PDA

View Full Version : Mathematician Proves the existence of God



adamprez2003
07-04-2007, 11:50 PM
Since we had a mathematical proof that God didn't exist on these threads I thought I would share the news that another mathametician supposedly proved God's existence. CKB please respond:lol: It's obviously a flawed argument but I'll let you attack it
http://www.meta-religion.com/Mathematics/Articles/does_god_exist.htm

The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.
Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.
Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called "the minimum criteria for Godhood," and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. "Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God," he said.
He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. "All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics," he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place.
From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.
Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe.
He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.
Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is "far more reasonable than its negation."
David Kline, CC '07, said he was impressed, even though he felt that the logical proof of God, far from justifying faith, only requires a different kind of faith. But, with that faith in reason so characteristic of Columbia students, he said he appreciated that the talk was "a purely logical representation of the existence of God and not the meaning of God."

DolfinDave
07-05-2007, 12:25 AM
Yeah I'm gonna let ckb tackle this one. I will say that if this mathematician did prove God's existence, wouldn't he be getting a TON of press?

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 12:36 AM
Since we had a mathematical proof that God didn't exist on these threads I thought I would share the news that another mathametician supposedly proved God's existence. CKB please respond:lol: It's obviously a flawed argument but I'll let you attack it
http://www.meta-religion.com/Mathematics/Articles/does_god_exist.htm

The proof itself rests on four principles, the first of which is the assertion that something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, he pointed out, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.
Further, he said, everything that exists does so because of some cause, and the "principle of sufficient reason" states that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both. "Everything that exists has to have a reason for existing," he said.
Working from these principles, Hatcher first defined what he called "the minimum criteria for Godhood," and then set about trying to prove the existence of a phenomenon to fit those criteria. God, he said, must exist and be unique, and must be self-caused as well as being the cause of everything else. "Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length, starting with God," he said.
He then delved into Avicenna's discussion of the part-whole relationship. "All known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum mechanics," he stated. Thus, if A is a component of B, then B is composite, and furthermore a composite cannot be a cause of one of its components, because it could not exist without all its components in place.
From these definitions, he said, one can infer that the universe is a composite of all phenomena. He inferred that the universe itself, then, cannot bring any of its own components into being, as it could not have existed before the existence of the components.
Then, the universe could similarly not be self-caused, since it is caused by the aggregation of its components, and so there must be some object, G, that causes the universe but is not the universe itself. G must then be universal because it is a cause, directly or indirectly, of every component in the universe.
He concluded that G is the unique uncaused phenomenon, because, as the cause of everything, it can't be caused by something else.
Hatcher said that the strength of the proof is that each assumption it rests on is empirically grounded and is "far more reasonable than its negation."
David Kline, CC '07, said he was impressed, even though he felt that the logical proof of God, far from justifying faith, only requires a different kind of faith. But, with that faith in reason so characteristic of Columbia students, he said he appreciated that the talk was "a purely logical representation of the existence of God and not the meaning of God."



Dude, stop with the baseless accusations!! I told you many times I showed you the PROBABILITY an omnipotent God exists is zero. That does NOT mean it does NOT exist!!

I even told you that specifically after you made the baseless accusation I provided a proof God doesn't exist! And all this after YOU admitted I never assumed God didn't exist. Please, stop with that.


Now, to the "proof" outlined above. First of all, it's totally funny that's at Columbia University, since that's where I graduated with a degree in math :lol:


So, there are several assumptions there that need to be carefully looked at. His first assumption that something exists is obviously acceptable. His next assumption that every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself is problematic. Why? Because there's no evidence of something causing itself. So, that's postulating something for which no evidence exists. But, for arguments sake, let's assume it to be true.

Now, he states that all known physical phenomena are composites, except possibly fundamental particles. This is essentially what scientists call reductionism, and it is correct that no known counter-examples exist for that, so that's a fair assumption. However, let's keep in mind that consciousness seems to be a phenomenon for which it's not clear if reductionism can ever be applied or not. Nevertheless, going by what we know today, that assumption is fine.

Now, it is with his argument on the universe being a composite phenomenon where the logic fails. He does NOT point out that the universe is ONLY composite at times AFTER the first composite phenomena came into existence.

We already know today that there was a very small period of time after the Big Bang where you really only had a plasma soup (hard to talk about that being a "composite"), and for a good time after that current theories will tell you the only kinds of particles were photons, electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc.., so no "composite" particles like protons or neutrons and certainly no atoms.

Thus, there was a time when the universe was NOT composite, and according to Hatcher's argument, that primordial universe could have "caused" itself.

That's really a sufficient rebuttal, meaning he didn't prove anything even WITH his particular assumptions.


However, here's a second problem with it. There is no a priori reason why you can't have an infinite regression. Halder even points out that was a problem with previous proofs, but once you take his "composite" argument out, that's also a problem with his proof. And as I said, there's no evidence something can cause itself.

Finally, there's no reason why everything had to originate in one cause. According to his logic that everything is either caused externally or by itself, it's perfectly logical to postulate that multiple universes exist, each with a separate initial event that caused itself. So, even IF all his other arguments were valid, there's no way to deduce it was a unique initiating event for all existence.

Perfect23
07-05-2007, 01:05 AM
wow that made me more confused then a lesbian waking up next to a man

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 01:08 AM
:lol: thx CKB. I just came across that one and had to put it up. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Columbia student huh. Where did you live. I used to live on 101st and West End

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 01:33 AM
:lol: thx CKB. I just came across that one and had to put it up. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Columbia student huh. Where did you live. I used to live on 101st and West End

I was one of those sad cases that lived first in Flushing then in Forest Hills, both in Queens, meaning 1 hour commute each way each day!! I went 2 years to St. John's University (not because I'm Catholic, but because it was closest), then transferred before I would have been required to take any philosophy or religion courses :)

I spent 3 years at Columbia. Now, I'm at UT Austin for grad school (weather is certainly nicer here - people are too :wink:)

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 01:46 AM
I was one of those sad cases that lived first in Flushing then in Forest Hills, both in Queens, meaning 1 hour commute each way each day!! I went 2 years to St. John's University (not because I'm Catholic, but because it was closest), then transferred before I would have been required to take any philosophy or religion courses :)

I spent 3 years at Columbia. Now, I'm at UT Austin for grad school (weather is certainly nicer here - people are too :wink:)

I grew up in Forest Hills. 20th and Continental (Forest Hills Apartments):lol:

ckb2001
07-05-2007, 01:57 AM
I grew up in Forest Hills. 20th and Continental (Forest Hills Apartments):lol:

Hey that's close. I was on 66th rd or something like that. I actually think it was more Rego Park than Forest Hills, but I used both (forest hills sounds better anyway :D)

adamprez2003
07-05-2007, 02:11 AM
have a good night . that's it for me

Pagan
07-05-2007, 07:33 AM
I was one of those sad cases that lived first in Flushing then in Forest Hills
I feel for you bro. :lol: