Dissection!

In my previous post, I challenged y'all to find what's wrong with Adam Kisby's paper which supposedly proves God doesn't exist, or at least that God didn't create the universe (which might actually be the same thing, depending on your definition of God).

People responded. Their observations are included in the following dissection of Kisby's proofs.

Here is Kent Hovind's challenge:

Prove (1) false OR (2) or (3) true, and you get $250,000.
Option 1: The Universe was created by God.
Option 2: The Universe always existed.
Option 3: The Universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Kisby rephrased the above in "more rigorous terms" as:

Hypothesis 1: God is the unique necessary cause of the Universe (~G ⇒ ~U)
Hypothesis 2: Nothing is the unique necessary cause of the Universe (~∅ ⇒ ~U)
Hypothesis 3: The Universe itself is its own unique necessary cause. (~U ⇒ ~U)

So far so good (... according to me. I should note that Saurabh thinks something's wrong with deriving H2 from Option 2, he just can't put his finger on it. Any thoughts?)

Note these two definitions; Kisby will play havoc with his own rules as he goes along:

G: the set representing “God” or “purely supernatural reality”; it contains all existing sets that are neither U nor subsets of U
∅: the set representing “nothing”; it has no existing subsets other than itself; all sets contain it as a subset

All set? Let's look at the proof for H1.

First Hypothesis: ~G ⇒ ~U (God is the unique necessary cause of the Universe.)

1. ~G ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ G Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ G Definition of Subset
4. G ∩ U = U Definition of Intersection
5. G ∩ U = ∅ Definition of Intersection
6. U = ∅ Lines 4 and 5

If G "contains all existing sets that are neither U nor subsets of U" (see definition), then U cannot be a subset of G, and the intersection of G and U is ∅ by definition (as, indeed, line 5 states). The question is, how did this guy even arrive at Line 3? "Definition of Subset" he says... Let's take a look.

⊂ : ...it is logically equivalent to ⇒ insofar as all conditional propositions are directly translatable into universal categorical propositions...

Wha..? Since when is implication equivalent to subset? Consider this: Table implies Carpenter, therefore Table is a Carpenter. Where did that come from?

Also, Kr!sh observes -

But the glaring error was he proves that U=Null set in the first proof.. But then if you sub nullset in the #2, it becomes Null set => God. Which cannot be assumed..

Conclusion: Line 3 is bogus, I cannot find "equivalence to implication" listed in any paper or page listing the properties of subset, so the proof is ridiculous.

Spotting Credits: Saurabh spotted this one first when we were looking at it; Anonymous kinda-sorta caught it when s/he recognised that either Line 3 or Line 5 is arbitrary.

Second Hypothesis: ~∅ ⇒ ~U (Nothing is the unique necessary cause of the Universe.)

1. ~∅ ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ ∅ Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ ∅ Definition of Subset
4. only ∅ ⊂ ∅ Definition of ∅
5. U = ∅ Lines 3 and 4

Once again, implication is used as being equivalent to subset: this is the first thing that's wrong with it. But there's something else.

When I was 12 years old, one of my dad's friends challenged me to find the problem with the following scenario:

a. I have 1 paisa.
b. 1 paisa = 1/100 of a Rupee.
c. 1/100 = 1/10 * 1/10.
d. But 1/10th of a Rupee = 10 paise.
e. So I have 10*10 = 100 paise = 1 Rupee.
f. Therefore, 1 paisa = 1 Rupee.

Anyone? Anyone?

It's simple enough. The problem occurs in both line b and line e, where I am forgetting to multiply the units properly: 1/100 of a rupee = 1/10 of the square root of a Rupee * 1/10 of the square root of a Rupee. Similarly, in line e, I have 10 paise * 10 paise which gives me 100 paise squared, definitiely not equal to 1 Rupee.

Similarly, Kisby forgets to qualify his ∅. In the statement ~∅ ⇒ ~U, ∅ means ∅ in the beginning (i.e. beginning of time or whatever it is). But as the proof moves along, ∅ begins to mean all sorts of things - "nothing" now, the set of "nothing" that has always existed, etc etc.

So. Substitute "∅ in the beginning" wherever you see just ∅ in this proof. The conclusion just says, "U means ∅ in the beginning", which is really what we started with.

Conclusion: A new bogus trick makes Kisby look worse.

Spotting Credit: Yours truly.

Third Hypothesis: ~U ⇒ ~U (The Universe itself is its own unique necessary cause.)

1. ~U ⇒ ~U Given
2. U ⇒ U Modus Tollens
3. U ⊂ U Definition of Subset
4. U = U Definition of Subset

This is a proof that says nothing and does nothing... and it still manages to incorporate a major blunder in line 3 (subsets and implication - same old, same old). utter nonsense.

Results: One Adam Kisby ought to be thoroughly embarrassed, but I suppose it doesn't bother him. And the rest of us look foolish being associated with the likes of him. :P

Tags:

• atheism
• misc