The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

[John J. Bannan]

THE DOUBLE DICHOTOMY PROOF OF GOD


1) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence and no states of existence proves that no states of existence cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

2) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real and the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real being those possible all inclusive states of existence that contain two logically possible but contradictory states proves that the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

3) Because our universe had a beginning and does not need to be real, and because something must be real without our universe being real due to the fact that no states of existence cannot be real, then there must be something real without our universe being real proving that all inclusive states of existence that can become real must be possible in reality.

4) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is infinite because one can imagine any given universe with the addition of just one more thing ad infinitum, then there cannot be a probability for any given universe because the set is infinite.

5) But because the universe is real, then there must be something real which determines what becomes real among the infinite set of all possible all inclusive states of existence where said determination is not based on probability or random chance.

6) Because something can be real and our universe not be real, then there must be a power to create the real such as our universe, and as there is a power to create the real, then there must be a power to determine what is real based on an order of preference.

7) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is not inherently ordered, and because it is possible to determine based on preference which possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality, then there must be a real eternal constraint that determines through will and intellect to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real.

8) Because the actualization of any or all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real requires the constraint to actualize them, then the constraint cannot be made and therefore must be infinite pure act without moving parts.

9) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

10) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

11) Because the mind of the constraint is omnipresent and hence within all of us, our minds are contained within the mind of the constraint which calls all of us to be Sons of the constraint.

12) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, is not made, and has a will and intellect and we call this being God.

[Divine Insight]

It seems to me that one cannot explain existence solely by referencing physics, because physics cannot explain why anything is REAL to being with. So, it would seem obvious that one must refer to metaphysics to explain existence.

There is no such thing as "metaphysics" to refer to. That is your folly. The very term "metaphysics" simply means "Beyond Physics". There is no known metaphysics to even speak of. So there is nothing there for you to claim as an "explanation" for anything.

As for God also being constrained, my proof quite neatly indicates that only one God is possible. The reason is that a constraint on the entire set would not be a constraint on the entire set, if the constrain itself were constrained. Hence, there can be only one Constraint.

Actually this disproves your entire metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

If there can only be one constraint and it cannot itself be constrained, then it cannot function as a constraint, by your very own argument. Your very own argument must necessarily apply to this metaphysical "constraint" that you claim exists.

So you're right back at square one having done nothing at all but spin your wheels in the quicksands of contradiction from the get go.

There is no issue with infinite regression. The other side of the dichotomy with nothingness is also uncaused. There cannot be a power set which includes an uncaused set, because the power set would necessarily have to cause that which cannot be caused, and hence, there is no power set or infinite regression.

If you are trying to argue for a purely mathematical description of reality then you are already lost. Especially if you are basing your ideals on mathematical set theory. Set Theory is an invention of man. It's entirely a construct of mankind's imagination. It also contains its own self contradictions and inconsistencies.

Are you aware that according to mathematical set theory there necessarily must exist an infinity of different cardinal sizes of infinity? That's already a logical contradiction right there. So we have a "Proof by Contradiction" that our current mathematical formalism is necessarily logically flawed.

We can't use pure mathematics as a "proof" of God, because mathematics itself contains it's own paradoxes and contradictions.

The very things that you are pretending to be able to define cannot be defined within mathematics without some inherent ambiguity innate to their own definitions.

So, no, you haven't proven anything.

[Divine Insight]

Oh by the way, why have you posted this in Christianity and Apologetics.

Even if your argument made any sense it wouldn't point to the God of the ancient Hebrews. On the contrary, how would your argument support an egotistical jealous God who has mental hang-ups over being worshiped and hurting people who refuse to worship him.

How does your argument of constraints result in supporting that God is a dangerous self-centered egotistical male-chauvinistic psychopath?

The Biblical God is a God who knows no constraints at all. Especially when it comes to unleashing his terrible wrath against the helpless victims of his own creation.

[David the apologist]

THE DOUBLE DICHOTOMY PROOF OF GOD


1) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence and no states of existence proves that no states of existence cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

2) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real and the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real being those possible all inclusive states of existence that contain two logically possible but contradictory states proves that the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

3) Because our universe had a beginning and does not need to be real, and because something must be real without our universe being real due to the fact that no states of existence cannot be real, then there must be something real without our universe being real proving that all inclusive states of existence that can become real must be possible in reality.

4) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is infinite because one can imagine any given universe with the addition of just one more thing ad infinitum, then there cannot be a probability for any given universe because the set is infinite.

5) But because the universe is real, then there must be something real which determines what becomes real among the infinite set of all possible all inclusive states of existence where said determination is not based on probability or random chance.

6) Because something can be real and our universe not be real, then there must be a power to create the real such as our universe, and as there is a power to create the real, then there must be a power to determine what is real based on an order of preference.

7) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is not inherently ordered, and because it is possible to determine based on preference which possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality, then there must be a real eternal constraint that determines through will and intellect to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real.

8) Because the actualization of any or all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real requires the constraint to actualize them, then the constraint cannot be made and therefore must be infinite pure act without moving parts.

9) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

10) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

11) Because the mind of the constraint is omnipresent and hence within all of us, our minds are contained within the mind of the constraint which calls all of us to be Sons of the constraint.

12) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, is not made, and has a will and intellect and we call this being God.

1-3 could have been replaced by some version of the Kalam argument that incorporates "possible world" language into its presentation. That would have been simpler, easier for readers to get their heads around.

The arguments for the "constraint" being "infinite and pure act" (which I would be the first to affirm), "omnipotent," "omnipresent," and "omniscient" seem to have been truncated significantly. If you want other people to understand your argument, then I recommend that you set out at somewhat greater length these sorts of arguments, as they are the bits that get you from a "constraint" (which, deep down, I think they all believe in. Their "prime mover" is either a quantum vacuum or a set of laws) to "God."

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 10 by Jashwell]

@Jashwell

Consider the lonely photon at the end of the universe after trillions upon trillions of years with space expanding into the Big Chill. The photon is alone and will never interact with another particle ever again. Now, according to you, this lonely photon can never veer off course even to the slightest degree despite the fact that if the photon did unexpectedly veer off course it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the rest of the Universe. Your claim that only one universe is possible is absurd because you are demanding that the almost infinitesimal host of lonely photons must be exactly as they are at the end of the universe and they could never ever be any other way because all other universes are impossible, which is a bizarre claim indeed.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

Because physics can never explain why anything is REAL to begin with, then there must be metaphysics.

Again, you keep try to shove a power set in my proof, despite the obvious fact that a power set cannot exist where the set itself is uncaused. No, a constraint does not have to constrain itself. That is only you once again trying improperly to assert a power set where a power set is not possible.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 13 by David the apologist]

While it is true that 1 through 3 are not easy to wrap your head around, it is not a Kalam argument. To understand 1 through 3, you need to understand what nothingness really is, i.e. no states of existence. Theist and atheists alike generally do not know what pure nothingness really is. Atheists tend to think of nothingness as the vacuum of space containing the quantum field. This is of course not pure nothingness, because pure nothingness does not have a quantum field or physics. Theists tend to think of nothingness as Aquinas did, that being the canvas upon which God creates or that which lies between essence and existence. However, pure nothingness is a highly abstract concept where there is nothing at all, no vacuum, no quantum field and no God.

I use the fact that pure nothingness is not REAL to prove metaphysically that everything that can become REAL is the correct metaphysical first principle. However, this first principle predicts and demands that there be an eternal GOD in order for anything else to become REAL. And this GOD must always be REAL and not be made. With God now in the picture, one can then switch to the Aquinas version of nothingness with no hassles.

It is important to note that my metaphysical dichotomies are themselves not REAL. The dichotomies are only an a priori explanation for the order of existence, i.e. God always is REAL and God creates whatever else becomes REAL. It is very important to understand that my dichotomies are themselves not REAL, but only a method of proving that GOD is the REAL true nature of existence through the use of a hypothetical appeal to a metaphysical first principle being the state of everythingness. It is also very important to understand that this metaphysical first principle does not demand that anything ever be REAL, except God. God decides what else, if anything, becomes REAL.

So, my proof plays in perfectly with Aquinas.

The Constraint I refer to has the unique ability to ORDER the inherently unordered set of everythingness. Atheists should know darn well that the laws of physics are not inherently ordered in terms of what becomes real and what does not become real. Any atheist adherent to a theory of randomness as it might appear in a quantum vacuum, gets tossed to the curb by #4 and #5. Simply stating as I do in my proof that the Constraint has the ability to ORDER what becomes Real implies omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 10 by Jashwell]

@Jashwell

Consider ... a bizarre claim indeed.

I don't see your reply as having expanded on anything.


