Cosmological argument in 1st order logic?

[NolF]

So I've been discussing this alleged proof with another person, and I was wondering what are the issues with Dr. William S. Hatcher's proposal. His entire process can be found http://www.onecountry.org/e102/e10214xs.htm", but it can be summed up into three axioms

1) Principle of sufficient reason: everything in the universe is either preceded by a cause or else contains within itself a sufficient reason for its existence.

2) Potency principle: for every system or composite phenomenon, any cause for the system is also a cause for every part of the system. (Every material thing, except possibly the elementary particles of quantum physics, is composite.)

3) Principle of limitation: the existence of a whole system cannot precede the existence of its components (or, he writes, "the constitution of a whole obviously supposes and depends upon the prior or simultaneous existence of its components.")​

Personally I find it convincing to proof an universal uncaused cause (which Hatcher calls God though not one demonstrably affiliated with any religion). So what are your thoughts?

Note: I highly recommend reading his work rather than just basing it on the axioms presented here. It gives a more complete picture of his reasoning.

 

[Aaron Bex]

I think Dr. William S. Hatcher's proposal is interesting and I can definitely see how his axioms could be used to prove a universal uncaused cause. The idea of an uncaused cause is fascinating, especially when you consider the implications for religion and other spiritual beliefs. However, I do think it's important to read the full work to get a better understanding of the argument and to make sure that all of the details are taken into account. Thanks for sharing this!