Proving God in 20 statements

[smfortune]

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.

Your very first premise is inductive. The rest of it is just as unsound. It's a conspicuous attempt at an appeal to ridicule (without the humor).

---

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.

Cry me a river.

---

OK, lesson one. Are you listening?

You can't define things into existence. Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it maps to anything real.

Perhaps that's why scientists actually attempt to test and prove their hypotheses rather than just build logical syllogisms all day.

Lol. You guys are becoming hilarious. The scientific framework is falsification not proof. You look to FALSIFY your null hypothesis. This particular syllogism forms part of the falsification of atheism that I've developed.

---

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.

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.

You do present a gap by claiming that science can't explain the universe and you fill that problem with god without having any evidence for god.

I'll explain the Thor example for you.

The vikings didn't know the cause/explanation/reason of thunder so they said Thor (i.e a god) caused thunder, they used Thor (a god) as the reason and explanation just because they didn't know the real cause of thunder.

You don't know the cause/explanation/reason of the universe, and you claim it cannot be known with a scientific approach (you can't support that claim or at least don't) so you say god caused the universe and is the reason and explanation for the universe, just because you don't know the real cause/answer.

I used the vikings as an example to show your way of thinking (your logic) from another perspective so you see the fault in it.

At the end of the day, all of what I wrote doesn't matter because arguments aren't evidence, and you got no evidence, just arguments. So there is no point in continuing the debate unless you come with evidence.

Ok. Last time. There is no gap because I'm claiming that science builds itself up to reveal God. A gap would be if there was an unknown portion. I'm saying that there is no "Uhh, what goes here?". I'm saying that unequivocally, what science points to is not a gap in our knowledge with God as a placeholder, but it points to God directly. Btw, god of gaps is thrown around by atheists as if it was their own invention, it is actually derived from theists, did you know that?