Here's a logically deductive argument for you.
A constant is the same everywhere in the Universe for all time.
Therefore, a constant can never have been different and can nowhere be different.
Literally; by definition.

It is NOT POSSIBLE for such a constant to have been different.


You're applying a fundamentally human and subjective concept (possibility) to a proposition where objectivity matters.
If I roll a six sided dice, I may say "{1..6} are possible values".
Rolling a six sided dice is (as far as anyone is concerned) completely deterministic. If I do the same conditions again, I'll get the same result. Only one value is possible - the others are literally impossible. They may seem 'possible' - but they aren't.

This doesn't mean that the word "possible" doesn't apply to this, it means that much like "probable", it's dependant on a lack of information.


No matter how plausible it may seem for a single photon to have varied position by a fraction of a metre after billions of years, that does not amount to possibility. Possibility is a human concept - all probability spaces are invented concepts. They emerge from a lack of information or understanding.

[Divine Insight]

Because physics can never explain why anything is REAL to begin with, then there must be metaphysics.

Please define what you mean by REAL. And be specific.

Also, prove that physics can never explain anything "real".

Your reasoning here is circular. To begin with you are claiming that physics can never explain anything "real". I would ask you to prove that claim.

Since physics is far from a completed science I think you would be very hard-pressed to say what it might be capable of explaining. In fact, you seem to have a very classical view of physics. You appear to be arguing from a classical point of view.

The term "metaphysics" actually means "beyond the physical" I should also be quick to point out that this term itself was created with a classical view of physics.

Here's one definition of metaphysics:

Metaphysics - the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Ironically modern day physics has actually gone beyond this classical restriction of physics. Modern physics actually deals with abstract concepts. It certainly deals with abstract concept of time and space, in fact modern physics has recognized the existence of an abstract fabric of spacetime. Is that fabric "REAL", or is it just an abstraction? Physics considers it to be a "real" fabric of reality simply because it exhibits measurable properties.

In physics, anything that is measurable, or observable is considered to be "real".

In fact, in quantum mechanics some things elude precise measurements yet they still exhibit properties that are "observable" (sometime indirectly). Thus modern physics speaks in terms of "observables" and has a mathematical definition for that. Therefore only if something is observable can it be said to be "REAL".

In fact, physics actually defines what we consider to be "real". Especially in terms of observable reality.

By the way, if your God is "real" then it too must be observable. If it's not observable, then it cannot be said to be "real".

Your argument of constraints is not a valid argument for a "God". There is no reason why constraints would need to be conscious or sentient in any way. On the contrary are you not already aware the things like String Theory already provide a physical explanation for constraints without the need for a conscious entity to exist?

Physics has already gone far beyond the point where you have constrained your limited philosophical arguments.

You very argument is nothing more than an argument based upon restricted thinking. Your argument is constrained by your very own refusal to embrace the far greater reach of where modern day abstract physics has already begun to explore.

You're simply behind the times.

You are still arguing Classical-type arguments. Those arguments are no longer valid.

Physics is already way ahead of you. There have been several proposals in String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and Twister Theory that already offer natural solutions to problems of constraints.

You are wrong in your assumption that a constraint could only come from an intelligence being.

In fact, your argument fails miserably even on pure philosophical grounds, because your very argument for the need for constraints would also apply to your entity that is created the constraints because it too would need to be very complex.

So your argument fails miserably all on it's own a pure philosophy.

A natural constraint that doesn't require the very complexity that is dependent upon constraint in the first place is a far more sound theory. So a natural constraint doesn't present a logical contradiction like your proposed "God" does.

You God would itself need to be complex. Therefore your God would need the same kind of restraint acting on it that you claim is required of our universe. So your logical fails miserably.

And I suspect the reason is that your very first premise is simply false to begin with as I had originally pointed out.

You've postulated a false dichotomy that simply has no "reality" itself.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 17 by Jashwell]

I understand exactly what you are claiming about unchanging constants.

My point to you is that it is absurd to believe that only one Universe could ever be Real due to these constants and to also claim that these constants could never be any different in another Universe, whether that Universe becomes Real or not.

Quite simply, you are denying both the Reality of a multiverse and the possibility of a multiverse. I find that claim utterly bizarre.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

Physics cannot explain why anything is real to begin with. And string theory can't explain why there are strings or dimensions.

God does not have to be observable to be real. God only needs to exert a force, which God does by creating what is observable. This is the basis of Aquinas' Prime Mover proof of God and his assertion that God is pure Act.