Does God Exist?

[Guest guest]

I was searching the internet and i found a guy trying to prove that god was real, and some of the arguments made me puzzled. Here is the article. Please read it carefully

Hare Krishna

 

“Does God Exist? Yes, Mathematician Says

 

 

 

Aristotle and Descartes would be pleased to hear Dr. William Hatcher proclaim that even God Himself cannot defy logic.

 

Hatcher, who is a self-proclaimed Platonist philosopher with a Ph.D. in mathematics, delivered a logical proof for the existence of God before an over-filled auditorium in Warren Hall last night.

 

The event marked the first in what the Baha'i student organization hopes will be a series of discussions about religion, science, and philosophy, and how the three topics interrelate.

 

"We just felt like there wasn't enough discussion on campus" about these matters, said Natasha Bruss, BC '05, President of the Baha'i club at Columbia. Baha'i is based on the teachings of the prophet Baha'u'llah, who preached that all religions are one, religion is progressive, and that faith is not meant to be dogmatic.

 

Hatcher, a Baha'i adherent himself, is similarly uninterested in dogma. His discussion explored the existence of God and carefully shied away from any of its implications. Rather, he stated, "we have to transform the religious discourse from a discourse about belief to a discourse about truth."

 

To that end, Hatcher began his discussion with an introduction to Aristotlean, or attributional, logic and its shortcomings.

 

Aristotle purported to have proven the existence of God, but he did so based on a kind of logic that deals with properties of objects, an approach, he argued, that's less than satisfying considering that God's attributes cannot be perceived. Aristotle insisted that there must be a first cause, namely God, in order to avoid the logical inconsistencies of an infinite regress of causes for the universe.

 

Avicenna, an ancient Muslim philosopher, employed a different form of logic in his proof. He examined the relations between objects rather than their attributes, and in doing so accomplished what Hatcher called "really amazing stuff." He claimed to have proved the existence of God without recourse to Aristotle's infinite regression principle.

 

Hatcher said that though many subsequent philosophers like Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonedes built on Avicenna's proof, they continued to fall back on the infinite regression principle. Hatcher argued that this principle is not sufficient to prove the necessity of God's existence. Modern mathematics demonstrates the logical possibility of infinite regression; negative integers, for instance, do not have a minimal element or something that can be labeled a "first cause."

 

Thus, Hatcher has attempted to wed modern mathematics and ancient philosophy in a proof of God's existence, drawing on Avicenna's concept of relational logic. "In relational logic, we want to know how the object relates to other objects. It turns out that the relational approach often yields more useful information [than Aristotlean attributional logic]."

 

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." “

 

 

Here are the arguments to this article from other people

 

“Imagine if the universe is a evolving life form reproducing itself. This negates this persons faith completely. His assumptions are grounded in the idea that there is a god, then he tries to find ways to prove that it exists. Pretty silly IMO.”

 

 

“This argument is ridiculous, I agree with one of the other commentators that Hatcher has gone about proving the existence of god rather than conducting his report in an unbiased manner. If everything that "exists does so because of some cause", then what caused God? It is equally ridiculous to suggest that something could 'cause' itself into existence, I question just what branch of physics this is based upon as I am sure that basic principles would disagree. I fear that Dr Hatcher is making a rather tasteless attempt at fame, and in the process delivering a false hope to all those that wish an undeniable proof to substantiate their belief. I say that he should have his qualification revoked and be labeled a charlatan.”

 

 

 

 

 

“I've read both these guys extensively and what this Hatcher cat presents does not establish God.

 

quantum mech shows that both Avicenna's component argument and Aristotle's first cause arguement are wrong.

 

When we shrink things down to the QM level, we have large integer sets with extremely large members and complex laws governing their relations(but they're still finite). In this environment anything can happen, it can happen without some first cause that preceded all other causes or some uncaused component making it happen. “

 

 

 

Randomness itself shows this. Take a given set, the Axiom of Choice tells us, that we must have a way to 'pick' a member out of this set. this is true. But how the 'pick' happens can be undeterminable. Just think of the lottery! If we have 54 numbers that can combine in any order, the set of possible 'choices' is so large that for any one to 'come up' so to speak is not determined by any rule. In other words there is no rule-based 'choice' we can make. This random event can't be attributed to a cause that is self-caused, or a first cause that has a spreading cascade of sub-causes. At the quantum level, all existence is random probabilistic events.

 

What Hatcher 'proves' is nothing more than a logical fallacy. I quote:

 

"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."

 

Nothing could more wrong. Is he a physicist? I think not! It is not caused by the aggregation of its parts. The universe was non-existent and was CAUSED by the instability of non-existence. It came out of nothing because non-existence like, radioactive elements decay from unstable conditions, begot existence. This random phenomena still occurs everyday in the radioactive isotopes of elements like uranium. Should we say the radioactive decay of U-235 is caused by God? Unpredictable random phenomena in nature is no proof of God! The things that naive mathematicians will try to pass off on the uninitiated. But, hey wait, hold everything, even if this flawed argument is true, that 1st cause + agreggative attributes implies a self-cause, then it's still not God. God would have to have known it wanted to be caused and cause itself, now wouldn't it. Such BS “

 

Can Some of you give answers to this?? THanks for your help

[Guest guest]

 

 

Do we really exsist.

 

If you read it all. The MAIN problem is Eternal.<<<<<

 

Govindaram.

[Guest guest]

?

[Guest guest]

this argument is the one that confuses me the most. It is the most reasonable, but i know you all can explain it.

 

"Nothing could more wrong. Is he a physicist? I think not! It is not caused by the aggregation of its parts. The universe was non-existent and was CAUSED by the instability of non-existence. It came out of nothing because non-existence like, radioactive elements decay from unstable conditions, begot existence. This random phenomena still occurs everyday in the radioactive isotopes of elements like uranium. Should we say the radioactive decay of U-235 is caused by God? Unpredictable random phenomena in nature is no proof of God! The things that naive mathematicians will try to pass off on the uninitiated. But, hey wait, hold everything, even if this flawed argument is true, that 1st cause + agreggative attributes implies a self-cause, then it's still not God. God would have to have known it wanted to be caused and cause itself, now wouldn't it. Such Bs."

 

 

Answers please

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

"The universe was non-existent and was CAUSED by the instability of non-existence."

If reasonable people cannot see the foolishness of this statement what can be done. So if "genuine physicists" sincerely believe this, then let it be so, no arguments. Actually, for such people Krishna has kindly given Buddhism. Let me put some points in this regard:

Firstly, physicists do not have a definition of existence so the talk about existence and non-existence does not make sense. Radioactive phenomenon is completely unrelated. There is, however, the phenomenon of pairs of particles apparently coming of "nothing" -- but it only shows that what we take to be as nothing concrete (vacuum) is actually very much "something".

 

"Should we say the radioactive decay of U-235 is caused by God?"

How can one compare radioactive decay with something coming out of nothing? Actually the radioactive decay of U-235 is undoubtedly caused by God, as is all observable and non-observable phenomenon.

When we say nothing, it implies something cannot come out of it by definition. If these physicists have a new definition of nothing, then let them present it.

 

"But, hey wait, hold everything, even if this flawed argument is true, that 1st cause + agreggative attributes implies a self-cause, then it's still not God. God would have to have known it wanted to be caused and cause itself, now wouldn't it. Such Bs."

shows he doesn't have a clue. He asks "Is he a physicist?"; one can correspondingly ask "Do you know a drop of the nature of God, or even the philosophy?"