Originally posted by TrueLies
Ok, this is pretty interesting stuff. This man, 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.
It's a pretty good read, even if you aren't good at mathematics, or logic....... he explains things in an easy to read format...
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.
Did he forget that perhaps cause is the effect and vice versa? He's thinking from the perspective of linear time of cause-event. What if, something
happened and it caused something else to happen, and after a chain reaction of events that follow, it returns to the starting point again, in an
infinite time loop? Time is just our way to explain motion, but what if this motion is variable, and we only SEE it as linear and specific?
Like a self fulfilling prophecy, cause and effect can switch places.
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 said God is self-caused, which means he created himself. Then, he went on to create everything else. However, if absolutely NOTHING exists, where
does NOTHING get the resources to create a GOD and then out of that God a universe? Nothing is absolutely NOTHING! This means, NOTHING never existed,
otherwise it forevermore would exist - SOMETHING can never come out of absolute NOTHING!
But if GOD is eternal and always existed, then the question is: BEFORE he created the VERY FIRST THING EVER, what was he doing? Because apparently, he
spent infinity creating absolutely NOTHING (since God had no beginning), and then after an INFINITY OF TIME he suddenly decided: Ah let's make some
stuff! But the problem is, how could God spend a whole INFINITY doing anything? Infinity never ends, so he could never create anything, he'd have to
wait INFINITY first (since we know God had no beginning). However, if GOD is TIMELESS, which means he exists at ALL times simultaneously, then
there's another problem! How could a being that exists outside of time CREATE something? Isn't creation an aspect of TIME? Like, something does not
exist BEFORE it was created, but after you create it, it exists. If there is no time, then anything that exists always existed, since you can see it
BEFORE it's actual creation "in time".
What does this mean for God? That means he couldn't create anything: It had to forever exist along side him, because if something did NOT exist, it
simply will NEVER exist. Why? Because God apparently is timeless and infinite himself, as that's the only way he could "wait infinity first" and
THEN create a universe. When there is no time, there is no such thing as CREATION, there is only BEING. So if God didn't create anything, and didn't
even create himself, and the Universe is eternally existing in a timeless state of simultaneous being, what the hell is God good for? Well we better
give him a new job quick, or he might file bankrupcy and demand retirement pay! And our government can't afford God's retirement pay, so we better
give him something else to do quick, since he can't create anything in a timeless universe.
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.
Who says a universe has a specific SET of components that define it? Who defines a "universe" as a "universe"? There's no set definition of what
a universe is, as far as I know. And once again, before ANYTHING can EVER be brought into BEING, one must ask: How much time passed before this
"thing" was brought into being? The answer is always INFINITY, because there was never a BEGINNING of absolutely everything, since we can't start
with NOTHING. And in infinity of "time", anything that can ever BE already IS, thanks to the factor of "free will". However, if you bring
something into being, this would mean you must'ev reached the END of this infinity, and once again, we run into a roadblock, since we cannot reach an
end if infinity, unless of course, you yourself are infinite, and exist simultaneously at all times. If that is TRUE, then wahtever you're bringing
into BEING already existed, exists, and forever exist!
So if the universe could not have existed before the existance of its components, the question would always be: How long did "The Creator" have to
wait before he decided to create any universe? And how did he MANAGE to wait this long, what properties does this "Creator" need to have in order to
wait INFINITY? He needs to be infinite. And if he's already infinite, he exists at ALL times by definition, and if he already exists before AND after
his OWN creation, then it's no longer a CREATION. He already KNOWS what he's going to create then right? This means he has no CHOICE, he cannot
suddenly decide NOT to create anything, because he already exists AFTER the creation too. And in fact, if he already knows what will be, that means it
already IS, he doesn't need to create anything for it to BE, because he cannot KNOW what doesn't exist, can he? You see, even the act of "changing
one's mind" in terms of CREATION implies that you create something by choice, which means it MAY or MAY NOT exist, depending on what you choose.
However, if you already SEE IT EXISTING before you create it as you're timeless, then you do NOT have this choice. However, if you DO still have a
choice, then perhaps EVERYTHING exist that can EVER possibly exist, and forever in a simultaneous now just IS. Then, the "creator" could choose to
NOT create anything, and in one reality nothing would exist. In another reality humans don't inhabit Earth. In another earth doesn't exist. In
another, there's not even the milky way galaxy. And the timeless being would be aware of ALL of the possibilities, simultaneously - they all already
ARE. So he's NOT the creator, he cannot CREATE what did NOT already exist - the problem is, there's NOTHING that doesn't already exist as there are
absolutely no limits in terms of what exists, as long as it doesn't create a contradiction in the same reality. So if Earth exists in this reality,
it can't NOT exist in the very same reality. It either does or it doesn't.
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.
Ah so he admits G is eternal, with no beginning aka cause. If so, G must have spent infinity waiting around before he CREATED something, because
apparently anything that has a CAUSE isn't infinite in existance, only the "G" is infinite. but "G" can't spend infinity waiting, unless he IS
infinity, unless he exists everywhere. But if he does, then obviously G is timeless and therefore he cannot CREATE anything, as creation is an aspect
of linear TIME, and when time is GONE, so is creation. Without time, there's only BEING. So "G" once again has nothing to do, and no reason/purpose
to exist - unless "G" IS everything, unless "G" is the universe and EVERY universe, unless "G" is simply absolutely all that exists, the
infinite permeating consciousness that IS. Without that consciousness nothing would exist, but there was never a "time of creation".. that
consciousness forever was, forever will be, and is inseparate from the creation because it IS the creation. The creator IS the creation, the one
concept this AUTHOR cannot grasp, because he skips over really heavy contradictions in his argument, which is BASED on on the fact that THE CREATOR
CANNOT BE THE CREATED. This is a false premise, but it only works in LINEAR TIME! This author is stuck in a linear frame of mind, and has a poor
understanding of infinity and what it implies, or so it seems
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
Reasonable? Some of his "assumptions" have no logical basis, because they create contradictions in and of themselves, if you think carefully enough
what they imply! He did NOT consider all the implications of his own assumptions, such as "How can someone exist forever and then create something",
that concept went right over his head and he assumed it is possible without explaining logically how. But logically, I explained it, and we keep
arriving at the same conclusion: There IS no time, because if there WAS, nothing could ever exist nor would ever exist.
And once again, this statement isn't easily grasped by our minds because our minds are linear just like the author's who wrote this "proof".
Therefore, one must think very critically about this and TRY to understand each aspect of this, and only THEN the mind begins to see the non-linear
aspects of existance. A linear mind, when introduced to non-linear ideas, has a lot of trouble grasping them, even if they are indeed true. But when
an honest attempt at understanding is made, without prior assumptions or agenda to prove something, then it CAN understand certain things.
This author apparently had a goal: PROVE that God exists! Instead of asking "Does God exist, can logic be used?" he said "He exists and I will
prove it!". That is what caused him to fail and to make HUGE, unforgivable holes in his "proof", which created contradictions and impossibilities
that the author did not even SEE, because he was blinded by his assumption and desire to PROVE God's existance, instead of critically examining his
own statements. God is not separate, he IS us, we are HIM, he is ALL, ALL is him. God = light = love = knowledge = all there is. They are all
synonymous terms that mean precisely the same thing.
[edit on 11-6-2004 by lilblam]