in the proof refers to a mode of causation, not a metaphysical “why?”
 
(v) It is important that any invocation of Gödel’s Theorem outside of mathematics maintains a sure link between formal systems with a certain amount of arithmetic and any extra-mathematical conclusions. In this proof, such a link is maintained for the soundness of the premises.
 
(vi) Infinity here is not an abstract concept as is sometimes proffered by opponents to Ontological Arguments but is necessitated for an ultimate explanation of the Universe. In other words, it cannot be abstract here because it is demonstrably necessary for the Universe’s existence.
 
(vii) The conclusion of this proof is consistent with the Big Bang Theory which is the leading theoretical description of our Universe’s beginning, supported by the Universe’s observed expansion and increasing entropy. However, even fringe theories of an “infinite” Universe could only be, in their limits, described as “transfinite” Universe theories, thus being innocuous to the proof’s conclusion.
 
(viii) Refutations of this proof invoking a multiverse are in the realm of science fiction and are not accorded further comment beyond noting their non-scientific characterization (they are not falsifiable). The irony is that such flights of fantasy actually force opponents to accept the possibility of God in a multiverse where anything is possible.
 
(ix) Given that logic entails a certain amount of arithmetic, it is not itself both complete and consistent; however, that does not mean that we can't trust logical conclusions, such as presented here. All that is necessary is that the logical system that we use is founded on true axioms.

There are no uncaused, unevolved sentient beings. (based upon observation and actual science.)
god is a sentient being. (Speculative.)
god is caused.
It follows that for all caused gods, there is an explanation.
god is caused.
god has an explanation.
By definition, an ultimate explanation of god must be complete and consistent.
Godel’s Second blah, blah, blah…
An infinite formal system of explanation is logically equivalent to the “Fattest” one imaginable.
The last two premises mean that god is ultimately only explainable by an infinitely obese power. It is also easy to see that…
Any characteristic “Fattest” refers to god.
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of god can only be someone’s overactive imagination.
Proving god is fat and imaginary in less than 20 statements.