tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3909212748158382475.post4770193653037999164..comments2019-09-18T09:50:40.814-07:00Comments on The Wise Sayings of Robbie Lindauer and I'm out of: Semi-Formal Proof of the Existence of GUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3909212748158382475.post-57399560569672708982019-09-18T09:50:08.221-07:002019-09-18T09:50:08.221-07:00Proof - Objection 1 "Determinism" and co...Proof - Objection 1 "Determinism" and contingency<br />Some years ago I presented this proof of the existence of God from First Order Logic with Modal Extensions. It is -essentially- the argument that the Bible itself gives - that the evidence of the existence of God is His Creation, ex nihilo nihil fit - from nothing comes nothing.<br />But in particular I claim that the world itself can be characterized as all of the contingent facts - the facts that could have been otherwise.<br />This claim has been challenged by a kind of essentialist determinism. The counter-claim is essentially that every fact is necessary, and that there are no contingent facts. According to this version of the objection, there is nothing to explain because everything must be the way it is and that it is the job of physics essentially to discover the necessary laws of the universe that govern its development.<br />The objection is partially effective against the argument because it undercuts a major premise - that the totality of contingent facts requires explanation.<br />The object itself is demonstrably false and here is the demonstration of its falsity.<br />Suppose the physical world P is characterized by the laws L. These laws L must be sufficiently powerful to characterize the motion of and relations among geometrical objects in 3-d space and the cardinality of the geometry of that space is aleph-1. This implies that the power of any theory governing the movement said bodies must include mathematics at least as powerful as Peano Arithmetic and therefore is subject to Godels incompleteness theorem, that is to say, there is at least one statement which is not decided by those laws L. That statement will then not be implied by any statements of L, and therefore either it or its contradiction will be true, implying the existence of at least one non-necessary true statement, viz, a contingent statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com