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.