Who designed the designer?

[M. J. Fernandes]

Sorry to butt in here... but, you were attempting to use formal logic to make a proof. Wouldn't predicates be a very important part of such an attempt? It's like quoting the Bible without using the Bible to quote from, methinks. Also, formal logic means that you don't use informal style, doesn't it? They're at odds with each other. Formal v informal. Can you explain yourself a bit more about this, because it seems like you're contradicting yourself here?

The following quote implies that I did not use predicate logic:

That’s why what you really want is the use of predicate logic s.t. you can define the predicate Dx to be “x is uncaused” and or the predicate Cx to be “x is a concept”.

Perhaps I meant predicate calculus or whatever the term is for that terse form for expressing logical expressions - I cannot remember now. Instead I used a more verbose style.

The substance of the proof, at a cursory glance at it, seems to have a lot of holes. Not much of a substance to a sieve. If it's a swiss cheese, then sure, but the holes don't taste anything. They're still missing.

Please point out exactly the holes. Until then, I am assuming that the proof is likely correct.

 

[Ouroboros]

The following quote implies that I did not use predicate logic:

Perhaps I meant predicate calculus or whatever the term is for that terse form for expressing logical expressions - I cannot remember now. Instead I used a more verbose style.

Sure. I understand. You didn't want to use predicate logic, however, I suspect that if you use formal logic (those are the symbols you used) you have to use some predicate logic as well. Predicate logic is basically to say "something is something other", "X is Y" etc. (Legion can correct me on this. I don't remember much from logic class anymore.) Basically, what I'm saying is, by trying to create this proof and attempting to use some formal logic language, you have to use some predicate logic or it isn't a proof. You see what I'm saying? But of course, I could be wrong about this. It's just something I was thinking about when I saw your post.

Please point out exactly the holes. Until then, I am assuming that the proof is likely correct.

Pantheism. The proof doesn't cover that.

Also, you admit above that you won't use predicate logic... that means you intentionally left holes. Also, when you say to only look at the substance and forget the formal logic, you also admit to holes. Formal language/logic is to avoid holes. Just to create something that's supposed to be read by "substance" only, is by default not covering all things. Informal language is vague and unspecific, i.e. "hole-y".

The proof cannot be correct if it's informal and lack predicates. (Legion can correct me on this if I'm wrong.)

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

That’s certainly possible. ....

Your argumentation seems to be simply for the sake of it, with holes in your argumentation. Please reflect on the substance & veracity of the proof (not so much the form), and what the existence of God implies for your life.

I wish you the best of intentions.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Please reflect on the substance & veracity of the proof (not so much the form)

I was hoping to clear up an easier problem first. But as you wish:

1) Your definition of determinism is simply wrong
2) You offer nothing remotely resembling evidence for your claims about the ways in which a deterministic universe somehow entails that the state of any system be determined at or after some particular time, which is to say that you throw determinism out the window and adopt an idiomatic definition in order to defeat an argument that never existed but expose the failures of your own.
3) The very fact that you cannot formulate a proof nor recognize as such any actual proof of anything suggests you are not relying on logic but upon the arguments others have presented that I have seen many times but which you do not actually understand.
4) You have failed to defend any claims you've made about "infinities" other than to repeat yourself
5) You have failed to address counter-arguments other than to repeat yourself.

If you wish so direct approach to your argument, then it is this:
You copied and pasted form sources you don't understand using notions you aren't familiar with that you presented as "proofs" indicating you aren't familiar with what this means only to make an argument that betrays a fundamental lack of understanding regarding mathematical/formal systems, logic, and physics (if the last of these you are willing to dismiss, you still haven't presented anything remotely resembling justified true belief or faith through reason; you've parroted the arguments of others in ways that indicate quite clearly you don't understand them).

Could we take a step back and try to construct the proof or argument you were attempting to make? Because sandblasting a soup cracker is neither helpful, fun, stimulating, nor productive.

 

[Blackmarch]

First cause arguments usually employ the premise that complex things like the universe need a designer and cannot simply just exist. Well then let us ask- would not the designer be much more complex, assuming one for the sake of debate? Who designed the designer? Did that designer also need a designer?

either there was or there wasn't. God doesn't say.

 

[Ouroboros]

either there was or there wasn't. God doesn't say.

I'd say the old time religion God is kind'a quiet. He doesn't say much at all.

 

[Blackmarch]

I'd say the old time religion God is kind'a quiet. He doesn't say much at all.

actually i'd say those who have spoken with him do that job. a lot of revelation is personal and sacred, and generally the prophets only say what god tells em to say or do. and thats pretty much limited to getting people out of their ways that are at odds with being godly.

 

[Salek Atesh]

It may be worthwhile referring to the First Vatican Council in the statement on the provability of the existence of God which is very likely infallible from the point of view of the Catholic Faith. See here for the statement.

I have developed a proof of the existence of God but I am not sure whether there are any flaws in it. Perhaps you could have a look at it.

I started developing it when I could not understand how to assume the premise used in Aquinas' First-Cause proof stipulating that all things had a cause (I think some ppl here had the same problem).

It is shown below in a mathematical manner as well as in a prose form.


View attachment 6998

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 - Proof of the Existence of G-d

For every two things, there is a relationship of sorts, between the two things. For example, one can say that there is a relationship between two objects a million miles apart via space. The relationship is such that either both things depend on something 'outside' of themselves (in the prior example, the dependency would involve space, a separate thing) or one of the things is caused by the other. This relationship must exist, by virtue of their co-existence in the same universe. Something ties all things together - nothing is completely isolated. Take for example the colour red, and the song of a bird. It might seem as though there is no relationship between them. However, something makes the colour red not the song of a bird and the song of a bird not the colour red. This relationship involves distinguishing them into quite different existences. It is like a grand person sorting the two things into two different boxes representing different categories; the person then acts as part of a link (relationship) between the two things.

There cannot be two uncaused causes, since, as stated, for every two things, there is a relationship between the two things. An uncaused cause implies no dependency & a relationship would imply at least one dependency. Furthermore, there must be at least one uncaused cause because otherwise, we would have a universe of just dependencies on other things and this cannot exist. It cannot exist because the dependences would never be fulfilled; for every dependency, another dependency would need to be fulfilled. Therefore, there must be only one uncaused cause and we call this uncaused cause, G-d.

I like this. Because it uses logic, and I'm a logic junky.

Problem, though, is that it doesn't prove a God, but proves an original singular uncaused thing, assuming the Axiom of Causality is correct. The problem here being even Hard Polytheism has an "Original Cause", often the concept of Primal Chaos, yet still has many Gods. Atheists typically also believe in an initial "cause". In short: the Original Cause is not guaranteed to be a "God", and no Axiom exists defining a "God". The end statement seems to say that the definition of "God" should be "the Original Cause", but under that limited definition the "God" does not have to be all powerful or even sentient, and most people would thus probably disagree on such a limited definition.

The two things it doesn't address is the unlikely possibility that causality is wrong, and the possibility of time not being linear. If time is, say, cyclical, then the events at the "end" of time could be the direct causes of those at the "beginning" of time, forming a looped-chain of causes.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Pantheism. The proof doesn't cover that.

Under Pantheism, "U" in the logic model is God. Pantheism is technically monotheistic, at least in the definitions used in this proof (consists of one, all-encompassing deity), so I'd say it is technically covered by the "proof". The proof's main flaw being that it has no Axiom to define God. And the inferred definition of God as "the Original Cause" is so vague it is of no use in any theological discussion.

 

[Ouroboros]

actually i'd say those who have spoken with him do that job. a lot of revelation is personal and sacred, and generally the prophets only say what god tells em to say or do. and thats pretty much limited to getting people out of their ways that are at odds with being godly.

The prophets only tells us what profits them. Who knows what God actually told them. We all are humans, even the prophets, and words are highly imprecise. Knowledge of God doesn't come by actually listening to the words of the prophets, but listening to what's behind the words. The hidden message. And that you can hear anywhere and from anyone.

 

[Ouroboros]

Under Pantheism, "U" in the logic model is God. Pantheism is technically monotheistic,

Well, I consider myself as a naturalistic pantheist, which some call a sexed up atheism. And also, I feel that we all are part of the mysterious divine in the world, the natural order and such, which makes it a polytheism. We're all gods. So in other words, I'm everywhere on that list.

at least in the definitions used in this proof (consists of one, all-encompassing deity), so I'd say it is technically covered by the "proof". The proof's main flaw being that it has no Axiom to define God.

Exactly.
It only assumes God=First Cause. And that's it. Which leaves out any other possibilities of what God is. God isn't the one holding the world together at this moment. God being the ground of existence and being this very moment, the immanent, omnipresent force like the Higgs field or such. In my view, there isn't a true "first". Time is more of an illusion, only encapsulated in this world, where the "god-force" extends to be the thing that brings it together and holds it together constantly. We are "banging" right now. We never stopped. The "first" is every moment, right now, right here.

And the inferred definition of God as "the Original Cause" is so vague it is of no use in any theological discussion.

Yes.

Let's say I throw a ball. What was the "first cause" from my viewpoint? My decision to throw it? The motion in my hand? The hand? My body? My thought at the moment? And in the end, we never touch anything either. There's this electrostatic field or whatever from the atoms that repels each other between my hand and the ball, so I never really actually touch it. So what is exactly the first cause? Which particle is it? And which thought was it?

Personally, I think the "first cause" argument is a way of reducing God to something less. It's the same mind as the scientific reductionist trying to find "consciousness" in one of the brain cells. It's not there.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

Problem, though, is that it doesn't prove a God, but proves an original singular uncaused thing, assuming the Axiom of Causality is correct.

If we simply define God to be the uncaused cause, then we can say it proves the existence of God but not those attributes associated with a personal God.

The problem here being even Hard Polytheism has an "Original Cause", often the concept of Primal Chaos, yet still has many Gods.

That "original cause" would then be God and those other 'gods' would be created entities. In Christianity I would suppose we could call 'gods' angels (fallen or not.)

Atheists typically also believe in an initial "cause".

Such an initial cause would then fall under the definition of God as shown above.

The end statement seems to say that the definition of "God" should be "the Original Cause", but under that limited definition the "God" does not have to be all powerful or even sentient, and most people would thus probably disagree on such a limited definition.

I have made another post concerning God's other attributes - see here for it.

The two things it doesn't address is the unlikely possibility that causality is wrong,

It is interesting that you have brought this up because I have thought about this too. The way how I argued that causality must be true is as follows:
1) In order to simply argue for or against the existence of the Creator (a reasonable proposition), we must engage reason.
2) Since reason & causality seem very much connected & perhaps the same in some sense, causality has to exist.

... and the possibility of time not being linear. If time is, say, cyclical, then the events at the "end" of time could be the direct causes of those at the "beginning" of time, forming a looped-chain of causes.

I very much like that you have brought this up because this is something I want to prove/demonstrate next, that time needs to be linear, if I have the time to do that.

Having said this, I believe the proof does not change assuming any supposed non-linear aspect of time, because I think the proof works in the realm of metaphysics. For example, if time were cyclical, what caused that cyclical aspect of time? My faith tells me that time is linear by the way.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't know why people ask such questions to people who assert that the First Cause Argument is a logical argument. Muslims like using this argument all the time like Christians did as a whole in the past. Such arguments only cater to the weakest of minds and the crookedest of tongues.
They will babble and claim that their so called god is infinite which is an absurdity in itself. They claim to have knowledge that no scientist or mortal can have. Such peple who assert knowledge of a god that exist outside of this world are most assuredly lying with the sharpest of tongues. Their knowledge ends where their dreams begins. Quite indubitably their dreams are narrow just as their minds. Asserting such absurdities does not make your god real it just makes your claims false and your wisdom nonexistent.

Oh how miserable it is to have the mind of a theist.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

...
Oh how miserable it is to have the mind of a theist.

I am getting a few posts similar to this post. If you would just look at the logical argumentation, then perhaps we could go from there.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

....
The two things it doesn't address is ... and the possibility of time not being linear. If time is, say, cyclical, then the events at the "end" of time could be the direct causes of those at the "beginning" of time, forming a looped-chain of causes.

Having thought about this a little bit, I believe my proof of an end of time rules out cyclical time because of the need for there to be an end. See here for it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I am getting a few posts similar to this post. If you would just look at the logical argumentation, then perhaps we could go from there.

There is no logical argumentation. The arguments for god have gone on for centuries and have been destroyed and decimated. It should occur to you that almost 99% of atheist would love for a god to exist yet he does not. I am not interested in emotional appeals

 

[MonkeyFire]

The designer is who he is. He has a nature. He designed himself naturally by his own hand as he became conscious, learned knowledge, and made belief so he could imagine the observable world. We are made up of intrinsics like time logic and reason then we become conscious and we imagine a self or nature to function in Love's socio-natural environment. God is created naturally then when he is conscious he can create us in his imagination as we grow organically confirming his belief.

 

[mainliner]

First cause arguments usually employ the premise that complex things like the universe need a designer and cannot simply just exist. Well then let us ask- would not the designer be much more complex, assuming one for the sake of debate? Who designed the designer? Did that designer also need a designer?

the TRUTH is the designer of everything .

Out from the depths and blurry understandings of the void manifested the TRUTH .

and the designer knew that truth

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

There is no logical argumentation. The arguments for god have gone on for centuries and have been destroyed and decimated. ...

I would disagree. Look at my argument.

 

[M. J. Fernandes]

I was hoping to clear up an easier problem first. But as you wish:

...

Could we take a step back and try to construct the proof or argument you were attempting to make? Because sandblasting a soup cracker is neither helpful, fun, stimulating, nor productive.

I will take that as a 'no' then. If you cannot clearly articulate any failings you perceive then I see that as a problem. Writing many words & sentences that may appear to be correct, does not mean you are correct in your statements. You seem to be more willing to confuse than offer clear replies.