Does this proof establish that there was a first cause?  Maybe.

Does it establish that the first cause was God?  No, it does not.

Proof refuted.

QED.

So I think I get the argument.
I shall summarise.

Anything exists at all therefore god.


This does not seem convincing to me.
It does not, for example, explain the existence of god.

(November 26, 2018 at 11:03 pm)ignoramus Wrote: He's a Muslim Min.

I haven't seen MK around lately?

He's not that smart. This guy is wrong, but smart enough.

(November 26, 2018 at 10:47 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: Below is a copy-paste of my own thread that was posted in another forum. I'm reposting it here in hopes to spark an intelligent discourse on what I believe to be the most refined proof of God's existence.

Here it goes.


*******************************************************

Written in first order logic, Hatcher's proof of God is based on three axioms that he calls "empirically grounded" and an apriori assumption that "something exists."

The axioms are that:

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.

P2. The potency principle: If A -> B then for all C element of B, A -> C. In other words if A is the cause of B then A is the cause of every part of B. There are several notions of causality in philosophy. Hatcher's notion of causality is total causality; i.e. it is not the straw that breaks the camel's back but the 1000 straws before it, the camel, gravity, and so forth, that give rise to the camel breaking its back.

P3. The principle of limitation: For all A, where A is an element of B, B -> A does not hold. This says a system (which Hatcher represents as a set) cannot be the cause of its own components. Hatcher justifies this by explaining any system has (1) form (the parts) and (2) function (the relationship between the parts). A car (the system) cannot be the cause of its own steering wheel (a part), because the car does not even logically exist until the steering wheel exists. Thus the car's existence cannot precede the steering wheel's existence.

Hatcher shows that the logical outcome of these 3 axioms together with the above noted assumption are the existence of a "unique, universal, uncaused cause."

Throughout this work, Hatcher strives to make his assumptions (his axioms) and modus operandi (first order logic) explicit. Unlike many proofs of God (beginning with the proof advanced by Aristotle) Hatcher's proof does not appeal to the absurdity of an infinite regression of causes. Hatcher argues that because his proof is formulated in first order logic one must invalidate one or more of his three empirically grounded axioms to refute it. At the same time he shows that doing so is difficult as it commits oneself to beliefs not commonly accepted in the scientific community such as the existence of non-causal systems (something not observed to date).

In the following I have provided a more complete formulation of Hatcher's proof.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a excerpt from pages 82 through 86 of "Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality" by William S. Hatcher.

Copyright 1998 by William S. Hatcher

Chapter 3, section 4

The Existence of God

Our purpose in undertaking this study is to establish the existence of God on a totally objective basis, as a necessary logical feature of the overall structure of reality itself.

+ ( R ) ;Reality = the totality of existence, everything there is.
+ (P);Phenomenon = some portion of ( R )  
+ Causality = relationship between (P) A and (P) B, which holds whenever A is a cause of B (symbolized A → B).

This means that A contains a sufficient reason for the existence of B. => everything B that exists must either be preceded by a cause A different from B (A → B and A ≠ B), or else contain within itself a sufficient reason for its existence (B → B).

<=>In the former case, we say that B is caused or other-caused and in the latter uncaused or self-caused.

* The principle that every existing (P) must either be caused or uncaused (and not both) is the principle of sufficient reason.

<=>Another basic relation between (P) is the relation of part to whole: we write A ∊ B whenever the entity A is a component of the system (composite phenomenon) B.

Notice that A may also be composite, but must be an entity (not just an arbitrary system) in order to be a component of another system B (whether the latter is an entity or not).

Two systems (whether entities or not) may also be related by one being a subsystem of the other. We write A ⊂ B whenever A is a subsystem of B. This means precisely that every component E ∊ A is also a component E ∊ B.
=> For example: a single leaf would be a component of a tree, but all the leaves together would constitute a subsystem of the tree.

If E is either a component or subsystem of B, then E is a part of B.

From the strictly logical point of view, the defining or characteristic feature of an entity A is that A can be a component of some system B, A ∊ B.

<=> entities are components while systems have components (they are composite phenomena). Moreover, some systems also are components.

Thus, with respect to composition, we have three distinct categories of phenomena:

- (P) may be noncomposite (have no components), in which case it is necessarily an entity.
- (P) may be a composite entity, in which case it both has components and is a component.
- (P) may be composite without being an entity, in which case it has components but can never be a component.

Causality and composition are related to each other by the obvious potency principle, which says that if A → B, then A must also be a cause of E, where E is any component or any subsystem of B.

<=> to be a cause of B is to be a cause of every part of B -- its components and its subsystems. This means that our notion of causality is that of complete cause (philosophy recognizes several different notions of "cause").

Finally, the existence of a whole system obviously cannot precede the existence of its components (rather, the constitution of a whole obviously supposes and depends upon the prior or simultaneous existence of its components).

We thus have the principle of limitation= every composite phenomenon A, A cannot be a cause of any of its components.

=> It follows immediately from these principles that no composite phenomenon can be self-caused, for suppose A → A where A is composite. Then, by the potency principle A → E, where E is any component of A. But this contradicts the limitation principle.

In fact, from these valid principles of causality and composition, we can logically deduce the existence of a unique, noncomposite, self-caused, universal cause G. This entity, whose existence we prove, is God (by logical definition). This God is not some abstract figment of our imagination but the actual, ultimate cause of all existing phenomena and entities, the origin of all being.

+
+
+
+
+

[==== Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God) can safely skip the details of the proof without diminishing his or her understanding of the subsequent sections of the course.

