(November 26, 2018 at 10:47 pm)dr0n3 Wrote: 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."
(December 4, 2018 at 10:41 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: 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.