First order logic, set theory and God

[The Grand Nudger]

Not that it matters...since fairies aren't a strong candidate for anything.

[Angrboda]

[Neo-Scholastic]

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".

Actually, there is quite a bit of recent discussion about similarities between Aristotelian notions of act and potency and quantum mechanics.

Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously

While I have only scanned the article, it seems to align with something I have speculated about a lot lately. That is, the apparent irrationality of the quantum level is exactly what one would expect from potency prior to having order imposed upon it by actualities. Also I have often explained that the mind/body problem simply does not exist in Scholasticism. This paper seems to confirm that understanding.

[Angrboda]

Stuart Kauffman, Kauffman, Kaufmann... Why is that name familiar?

Oh yeah, he was the Origins Of Order guy. That's yet another book that I never got around to reading. I didn't realize it had the overtones it apparently has.

[Belacqua]

Where would it lead? To Zeus or to Big Bang. I mean after all  Aristotle's gods have been debunked so why bother?

This makes it clear that you don't know anything at all about the argument you're criticizing.

[Bucky Ball]

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".

Actually, there is quite a bit of recent discussion about similarities between Aristotelian notions of act and potency and quantum mechanics.  

Taking Heisenberg’s Potentia Seriously

While I have only scanned the article, it seems to align with something I have speculated about a lot lately. That is, the apparent irrationality of the quantum level is exactly what one would expect from potency prior to having order imposed upon it by actualities. Also I have often explained that the mind/body problem simply does not exist in Scholasticism. This paper seems to confirm that understanding.

Where exactly is order "imposed" on the quantum world ?
There is no "mind-body" problem.
If brains are damaged or unhealthy they stop working.

[dr0n3]

Meh.  I've grown quickly bored with this clown when all he knows how to do is insult and lie.  Not worth my time, but I may still occasionally indulge in poking the bear.

Agreed. He is not capable of understanding everyone else's counter-argument and so unless you are prepared to repeat yourself indefinitely it rather kills off the conversation.

@dr0n3. Can you demonstrate that you understand anyone else's counter-argument? I am not saying that you need to agree with what people are saying, I just want to see whether you have actually understood anything that anybody has said to you.

There is nothing for me to demonstrate at this point - most of your arguments, did however, demonstrate a thinly veiled attempt to shift the paradigm to make it appear as if Hatcher's proof was trying to establish the complexity of reality, when the contention was that of substantiating the origin of reality. God damn it, learn to read. The O-R-I-G-I-N. Not the complexity and the physical laws that governs reality. 

It's utterly laughable that you have gone at great length trying to establish that the laws of thermodynamics was more fitting at explaining reality than logic, when all of this was totally irrelevant. You've wasted your time arguing on notions that were completely extraneous to Hatcher's proof, and not worth considering in discussing.

Your motivation from the beginning was that of shifting the discourse in a way that best fit the conclusion your preferred. The flawed conclusion that because logic was inapt at describing reality, therefore God could not exist. Nice try but it doesn't work that way, sweetie.

Jörmungandr

I said that all you do is insult and lie, pointing out that you haven't addressed my substantial objection.  Even if I was saying that it is wrong to insult and lie, you would still be wrong in calling me a hypocrite because I didn't lie.  Nor was that all that I have done in this thread.  But since I wasn't saying it was wrong to insult, alone, or at all, but rather to do nothing more than insult and lie, the hypocrisy doesn't exist.  So, no, I'm not guilty of hypocrisy.  And the proof of that is in the very post you quoted in which I pointed out that I had not committed the fallacy I was accused of.  My doing so was neither an insult nor a lie.  You're simply wrong once again.

Of course you can prove me wrong by addressing my first post and the fallacy in your argument.  

Instead you'd rather falsely accuse me of fallacies I haven't committed, say that I must be a child, and accuse me of hypocrisy that I'm not guilty of.

You really do appear to be stupid.

Listen, no amount of twisting and turning will conceal your deceitfully duplicitous nature. The audience is here to bear witness of how you conveniently overlooked your own flaws while impudently pointing out my actions. I rest my case and will now leave it to you to mumble your incoherent rambling that only serves to heighten your hypocrisy.

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

Couple simple questions.

Why do you ask ? So that you can misrepresent my answer and deceitfully repackage it through verbal slight of hand, as you did with your previous post ?

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.

I don't see why you're presupposing that the proof is attempting to establish a god of any kind to begin with.

[Angrboda]

Jörmungandr

Listen, no amount of twisting and turning will conceal your deceitfully duplicitous nature. The audience is here to bear witness of how you conveniently overlooked your own flaws while impudently pointing out my actions. I rest my case and will now leave it to you to mumble your incoherent rambling that only serves to heighten your hypocrisy.

[Bucky Ball]

There is no coherent definition of a "gawd" ... so before anyone argues for one of them thingies ... it must be defined. 
Not gonna happen. 
The "proof" is meaningless as it doesn't define what it's a proof of.

[dr0n3]

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."

There is no coherent definition of a "gawd" ... so before anyone argues for one of them thingies ... it must be defined. 
Not gonna happen. 
The "proof" is meaningless as it doesn't define what it's a proof of.

Perhaps if you took a minute to read the proof, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass.