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"

These are the notes my friend, Joshua, took. He added his own note at the bottom.

This document can be downloaded at : DOWNLOAD.

My notes can be found at: HERE.

Logical Proof of The Existence of God:

Background:

Numerous philosophers tried and failed, and some said it can’t possibly be done.

Aristotle Metaphysics:

Existence of first cause based on infinite regression principle.

Used attributional logic -> uses properties, attributes. Assigns attributes to objects. Define an object by its attributes so that it is enough to distinguish it from the others. Can also approach by saying what’s not true about an object to distinguish. Real knowledge is proportional to attributes of an object.

Avicenna (980-1037):

Book “Najat” (salvation). First use of relational logic. Relations 2 existences. Ex. Blah is a brother of blah. Reconciled the Quran revelation with science (Greek philosophy).

Maimonides (1134-1204):

A Jewish Rabbi in Spain. Book “Guide to the Perplexed”. Used the Torah reconciled with science (Greek Philosophy). Reformulate Avicenna’s proof in Aristotle’s terms. Used attributional logic rather than relational.

Aquinas (1225-1274):

Arabic speaking Christian monk. Book “Summa Theologicai”. Official theology of the Catholic Church, even till now. There are 5 ways to know God, in which the 3^rd way is very similar to Avicenna’s proof. Some believed that he copied the third way from Avicenna. He reconciled the New Testament with science (Greek Philosophy). Still used attributional logic rather than relational.

Descartes (“I think, therefore I am”. Existence proven by thoughts), Leibniz (all existence either contingent [man] or necessary [God]), Kant (said it is impossible to prove God).

His proof: Systematic development of relational logic. Science is natural, and math defines models in nature. Computers are not natural, but utilizes relational logic for its basis for functioning. The power of computers shows the power of relational logic.

Attributes -> one place relation.

Relational -> includes attributes plus more.

His proof uses logic to prove because logic has the property to see the unobvious from the obvious.

Steps in proof:

Assumptions -> uses methods to prove -> conclusions

Axioms true, steps obvious, conclusions unobvious. Ex. In math, simple axioms can lead to solve really difficult problems.

Beginning of Proof:

Assumption: something exists. Descartes: I think, therefore I am.

Assumption not logical, but obvious.

- Def: Reality is everything (all of it) that exists. There is, was, or will be. Doesn’t mean all we can conceive, know, or potentially exists, because reality exists beyond our understanding. But just all is reality.

- Def: Phenomenon is some nonempty portion (in part) of reality. Subset of reality.

- Causality: A -> B means “B exists by virtue of A”. Cause and effect relationship. Implies “never A without B”. Necessary but not sufficient condition. Causal links referred and not observed. Don’t observe actual force (ex. Gravity) but only the effects. (Hume: not true unless can be conceived).

- Minimalism is what his proof is based on. Use the minimum facts to make certain of conclusion. Not reductionism. Minimalism only makes positive comments, not negative (ex. Say Christianity is the true religion, but don’t say that it’s the only religion, and there’s nothing else besides it). In contrast, reductionism makes both positive and negative comments.

- three types of causes: without a cause (nothing caused it), caused (some other than itself caused it), uncaused (self-caused).

Three axioms/principles as the basis of his proof:

P1: Principle of Sufficient Reason:

Every phenomenon is either caused or uncaused (self-caused), but not both.

This is the ultimate basis for science. Ever phenomenon requires an explanation. It implies that nothing exists without a cause. This is relational logic.

Aside: Temporary principle needed from Aristotle’s proof:

i. Transitivity Principle.

If A -> B -> C, then A -> C.

Theorem: there is no circular causal chain among distinct phenomena. B -> B is possible, but not A -> B -> C -> A -> B ->…..

ii. No Infinite Regression of Distinct Causes is Possible.

If all caused phenomenon, then infinite regression. But need a start, an uncaused to start the chain. So can’t have infinite regression.

Yet in reality you can have an infinite regression: ex. -∞ < -∞ + 1 < -∞ + 2 < … < -2 < -1

This negative number system of negative integers is an infinite regression, even though it is not an infinite regress of causes. His proof requires the transitivity principle, but not the infinite regression principle.

P2: Potentcy Principle:

If A -> B, and E ε B (E is a composite of B) or E c B (E is a subsystem of B), which are both a part of B, then A -> E. Hence A is possible of creating its components.

P3: Limitation Principle:

If E ε B (E is component of B), then B not-> E. Hence if E is a component of B, then B cannot cause its component E. This cause is also time dependent (ex, body generating white cells at different times).

The prove requires that P1 + P2 + P3 -> G, meaning the three obvious principles implies a God that is unobvious. The God is the non-composite, uncaused, universal cause. 

If you’re logic, and accept all three principles, then you will have to accept G. If you deny G, then you’re denying either one or all of the principles.

Existence of God is implied by the gross structure of reality.

- Definition: If, for some B, A ε B, then A is an entity. A is a component of B.

- V = reality = phenomenon whose components are all the entities. A ε V, or A c V.

V is the whole thing, all of existence.

Proof:

Does V -> V? (Is reality self-caused?)

No, because E ε V (a component exists) and if V -> V, then V -> E by P1. But this contradicts P3. Thus from P1, there is some phenomenon G such that G -> V. But every phenomenon is a part of V. Thus either G ε V or G c V. In either case, by P2, G -> G and G is uncaused. G is thus non-composite who since if G -> G ε E, then G -> E by P2 which contradicts P3 (G not-> E ε G).

G is universal since every phenomenon A is a part of V. Thus G -> V -> A which implies G -> A (P2). Finally G, is unique, the only uncalled entity. For let G’ -> G’ for some phenomenon G’. Since G is universal G-> G’ -> G’. Thus by P1, G = G’.

Refutes/contradicts the Trinity, because the proof does not allow a God to have any parts. Also refutes Pantheism, that everything is God, because there can only be one universal God.

My own comments:

Creation by God in the Holy Bible: Genesis 1.1, John 1:1-5, 1:14-18

But his proof contradicts, or refutes, the existence of Trinity, because his proof says that God has no parts. However, he has misunderstood the meaning of Trinity, because we believe that the Trinity is three in one, meaning there is three, but at the same time there is only one. There are no parts, and but a concept of three in one that is impossible for us to see or understand. But how, as creations, can we be able to understand the true nature and essence of our maker by means of our own logic that we derived ourselves, limited by our own human powers and understanding? Like, as a person of the three dimensional world, how can we visualize what it’ll be like in a forth, fifth, sixth dimensional world? As a subset, an enfolded part of God, being in a hierarchy lower than the almighty God, be able to see and understand the nature and essence of God? It’s like if you’re in Microsoft Windows, how can you see the entirety of Windows, or even to delete it, or understand its nature? It is only through some properties that we see of God, that enables us to gain the slightest understanding of Him, which He reveals to us Himself. It is through revelation that we get to understand Him, and which we see as a three-in-one nature. We can’t understand it by our logic, but it just is, because it is God.

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