Proving God in 20 statements

[Whateverist]

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?

Oh no, Rob.  Many have 'thought' of it, and you can too!  Just turn your lobes over to Christ.  You too can hold the lucky hunch.

[Time Traveler]

It follows that for all caused things, there is an explanation.
 
The Universe is caused.
 
The Universe has an explanation.
 
[...]
 
Therefore, the ultimate explanation of the Universe can only be God.
 

While I've already "proved" God doesn't exist in only 4 statements elsewhere, it seems you are making something of an equivocation fallacy. "The universe is caused" and "the universe has an explanation" are two different arguments. When you conclude, "Therefore, the ultimate explanation of the Universe can only be God," is not the same as saying, "the ultimate cause of the universe can only be God." For example, scientists can explain gravity without causing gravity to exist. So, if you are attempting to prove causation, your proof is inadequate, even if all premises are granted (which they are not).

[Mister Agenda]

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
 

This bit about there being no uncaused things? It isn't true at the quantum level. Uncaused things happen all the time when you get down to Planck lengths. And causality is something we observe within the universe, it's an error of composition to assume that the same rules that apply within the universe apply TO the universe.

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks guys (and gals) for taking the time to respond.

For those arguing the no uncaused things /quantum fluctuations, etc. premise, this was addressed in notes (i), (ii) and (iii) of the proof.

I'll keep checking back for more responses.

Oh, I did copy and paste the proof from my own website (which I can't post here as I'm a newbie). I do explain more on the proof and Gödel there (the website).

Thanks for not being a one-hit wonder.

Addressing something isn't the same thing as proving it. The quantum vacuum may well be the closest to absolute nothingness that is possible. People make a great to do about 'why is there something instead of nothing?', but philosophical nothingness may be impossible and there's no particular reason to think it's the default condition. It's not really legitimate to start with what we know (things exist) and reason that therefore there must be a state where no things exist and that this state of nothingness itself requires no proof or evidence. Not only would such nothingness have no quarks or quantum vacuum, it would have no space or time...and nothing to prevent something from happening. Doesn't sound like a stable situation, an if anything ever happened, it would happen instantaneously, because no time.

[Mister Agenda]

This was a big quote mess so I deleted it. Maybe I'll have better luck next time.

[Mister Agenda]

Your colorful language is quite indicative. However, there is an escapable "bullshit": either God is self causing or the Universe is self-causing. Remove God and your still left with a first cause problem.

Not that anyone has ever proven there IS a first cause problem. We might not like infinite causation, but that doesn't mean it's not the case.

But for the sake of argument, I'll assume it isn't. That still leaves you with an argument from ignorance. Me not knowing definitively how the universe got started, or more to the point, how whatever turned into our universe got started; has zero bearing on whether your contention that God started it is correct. 'I don't know' is a better answer than 'God did it', because I know it's the truth.

[Mister Agenda]

What problem would that be?  I don't mind saying "I don't know", problem solved.

Oh, a causation problem. Who caused the causer?

A first cause doesn't require a causer, by definition. This by the way, is a legitimate use of appeal to definition, unlike  your 'the first cause is God' assertion disguised as a definition. And using the term 'who' is an unwarranted assumption. And all that is granting the invalid (and question begging) premise that everything requires a cause with one exception. But it's nice to see that you can recognize the problem when the word 'God' is removed.

[The Grand Nudger]

I hadn't realized that there existed any worldview which could establish its own terms without presuming the validity of argumentation sans evidence.

Reason -still- has a requirement of evidence, and you still either take it or leave it, but there's no getting -around- it and later claiming a reasonable argument.  Some other kind of argumentation, who knows, their call. Is that the kind of argumentation you're referring to, an "other than reasonable" argument?

What is truth?

Truth is defined, in the system of argumentation to which -I- would appeal, as the product of sound propositions and valid inference.  Quibble over the meaning of truth in unspoken contexts with someone else.

[robvalue]

Moderator Notice
Just for readers' information, the opening post has been plagiarised from http://www.from-godel-to-god.com/the-proof.html

[Alex K]

The OP said upthread that the text is taken from his own website which he isn't allowed to link to. Do we know that from-godel-to-god is indeed not is website?