Proving God in 20 statements

[Losty]

Wrong. If your evidence needs to be massaged by babble then it is merely your own brain fart.

Let's see your facts.  We'll decide from there.

I thought we decided on Aristotelian truth? Reality decides, not you. I've dealt with enough atheists in my life to know that a mental hurdle must be crossed before they can see evidence (this is true for some theists as well; we have creationists that are as blind as a bat to the evidence of evolution). If the theist suffers from cognitive dissonance, the atheist double so. A true questioning, agnostic/open mind must first be reached before a proper presentation of evidence could be even remotely receptive. I am not a theist because I was first a theist, I am a theist because I became a skeptic.

I don't even know how your words are even more boring than your mathing. My eyes glazed over.

[Alex K]

Ok, so we're still waiting for a real explanation what statement #1 means. So far the OP has nothing.

[robvalue]

Why doesn't God come along and help his followers make a coherent argument? Give them some evidence? Stop them getting persecuted by all the mean atheists?

Or just pop in and say hi, and stop all this screwing around?

No wait... only something that exists, with any actual power, could do any of those things.

Even if something or other did create our reality, that doesn't mean it's still alive, or that it gives a rats ass about us even if it is. On a cosmic scale, we're lively rock grit. It's the obsession with thinking we're special that causes all this worship... what amounts to self worship, really.

No one's taking God away from you. But it doesn't mean we'll just accept anything anyone says as true. You need convincing evidence, and that is in very short supply. And that's just to get us to believe you're talking about something real. You still have to convince us why we should care. What's the big deal? Something made us. Wow. We're sentient toys for some bored deity. That's not something to celebrate, in my opinion. I feel kinda sorry for the guy.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Aristotelian truth. I too subscribe to such a definition. Yet, how do we diverge so much?

Because we have drastically different models for how to determine what's real, therefore we will naturally disagree about what comports with reality.


For instance, you believe invisible people with magic powers are real, and I don't because there's no good reason to.

[Whateverist]

Re the OP: Why only 20 statements? That is only half the number I require for a good nap. Snooze tease.

[LadyForCamus]

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 [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] Ix]
 
An infinite formal system of explanation is logically equivalent with the “Greatest” one imaginable.
 
Ix [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] Ĝx]
 
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of the Universe can only be God.
 
Eu [emoji662] Ĝx
 
Proving God in 20 statements:
Eu [emoji662] Ku, ∀x[Kx [emoji662] Ix], Ix [emoji662] Gx, ∀x[Gx [emoji662] Ĝx]: Eu [emoji662] Ĝx
1.   Eu [emoji662] Ku                                   P
2.   ∀x[Kx [emoji662] Ix]                             P
3.   Ix [emoji662] Gx                                    P
4.   ∀x[Gx [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] 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.

LOL. That was great, thank you. [emoji106]

[LadyForCamus]

Sure, to make a scientific point you need both arguments and evidence.

You can prove things within an abstract system using just arguments, but to demonstrate things to be (most likely) true about reality, it needs to be bolstered with evidence.

But to be fair, by evidence you mean phenomena that can be understood in terms of physics. ...Right? In other words, you beg the question that all important, or true, or relevant points are "scientific" in nature... Which is not a scientific claim. Do you think that there are any propositions which are categorically true and cannot be supported by evidence? If so (I think this is obviously the case, btw), to what should one make one appeal if not argumentation?

Well, sure. You can argue for those things all you want, but if all you HAVE are arguments, then I really wouldn't see the point...

[LadyForCamus]

I have to wonder if the OP, having been stopped by a policeman for a blatant traffic violation but let off with a stern warning, would respond by insulting the policeman.

Intelligent, that.

Ummm, the police have real authority. You're kind of getting off on mall cop authority. Why are you making this an issue anyway?

---

Oh ok, but that doesn't have to be necessarily true. This is assuming first that there is only one greatest explanation of the universe, while an Atheist can argue, from all we know perspective, there maybe many possible greatest explanations. Some that we theory about and some that we don't. 2nd the greatest explanation may the true one or it maybe a false one from a logical stand point.

Greatest is necessarily singular. St. Anslem in the 11th century first presented the ontological argument with the rationale that if anything greater could be conceived then it was not the greatest. The greatest belongs to only God. For 10 centuries this hasn't (to my knowledge) been contentious. It is definitionally true. Recall that even Bertrand Russell conceded that the ontological argument was sound and only later retract by saying it may be unsound (because it felt fallacious) without being able to precisely identify the fallacy.

Quoting philosophers does not bolster your argument...

[LadyForCamus]

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 [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] Ix]
 
An infinite formal system of explanation is logically equivalent with the “Greatest” one imaginable.
 
Ix [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] Ĝx]
 
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of the Universe can only be God.
 
Eu [emoji662] Ĝx
 
Proving God in 20 statements:
Eu [emoji662] Ku, ∀x[Kx [emoji662] Ix], Ix [emoji662] Gx, ∀x[Gx [emoji662] Ĝx]: Eu [emoji662] Ĝx
1.   Eu [emoji662] Ku                                   P
2.   ∀x[Kx [emoji662] Ix]                             P
3.   Ix [emoji662] Gx                                    P
4.   ∀x[Gx [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] 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 [emoji662] 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.

Okay, here's my take -

I reject the first premise that there are no uncaused things. You have no way of knowing such a thing. Since you are speaking about "cause" in the context of our physical universe, your assertion is scientific in nature, and requires demonstrable evidence before moving forward with your argument. Perhaps you have some background education in physics to support your reasoning? I know at least one member here who does.

...The last two premises mean that our Universe is ultimately only explainable by an infinitely great power.

Okay...so what? Also, please define "great" as you mean it here. Define "power" as you mean it here. Again, are we talking physics? Because you'll need some evidence. If you are arguing that this "great power" cannot be natural, and must necessarily be supernatural, you need to demonstrate that as well.

[quote]It is also easy to see that...Any characteristic “Greatest” refers to God.[/qoute]

Again...how did you get from "greatest power" to "God"? It's NOT easy to see what you even mean by God. From your proof God could just as easily be an incomprehensibly powerful natural source which caused the universe to exist. Where have you made a case for the supernatural here? Let alone a case for something sentient and intelligent?

Physicists and cosmologists spend their entire lives studying the physical nature of our universe, yet you have the audacity as one person alone to make assumptions about its laws and necessities without a shred of evidence to support them....and expect us to accept this as "proof of God"? That's...hilarious.

[robvalue]

Hah, exactly.

That's what strikes me as most ridiculous with people bringing all this so-called proof of God, and God made everything. They know better than every scientist has ever been able to demonstrate. Really? They think they just found a shortcut that no one else thought of?