Let V=collection (universe) of all existing entities.

Since V is composite it cannot be self-caused (see above) and so must have a cause G (different from V itself).

Thus, G → V; G ≠ V

Moreover, every existing (P) A is either an entity, and thus a component of V, or else a system all of whose components are in V -- in which case A is a subsystem of V.

Thus, G is either a component or a subsystem of V. But, in either case, G → G by the potency principle.

Thus, G is self-caused and hence noncomposite (no composite can be self-caused as shown above).

Finally, since G → V and every (P) A is a part of V then by the potency principle, G = universal cause (the cause of every existing phenomenon, including itself).

Finally, we show that G = the only uncaused phenomenon, for suppose there is another such phenomenon G'.

Then G → G' (since G is a universal cause). But since G' is self-caused it cannot be other-caused by the principle of sufficient reason.

Thus, G = G' and the uniqueness of G is established.===]


With that being said, I would be more than curious to see if anyone could spot a noticeable error in Hatcher's logical deduction

That's not the problem.

Hint : His god "exists". That's a steering wheel.

1. Did he justify the use of this logic (system), and demonstrate that it's applicable to this question ?
I doubt it. In fact he can't, as he knows nothing about the conditions in which this god of his exists. An unexamined fatal "assumed premise" error.
An unjustified (unspoken) assumption ... they get ya, every time.

2. Logic is necessary but not sufficient. There has to be evidence. There are no flaws in arguments from some of the many logic systems, yet they do not, in fact, obtain in reality.  

3. One cannot define something into existence.

4. All this "causality" BS is irrelevant, and does not answer the important questions.
How did this Principle of Causality come into existence ? Did Causality cause itself ? Did the gods cause Causality ? How does *that* work ... something is caused but Causality is not in place already ?
If not, the gods are not the "cause" of Reality ... and it all falls apart right there.

5. A god that "exists" is required to participate in a part of Reality ... as it does not participate in "non-existence",
which had to be there as long as the gods existed ... and this Reality the gods find themselves in can't have been created by them,
as they would have had to CREATE existence AND non-existence.
Religious philosophers would retort "but the gods ARE existence" ... but too bad ... I'm not a god, and if it's "everything" then it's undefined and dismissed.

6. The argument from "cause" is also flawed as it assumes that ultimate reality is intuitively logical. It's not.
Relativity, Uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics, and the math of Dirac (tensors) among other things, are not "logical".

7. Anyone who has proof of a god, needs no "faith" in that god. Tell any theist that, and the hissing noise from their rear end will become deafening.

Drone - what do you believe and why do you believe it ?

Couple simple questions.

(December 4, 2018 at 2:32 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Does this proof establish that there was a first cause? Maybe.
Does it establish that the first cause was God? No, it does not.

You have raised fair objections.

Such demonstrations (it would be improper to call them proofs) are nested in the assumptions of Scholastic philosophy. And that tradition’s notion of causality is based on quiddity instead of the modern notion of causality that is based on inferences from temporal sequences of events. Dr0n3 and those arguing against him are just talking past one another, each claim the other doesn’t have the proper understanding of causes.

Personally, I think any objection needs to show that either 1) the demonstration does not work within the Scholastic framework or 2) the Scholastic framework is in-itself fatally flawed. I don’t see how you could achieve 1) and option 2) takes the conversation in a whole different direction with multiple questions in play.

As to whether or not the First Cause is God, I agree that on its own the demonstration does not tell us much about the nature of the First Cause. The best it does is raising the possibility of an impersonal God of the Philosophers, i.e. one that would satisfy Plotinus.

That said, saying the First Cause could only be the God of the Philosophers is not warranted. But it is certainly a reasonable candidate for First Cause. And it is every bit as reasonable to suppose that Allah, the Christian Godhead, or Brahman serve as the First Cause, although I think the differences in these, with respect to First Cause, are negligible; although again, my knowledge of other religious traditions is not deep enough to state this as fact.

At the same time, I have not seen a strong naturalistic candidate for First Cause. The universe as it is currently known by physics certainly doesn’t quality because it has both potency and act and is subject to change. So while someone cannot positively assert that First Cause is Divine without making an argument from ignorance, it seems to be the best tentative option.

I don't see it raising the possibility of a god of any kind.  I think you're just reading that in...which is exactly what the op did, too.

Raising the possibility of some first cause raises the possibility of a god in the same way that raising the possibility of a bat raises the possibility of a 747.

(December 4, 2018 at 3:45 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: This guy is wrong, but smart enough.

Most apologists classed in the "Pompous" breed are smart. They just tend to be dishonest.

---

(November 26, 2018 at 11:03 pm)ignoramus Wrote: He's a Muslim Min.

I haven't seen MK around lately?

Who's MK?

Any argument for (a) cause is really nothing but "proximate" cause, (as I used to say on TTA, and I think Gae Bolga may have also come up with it here, independently).  
Any omnipotent deity could have created a race of robot universe makers, and any one of them fulfill any "logic" they (arguers for a "cause") lay out.
It leads nowhere. It does not have to lead to the gods.

The concept of a proximate cause is older than the concept of the god these folks are trying to sell out of dissatisfaction with proximate causes.

(December 4, 2018 at 4:53 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: At the same time, I have not seen a strong naturalistic candidate for First Cause. The universe as it is currently known by physics certainly doesn’t quality because it has both potency and act and is subject to change. So while someone cannot positively assert that First Cause is Divine without making an argument from ignorance, it seems to be the best tentative option.

How about logical characteristics of existence? The universe exists because necessary logic.