First order logic, set theory and God

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Maybe read Neo's post, that I was responding to, you know, the post directly preceding mine..huh?

right che-ya

As to whether or not the First Cause is God, I agree that on its own the demonstration does not tell us much about the nature of the First Cause. The best it does is raising the possibility of an impersonal God of the Philosophers, i.e. one that would satisfy Plotinus.

@Drone
You are, ofc...free to explain why you think it has anything to do with djinn, as well. Still pretty much what I had to say back on page...3....

right che-ya

Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)

Looks to me like a person can grant the bit in it's entirety and the only reason they call it a god..is that they call it a god.

Ironic that you use the term presupposing, though....considering all of the above, don't you think? You know what I see in my minds eye whenever I hear arguments like these? Nutbars driving through the universe pointing at shit going "look, look, that looks like god, maybe that's my god, right there! No, look, look, over there, that looks like my god too, there it is over there!" - and after a few manic hours of that, collapsing in the satisfaction of seeing their god in every direction they looked. I'm fairly certain that this will be an actual business, one day..just like holy relics are now, on earth. I'd put everything I owned down for the note to set my kids up in it. It's smart money.

[Bucky Ball]

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

The only thing coming out of an ass is the stupid proof. Nowhere in it is there a definition of what this thing *is* .... not it's attributes ... what *is* it? 
Yeah I read it. You're just one in the LONG LONG line of internet nuts who are so deluded they think they have come up with something everyone else missed. 
Sorry. The proof is bullshit, (as I detailed above and which you were incapable of responding to), AND you can't tell us what you're trying to prove.

[dr0n3]

Maybe read Neo's post, that I was responding to, you know, the post directly preceding mine..huh?  

right che-ya

I don't need to read Neo's post to understand that the bit " which exactly what the op did, too" was directed towards me and thus insinuating that I was supposedly "raising the possibility of a god of any kind."

@Drone
You are, ofc...free to explain why you think it has anything to do with djinn, as well.  Still pretty much what I had to say back on page...3....

right che-ya

I don't think it has anything to do with djinn. I mean, do you think it has something to do with Hatcher's proof ?

Since the proof is easy, we give it here in full. However, the reader who already accepts and understands the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)

Looks to me like a person can grant the bit in it's entirety and the only reason they call it a god..is that they call it a god.

Ironic that you use the term presupposing, though....considering all of the above, don't you think?  You know what I see in my minds eye whenever I hear arguments like these?  Nutbars driving through the universe pointing at shit going "look, look, that looks like god, maybe that's my god, right there!  No, look, look, over there, that looks like my god too, there it is over there!" - and after a few manic hours of that, collapsing in the satisfaction of seeing their god in every direction they looked.  I'm fairly certain that this will be an actual business, one day..just like holy relics are now, on earth.  I'd put everything I owned down for the note to set my kids up in it.  It's smart money.

That's lovely - but do you know what mental picture I conceived when I read your post ? A stereotypical version of a hobo-like pedophile-looking Conor Mcgregor (looking at your profile pic) intensely breathing  as he was frantically delivering repeated heavy blows at the keyboard, while entertaining the delirious thought that cherry-picking a statement to prove a point was a good idea - only then to realize that he completely overlooked the preceding part laying out the 3 empirically-grounded principles that, to his bewilderment, happens to substantiate why the reader should already "accept and understand the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)". 

Not so ironic, considering the above - don't you think ? Or am I reading this way too far ? 

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

The only thing coming out of an ass is the stupid proof. Nowhere in it is there a definition of what this thing *is* .... not it's attributes ... what *is* it? 
Yeah I read it. You're just one in the LONG LONG line of internet nuts who are so deluded they think they have come up with something everyone else missed. 
Sorry. The proof is bullshit, (as I detailed above and which you were incapable of responding to), AND you can't tell us what you're trying to prove.

You didn't read - or should I say, you refused to read.

Had you read it, you'd understand that God is defined as a unique, universal and uncaused being. You ought to divorce yourself from the preconceived notions of what God is, if you wish to appreciate the minimalist yet essential nature of God as defined within the scope of Hatcher's proof. Otherwise, you're bound to waste that tad bit of intellect you still have on mindlessly prattling ad nauseam on how I failed to define God.

[Angrboda]

That's lovely - but do you know what mental picture I conceived when I read your post ? A stereotypical version of a hobo-like pedophile-looking Conor Mcgregor (looking at your profile pic) intensely breathing  as he was frantically delivering repeated heavy blows at the keyboard, while entertaining the delirious thought that cherry-picking a statement to prove a point was a good idea - only then to realize that he completely overlooked the preceding part laying out the 3 empirically-grounded principles that, to his bewilderment, happens to substantiate why the reader should already "accept and understand the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)". 

[dr0n3]

That's lovely - but do you know what mental picture I conceived when I read your post ? A stereotypical version of a hobo-like pedophile-looking Conor Mcgregor (looking at your profile pic) intensely breathing  as he was frantically delivering repeated heavy blows at the keyboard, while entertaining the delirious thought that cherry-picking a statement to prove a point was a good idea - only then to realize that he completely overlooked the preceding part laying out the 3 empirically-grounded principles that, to his bewilderment, happens to substantiate why the reader should already "accept and understand the existence of a universal uncaused cause (i.e., God)". 

