ADNAN ALI

This lecture was held on the 28th of March in the University of Toronto. It was done by Dr. William Hatcher.

"The Logical Proof for the Existence of God"

The word document of this can be downloaded from here : DOWNLOAD

These are the notes I took from the overheads that Dr.Hatcher had projected on the wall.

My friend Joshua also took notes, which can be found HERE.

The Logical Proof for the Existance of God

William Hatcher’s Notes

Aristotle:

Existence of a first cause based on infinite regression principle.

Uses attributional logic:

“______ is green” attributes a property to an object.

Avicenna (980-1037): Muslim.

First use of relational logic:

“______ is a brother of _____” relates two existances.

Maimonides (1134-1204): Arabic speaking Rabbi in Spain.

Wrote : “Guide to the perplexed”

Reformulates Avicenna’s proof in Aristotelian terms.

Aquinis(1225-74): Arabic speaking Christian monk.

Wrote : “Summa Theologicai” 

3^rd way is again a revision to Aristotle.

Systematic Development of relational logic. 1879 Begriffanchift, G.Frege

Successors : Russel, Zermeloguon, von Neumann(1925)

Eniac at Princeton : von Neumann went to Princeton to develop Eniac with his knowledge of relational logic.

1938-1947. First electronic computer; application of relational logic.

LOA is decidable, it can be programmed into a computer, and it will say whether it applied to LOA or not.

LOR is semi-decidable. If programmed into the computer, it will either run it and say that it’s applies to LOR, or it will go into an infinite loop so it could either be LOR or not.

Logic gets the unobvious from the obvious. Examples are Euclid and Newton. They has obvious statements to begin with but they drew unobvious conclusions from the obvious statements.

First assume that something exists.

Reality = everything there is was or will be.

Phenomenon = some non-empty portion of reality.

Causality

A à B  means “B exists by virtue of A”

D.0 - B is without a cause, if for no A does AàB hold.

D.1 – B is caused (other-caused) if for some A not = B, AàB, and B notà B.

B notà B means that B is not self caused.

Principle.1 – (POSR) Principle Of Sufficient Reason.

Every phenomenon B is either caused or un-caused(self-caused) and not both.

P.1 implies that nothing exists without a cause.

Temporary principles needed for Aristotle’s proof:

T.1 – (Transitivity)  AàBàC then AàC

Theorem: There is no circular causal chain among distinct phenomenon. Then A1 = A2 = A3 = A4 = An

A1àAnàA1 therefore An must = A1

Therefore Ai = A1, and therefore A1 is self-caused.

T.2 – No infinite regression of causes possible.

An à …. àA3àA2àA1  cannot be all different.

Second Relation   A e B  "A is a component of B"

If A e B  for some A, then B is composite. If never A e B, then B is simple(non-composite).

If A and B are composites (systems) then we define A c B, “A is a subsystem of B”

To mean: every component  E e A is also a component E e B.

If E e B or E c B, then E is part of B.

Complete Cause = Initial Phenomenon + Efficient Cause

e.g. It’s the last straw plus the previous straws that break the camel’s back. Just because the camel’s back breaks after putting the last straw doesn’t mean that the last straw broke the camel’s back. It was the previous straws and the last straw.

P1 + P2 + P3 ==> There exists a unique, non composite, uncaused, universal G.

This is drawing the unobvious form the obvious(P1,P2,P3).

Does V à V? No. Because E e V and if V à V then V à E by P.2. But this contradicts P.3. Hence V notà V. Thus according to P.1, there is some phenomenon G, such that,   G  à V. Therefore G e B and G c B, still by P.2  G à G. G is non composite.

Since A e V, and A c V and G à V, which implies that G à A.

G is unique.

Note* = The speaker was going really fast at this time, therefore I wasn’t able to take complete notes at this point. Please refer to Joshua's notes for completeness.

(c) copyright Adnan Ali (not like there's anything to copy)