RogerLeeCooke

I learned of this proof from the author himself, one Paul Vjiecsner, who sent me a copy of the advertisement for his book "On proof for the existence of God and other reflective inquiries," which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 24 May.

He also included his proof of Euclid's parallel postulate (the same fallacious proof involving motion of a line, first stated by Ibn al-Haytham 1000 years ago and refuted by Umar al-Khayyam), and a letter he had written to Amir Aczel, the author of a book on Fermat's Last Theorem, expressing his skepticism about Wiles' proof. With all due allowance for the more-than-obvious fact that English isn't his native language, Mr. Vjecsner is hopelessly entangled in verbiage. But, I shouldn't judge his argument without having read it.

Since I'm lazy, I'd like to ask if anyone else has read the book advertised in the WSJ. Also, has the author shown his face around this board?

DarkBronzePlant

With all of these so-called "proofs" of god's existence, I'd like to see some of them rewritten so that the appear exactly the same except some other entity--e.g. Vishnu, the IPU, werewolves, etc--are swapped in for "God". See if the "proof" proves their existence too. My guess is that most would be proven. Which, IMO, would leave the "proof" highly suspect.

Goliath

Since hyperbolic (ie non-Euclidean) geometry is a consistent geometry, it follows that no proof of the Parallel postulate from the other axioms of geometry can possibly exist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

Also, exactly what is meant by "polymath?"

Sincerely,

Goliath

RogerLeeCooke

You and I know that hyperbolic geometry is consistent, but Mr. Vjiescner claims this is a mistake, since the axioms for Euclidean geometry can't be reinterpreted as they are in the Poincaré and Klein-Beltrami models, which are alleged to be models of hyperbolic geometry within Euclidean geometry. He says, in short, that there is only one allowable interpretation of the axioms. (And, if I understand him, undefined terms are a no-no. Things you can't define without a vicious circle are apparently to be given what Russell called "demonstrative definition." You point to it and say, "That's what I mean.")

Anyway, a polymath is a person who knows many different things. (Greek "polu" = "many" and "mathein" = aorist infinitive meaning "to learn".)

Automaton

What's the bet it tries to analytically, a priori load existence (bad puppy, just wait until Hume sees what you've done on his expensive thesis) into the God concept using question-begging (no, I will not accept the premise <>[]p as intuitive, because it logically necessitates the conclusion p, dagnabit) modal propositional calculus (who'da thunk squares un' triangles could make somethin' into existin')? Oh, and don't forget to throw in the premise of p -> []p as well (supported by a flawed [definitional, or attributal] conception of existence, and/or some nonsensical "ontological perfection" scheme), which necessitates ~p -> ~<>p, which necessitates <>p -> p. Or maybe I'm just jumping to conclusions, and he really has discovered a reasonable (snort snort) argument for God's existence?