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.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 208 by Hatuey]

How does any particular universe among those infinite number of possibilities get chosen for reality, then?

What?? Nobody's talking about anyone choosing anything. Your concept fails for the reasons I provided. When you acknowledge that fact/defeat, we can move on, but this whole business of somebody choosing things in numbers and universes is all news to me.

[Hatuey]

Well, the problem with that is determinism. It is not the case that the next moment is just one choice among an infinite number of choices. Rather, the next moment is pre-determined by the previous moment. There is no possibility among infinite choices for the next moment. There is only one possibility for the next moment.

There's more to determinism than that, and you don't get to decide that determinism is or isn't a "problem." It's certainly not a problem for determinists.

The big flaw in this atheistic deterministic thinking is that the order of one moment to the next results in an infinite regression of causation, where there is no way to explain why the order is what it is because there is no starting point which sets the whole pre-determined chain. You need God to choose which chain shall be started.

Could god have done this all differently, or did he do it perfectly and no other way would be perfect, and therefore, it was predetermined what was perfect and god had to only act one way--the way it was already determined he must because he must do what is perfect every time because to do less would not be perfection?

If god is "choosing which chain shall be started," isn't he pulling the chains in perfect order for perfect results and perfect perfection like heaven and its glory? God could only do it in the perfect order and so his path is determined to be what it must be.

If there's a determinist out there, it's god; and he can't even decide whether or not it's a problem or not until it's the determined moment, and so forth and so on.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 216 by Danmark]

Oh, good. You understand it then. Many people have a hard time even understanding the concept of pure nothingness. My comment wasn't addressed to you, though. It was addressed to FarWanderer, who apparently is struggling with the concept.

Nonetheless, I am not AT ALL suggesting pure nothingness is the case. Pure nothingness is OBVIOUSLY not the case. Rather, I am using the CONCEPT of pure nothingness as a viable metaphysical option to explain that what is the case is "all possible all inclusive states of existence" which demands a constraint aka God.

I doubt FarWanderer or anyone else "struggles" with this simple concept.
Since you agree "Pure nothingness is OBVIOUSLY not the case," why do you bring it up? It seems to me you are, probably unintentionally, making the case that "viable metaphysical options" are errant ethereal notions that are not worth considering.
"All possible all inclusive states of existence" are not worth considering. We only need consider the actual or perhaps the most probable states of existence.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 217 by Danmark]

Well, the problem with that is determinism. It is not the case that the next moment is just one choice among an infinite number of choices. Rather, the next moment is pre-determined by the previous moment. There is no possibility among infinite choices for the next moment. There is only one possibility for the next moment. The big flaw in this atheistic deterministic thinking is that the order of one moment to the next results in an infinite regression of causation, where there is no way to explain why the order is what it is because there is no starting point which sets the whole pre-determined chain. You need God to choose which chain shall be started.

Why are you going on about 'this atheistic deterministic thinking?' No one suggested everything is predetermined. Instead of just hitting 'reply,' I suggest you actually quote what it is you are referring to instead of calling it 'that.'
This is what I wrote:

There does not have to be a "choosing." There may theoretically be an infinite number of possibilities. From the objective realist's point of view, each moment one possibility actually exists, the other possibilities for that moment disappear; gone forever. The next moment may also contain infinite possibilities, all but one of which are extinguished. One need not posit some overall 'chooser.' What is, is.

There is no God making some choice that controls everything. There is no choosing. What happens may be the result, in part, of billions of individuals choices. The possibilities are beyond calculation. This is the opposite of determinism. All I am saying is that once something happens, it is what it is. No single person or entity chose it. It was not predetermined. To claim events are predetermined requires the arbitrary and unfounded presupposition that there is a 'god' that does the predetermining. This is the antithesis of an atheist's position; it is the opposite of what you ironically call "atheistic deterministic thinking."

[Donray]

[Replying to post 218 by John J. Bannan]

I don't understand, could you explain!

You are forbidden by God to speculate on things discussed in the bible and as you said will be punished for doing so. If that is the case why are you speculating about a proof that God exists? The bible should be good enough without your speculation.

Can't speculate what heaven would be like but OK to speculate about a proof for God exists.

That sounds very hypocritical. If it is the case, then why do so many Christians speculate about heaven?

Like I said, you believe in something you cannot logically discuss.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 215 by Donray]

No. Quite to the contrary. Jesus Himself says I am not to speculate.

Jesus said, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers." Matthew 23:8.

If Jesus is the One Teacher, than I am not to teach myself through speculation about Heaven.

Sorry John, but I have to say this is absolute nonsense. This passage in the first section of Matthew has nothing to do with speculation. It's focus is humility and avoiding hypocrisy:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 221 by Hatuey]

Think about it. An infinite number of possible universes. How is the choice made? Simple question, really - but at the heart of the whole matter.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 222 by Hatuey]

Determinism is a huge problem if you wish to use determinism to ultimately explain existence. You can't get past the infinite regressive causation problem. You must appeal to a first starting point, but such a first starting point cannot be caused. Without causation, determinism cannot provide an answer nor is it a sound theory for explaining existence itself.

As for God, what makes on particular universe better than another? From an atheistic perspective, there is no perfect order. How do you explain the order of creation then? Aquinas talks about the degree to which our universe, which is an imperfect creation, is chosen by God according to the degree to which it comports with God's goodness.

[Hatuey]

Think about it. An infinite number of possible universes. How is the choice made? Simple question, really - but at the heart of the whole matter.

I don't need any choices to be made. Simple fact I presented, that destroyed your axiom - but really at the heart of the matter. You're ignoring that your argument collapsed and are now pretending another, irrelevant question has any bearing on your failed logic. It doesn't.

Why haven't you addressed my post on the previous page?

Why are you pretending your argument is still valid even though a simple number line destroys one of your premises?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 222 by Hatuey]

Determinism is a huge problem if you wish to use determinism to ultimately explain existence. You can't get past the infinite regressive causation problem. You must appeal to a first starting point, but such a first starting point cannot be caused. Without causation, determinism cannot provide an answer nor is it a sound theory for explaining existence itself.

I'm not interested in discussing determinism, in this thread, especially when you seem to know so little about what determinists may or may not conclude; I thought you were going to be demonstrating scientific proof of a god. When will you be getting around to doing that?

As for God, what makes on particular universe better than another? From an atheistic perspective, there is no perfect order. How do you explain the order of creation then? Aquinas talks about the degree to which our universe, which is an imperfect creation, is chosen by God according to the degree to which it comports with God's goodness.

I'm sorry that god being totally determinist is a problem for you. Here you are mocking determinism and saying how ridiculous it is, but your god must be one since he is only always going to act in the perfect way that he must act in every situation.

So when are you going to get around to showing your scientific proof for god? So far you just seem to have odd philosophical nonsequiturs and empty assertions and strange criticisms of what you assume about what other people might think. Not very impressive.