Is this proof of God's existence?

[QED]

In another topic Harvey has set out a series of premises that lead him to the conclusion that God exists and is the creator of the universe. I think this deserves a debate topic of its own so I have copied his arguments below:

1. According to Paul Davies, most physicists who work on fundamental physics believe the laws of physics have some independent existence to the universe
2. The laws of physics are propositions if they exist independently to the universe
3. Propositions are semantic-based structures
4. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics are propositions and are semantic structures(from 1, 2, 3)
5. Semantic structures only have existence if they are interpreted and comprehended by an interpreter
6. Propositions require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3, 5)
7. We are justified in believing that the laws of physics require interpretation and comprehension by an interpreter to exist (from 3,6)
8. An interpreter exists independent of the proposition and the fictional or non-fictional world(s) that the proposition refers to (defined as having "implicit freedom")
9. An interpreter of a proposition is restricted by rules of interpretation which are separate from the proposition itself (i.e., defined as not having "explicit freedom")
10. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being (God) is defined as having implicit freedom with respect to the propositions of the universe
11. The interpreter of the laws is God (from 4, 8, 9, 10)
12. We are justified in believing that God is the cause of the laws and the universe(s) that results from the laws (from 7,11)

Can anyone find fault in any of the above premises? Or is it a proof of God's existence?

[ST88]

You sound like a mystic. If we cannot use terms such as previous and subsequent with reference to our world, then none of our words about the world apply at all. We might as well exchange incense candles.

It's not a mystical interpretation to say that there is only one system and each state of particles that exists and existed in the past are a part of this system. You seem to want to nudge time along with sheer force of personality from system to system. Time, rather than being the force that moves everything along, appears to me to be a function and possibly only a measurement of movement. If true, then moving from system to system, as you have set the parameters, is inevitable -- so inevitable that we needn't even make a distinction where one system ends and the next begins... Unless you already believe in a supreme mind that nudges it along. In that case, you are taking a pre-supposition and twisting around the situation you perceive in order to explain it.

In order to explain how a single system can give rise to events/laws that can change it so that new laws and events are created, one would have to assume that the changing events were inevitable based on the characteristics of the system. I am comfortable with that. Wouldn't it make sense that your "breaking event" could be a result of the peculiar forces going on at that time in the system?

...Why do the laws that show how we are causally tied to our past tend to be mathematical equations that can fit on napkins and be constructed solely in the minds of men and women drinking coffee as they ponder the origin of the universe?

As to your simplicty question, why wouldn't a mechanical system be subject to reductive laws? I would tend to think that the converse is true -- that a universe ruled by a conscious mind would be more chaotic than a mechanized system. I know that applies to the appearance of my desk area at work. I know where everything is and how everything works even though there is no actual filing system nor a set of logical rules that apply.

A Vegas analogy such as you presented implies a House that is trying to beat you, but please, go on.

I usually gamble on slot machines and video slots, that's how I gained my aversion to atheism...

Video slot machines are enough to put the fear of God in any person.

You

We are not all that different in that regard. It's only that the subject of shock is different.

You sound like you have decided to be an atheist instead of remaining an agnostic...

I am equally shocked by pronouncements of deity presence & deity absence.

[harvey1]

In order to explain how a single system can give rise to events/laws that can change it so that new laws and events are created, one would have to assume that the changing events were inevitable based on the characteristics of the system. I am comfortable with that.

I wouldn't say they have to be inevitable. For example, you can have probablistic conditions that exist such that if the system moves into a certain area of its state space, then the system undergoes a phase transition.

It's not a mystical interpretation to say that there is only one system and each state of particles that exists and existed in the past are a part of this system. You seem to want to nudge time along with sheer force of personality from system to system. Time, rather than being the force that moves everything along, appears to me to be a function and possibly only a measurement of movement...Wouldn't it make sense that your "breaking event" could be a result of the peculiar forces going on at that time in the system?

I was reacting to your statement that, "'previous' and 'subsequent' when applied to systems is unwarranted." I think this statement ignores a great deal of physics (especially quantum physics). To determine the reason why the state of a system is such that it is, it's important to understand how previous symmetries were broken spontaneously. Sure, the spontaneous symmetry breaking was a result of the system being at a certain location in its state space at time t, but those conditions do not fully determine the dynamics of the system after undergoing the phase transition. Universality demonstrates that the behavior of the system is mostly independent of the former system's properties (i.e., prior to the phase transition).

...why wouldn't a mechanical system be subject to reductive laws? ...a universe ruled by a conscious mind would be more chaotic than a mechanized system. I know that applies to the appearance of my desk area at work. I know where everything is and how everything works even though there is no actual filing system nor a set of logical rules that apply.

A mechanical universe would not have reason to be governed by principles such as universality. If there really were no laws, the system would be free to pursue any potential path with equal probability of occurring. Afterall, that's what a law is supposed to explain: why it is that a system's path is restricted by simple yet universal behavior.

On the other hand, we would expect this kind of behavior in a Universe possessing mind since a proposition (held by the mind "as true") would naturally cause various morphemes to join together to form the proposition. Morphemes in this case would be the components of a macro-system. It's an indication of mind operating in the universe.