You seem to throw at me quite a bunch of sexual cues lately. Last time, it was a GIF of a porn-emulating asian hand-job giver and now that fat fuck engaging to what appears to be a not-so-arousing act of tongue licking.

Look, whatever is that you're trying to hint at - I'm not interested. It's kind of you, but I'll have to decline your offer.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

Oh who mentioned him? I've got, and read that book. Really useful to refer to in a paper when you want to discuss things like energy landscapes and fitness landscapes, but overall I didn't find it that insightful. Maybe I need to read it again though having learnt a lot since then. There may have been insights that I missed.

Edit: Sorry, just found his name in Neo's paper. I didn't see it at first because I have him on ignore. I'm somewhat surprised to see his name on a paper like that though.

[Rahn127]

Drone - You are an idiot.

As an idiot you probably don't know the definition of an idiot. Ask an adult to look it up for you.

As such, you are no longer worth my time.

In the simplest terms I tried, but that didn't work.
I can only conclude that you are incapable of understanding and thus you are an idiot.

Idiot:
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton

And on the off chance you didn't understand any of that, let me say it even clearer.

You are stupid.

[Belacqua]

Drone - You are an idiot.

As an idiot you probably don't know the definition of an idiot. Ask an adult to look it up for you.

As such, you are no longer worth my time.

In the simplest terms I tried, but that didn't work.
I can only conclude that you are incapable of understanding and thus you are an idiot.

Idiot:
synonyms: fool, ass, halfwit, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, moron, imbecile, simpleton

And on the off chance you didn't understand any of that, let me say it even clearer.

You are stupid.

Could you type out a clear argument as to why you think he's an idiot? 

He starts out with a clear logical argument. I can say that the first half makes sense. The second half, where he starts using notation, is less clear to me -- but that's just me. 

Just now I re-read the whole thread. No one makes a coherent argument against what he's saying. At the beginning Reltzik makes a reasonable objection, and dr0n3 clarifies properly. Then Polymath replies intelligently, and dr0n3 explains some more. 

No one else deals with what dr0n3 has said. There is some off-topic stuff where people choose to address something other than the argument, and there's a lot of content-free insult. But there are no solid objections that have gone unanswered.

By repeating a lot of insults without any content it looks as if you're just trying to use force to make him shut up, since you certainly aren't adding to any rebuttal. But if you have reasons for your objection you could always spell them out.

---

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.

Thank you for posting this paper. 

It's always a pleasure to see that serious people like the authors of this paper, and Heisenberg, are open minded enough to learn from Aristotelian and other classical concepts. Basic ideas like act and potency are still useful and far from refuted -- yet people reject them in a kind of knee-jerk reactionary way.

There is something very odd about people who circle the wagons and defend themselves against ideas which may actually help them.

[polymath257]

Once again, what allows you to construct the system V in this 'proof'? What set theory are you using?

The problem is that sets of the type of V are *known* to not be constrictible in most standard set theories: they lead to inconsistencies like Russell's paradox or Cantor's paradox. They are 'too big' to be sets.

So, unless you give *first order* axioms allowing for the construction of your system V, you have no proof.

Good luck.

Next, your axiom of sufficiency is way, way too strong. In all likelihood, the *most* that we can say is that all *finite* phenomena have causes (whether themselves or another). But, if this is the case, then there is no guarantee your system V (even if you can construct it) will have a cause since it is likely that V is an infinite system.

Also, remember that constructing infinite systems is not a first order process in general.

[Angrboda]

Could you type out a clear argument as to why you think he's an idiot? 

He starts out with a clear logical argument. I can say that the first half makes sense. The second half, where he starts using notation, is less clear to me -- but that's just me. 

Just now I re-read the whole thread. No one makes a coherent argument against what he's saying. At the beginning Reltzik makes a reasonable objection, and dr0n3 clarifies properly. Then Polymath replies intelligently, and dr0n3 explains some more. 

No one else deals with what dr0n3 has said. There is some off-topic stuff where people choose to address something other than the argument, and there's a lot of content-free insult. But there are no solid objections that have gone unanswered.

By repeating a lot of insults without any content it looks as if you're just trying to use force to make him shut up, since you certainly aren't adding to any rebuttal. But if you have reasons for your objection you could always spell them out.

Well, then, if you understand it, perhaps you could explain to me exactly how this is a proof of God? Hell, even Neo agrees with me, and he's one hundred percent sold on the first cause argument, through Aquinas. In as much as it proves God, it doesn't. In as much as it proves the necessity of a first cause, it doesn't do that either (via the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal). Even if it did say something about a first cause, it would be incredibly underwhelming as it is nothing more than a formalization of arguments that go back at least to Aquinas and probably further. And there's an additional problem that it isn't proving that a first cause is necessary in the same sense that God is necessary. So, that makes the proof even less interesting from a theological standpoint. You and I both know that this proof isn't aimed at showing the universe had a natural first cause, and insofar as it doesn't achieve its aims, it is a failure. As I noted originally, it is a case of ignoratio elenchi. You seem to think that it is not, or that it does accomplish one or more of its objectives. Apparently you see something that I do not, and I would appreciate you explaining it to me.

(Given that you seem to not even be arguing the actual proof presented, as demonstrated when I pointed out that it did in fact claim something that you believed it didn't claim, I suspect you may have something other than what was actually presented in mind and are pushing the virtues of that hidden argument instead. If that is the case, I hope that you will clarify.)