Hatcher's proof (mathematical proof for existence of god)

mary · 07-24-2007, 07:26 PM

usually when people discuss/debate over the proofs of the existence of god, you hear the same old clichéd arguments.

i came across this last year. a guy was explaining it to me but i kinda got lost mid-way (a bit too much algebra for my liking lol)

its interesting, and at the time i remember thinking to myself "wow" - since someone had actually sat down and figured this out!

Gettin' In Tune · 07-24-2007, 09:40 PM

Hi Mary and Welcome.

Thanks for the tip. I am just starting to read about it and still have to work my way through it. I find it very interesting.

Quote:

Hatcher's proof of God is strong insofar as it addresses many criticisms of past proofs. It does not prove the existence of a God associated with any particular religion, but it does support the existence of a God that Hatcher defines as a unique, universal, uncaused cause. It is written in first order logic.

If anyone is interested, here is an url:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Mathema..._god_exist.htm

Kham · 07-25-2007, 12:43 AM

As far as I've read, this is mostly discredited. It is essentially a first-cause argument in mathematical jargon, and suffers from the same flaws.

Og · 07-25-2007, 06:22 AM

Quote:

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.

Another first cause argument it would seem.

Quote:

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."

http://www.agnosticforums.com/evolut...elativity.html
That's my thread on how this is not necessarily a valid assumption at t=0

Plus, I don't even know what he means by saying "something is self causing".. That doesn't make any sense.

Gettin' In Tune · 07-25-2007, 11:49 AM

I am unsure what to make of it myself; whether classifying it into a first cause argument or not.

Honestly, I am not much of the logistician since it does not captivate my attention one bit.

Here is another interesting thread out of MIT and can be viewed on power point or html:

http://www.mit.edu/~hooman/AtheismAndGod.html

It talks about the Hatcher proof towards the end of the lecture. It also includes atheism, agnosticism, faith, etc.

Kham · 07-26-2007, 12:15 AM

Quote:

I am unsure what to make of it myself; whether classifying it into a first cause argument or not.

It is.

Here is an excerpt that sums it up:
http://www.onecountry.org/e102/e10214xs.htm

Quote:

Let V be the collection (universe) of all existing entities. Since V is composite it cannot be self-caused (see above) and so must have a cause G (different fromV itself). Thus, G ® V, G ¹ V Moreover, every existing phenomenon A is either an entity, and thus a component of V, or else a system all of whose components are in V -- in which case A is a subsystem of V. Thus, G is either a component or a subsystem of V. But, in either case, G ® G by the potency principle. Thus, G is self-caused and hence noncomposite (no composite can be self-caused as shown above). Finally, since G ® V and every phenomenon A is a part of V then by the potency principle, G is a universal cause (the cause of every existing phenomenon, including itself).

Finally, we show that G is the only uncaused phenomenon, for suppose there is another such phenomenon G'. Then G ® G' (since G is a universal cause). But since G' is self-caused it cannot be other-caused by the principle of sufficient reason. Thus, G = G' and the uniqueness of G is established.

If G->V and V=^infinity, then G=V
G is composite, and not self-caused.

Quote:

It follows immediately from these principles that no composite phenomenon can be self-caused, for suppose A ® A where A is composite. Then, by the potency principle A ® E, where E is any component of A. But this contradicts the limitation principle.

Consider A -> B, where A != B. Then any system containing A is a sufficient cause of B. For instance, consider the system denoted by {A,C}, which consists of A and some other different phenomenon C; then {A,C} -> B.

So, from Hatcher's proof, we know that G -> G. Since G is a universal cause, G is a sufficient cause for the system {G,x}, where x is some other phenomenon different from G. Thus G -> {G,x}.

From the principle I showed above, {G,x} -> {G,x}. {G,x} is a composite phenomenon, and yet {G,x} is a sufficient cause for {G,x}. This violates the limitation principle.

Kham · 08-14-2007, 06:03 AM

This was summarized from discussion on http://IIDB.org . I could have sworn I mention that originally.

Probability_Amplitude · 08-24-2007, 06:08 AM

This is not a first cause argument. It's more of an argument from contingency.

Og · 08-24-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

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.

Not a first cause?

Probability_Amplitude · 08-24-2007, 08:25 PM

There are overlaps between the proofs for the existence of God, many of which contain elements of the first cause argument. His reference to "components" makes it seem as it is closer to the argument from contingency rather than first cause.