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 238 by Jashwell]

Of course, determinism logically results in the necessity of a first cause. As you appear to disagree, then I would love to hear how you explain the order of any given causal chain as well as explain how a causal chain can logically have no starting point.

1. No, determinism does not rely upon a "first cause" because there are various types of determinists, and various ideas within determinism.

2. Not all atheists are determinists.

3. Nobody can tell whether there was a "first cause" or "infinite regression" or some other equally unlikely idea. "First cause" has no more logic or evidence for it than "infinite regression" or another idea that might be true-yet-so-far-unidentified.

4. "Pure nothingness" is quite simple to imagine, and atheists are better at it than believers for obvious reasons--but I'll spell it out for you--atheists don't always have a "god idea" rattling around in the back of their heads like believers do that resists any imagination attempt to think without its presence.

5. Just because you want to chase rabbit trails that appear when an atheist here sounds refutes one of your premises does not mean that the atheists here have forgotten the impotence of your original "arguments" that were proven ineffective.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 238 by Jashwell]

Of course, determinism logically results in the necessity of a first cause. As you appear to disagree, then I would love to hear how you explain the order of any given causal chain as well as explain how a causal chain can logically have no starting point.

No, determinism merely makes the entire Universe certain, future and past.
Once again you smuggle in premises that not everyone accepts.

Causality is a model that is relevant where the second law is relevant, and away from relativity, and nowhere else.
Causality does not work so well when the change in energy and/or complexity is small or when modelling time as a variable completely separated from everything else is not appropriate.
Yeah, it's intuitive, and that's because it applies to everyday life... not to high energy physics, not to general relativity, and certainly not to quantum physics.

It is literally impossible to demonstrate causality as true beyond being a model that happens to be valid in these situations. That includes day to day happenings, not so much the temporal edges of the Universe... and that's not even given zero-energy Universe models. Causality has a context, and you can't just use it wherever you please. Every cause has an effect so what business are we in assuming that because one comes first that it has to be the reason for the second? How do we know that effects don't lead to causes, but retroprogressively? We don't, because causality is a trivial model dating back to Aristotle and he never quite thought that through. In fact I'd say that we know either way makes equal sense.

Think of the Universe as a flip book or as a film - it's all there, all moments are 'real' in some context, you can just only play through them one page/frame at a time (and it makes more sense in one direction).
There was never not a Universe - the Universe has always existed because time is a part of the Universe. In the same sense that the Universe exists everywhere because space is a part of the Universe.


Summary version:
Not all determinists accept the same premises you do.


Oh, and even if they did accept that everything had a cause, loop quantum gravity suggests a Universe in which time can have a closed timelike curve - in which case, you'd get no infinite chain of causality, you'd get the future causing the past.


So are you happy with
1) Admitting you were wrong about science "not knowing why science exists"
2) That you are doubly guilty of special pleading
3) That you are doubly guilty of begging the question
4) That God is not only an unnecessary violation of Occam's razor but a fairly meaningless and uninterpretable one at that

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 249 by JoeyKnothead]

A universe in one form or another could always have existed in its own time, because God has always existed with the ability to create a universe in one form or another with it's own time.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 251 by Hatuey]

I personally have found very few atheists on various websites that understood pure nothingness and I've been arguing my proof for months now with dozens of atheists.

A first starting point makes far more sense than infinite regression of causation. Infinite regression of causation makes no sense at all. However, a first starting point at least logically answers why the causal chain is ordered the way it is. Now, the concept of something starting off is not illogical at all. Indeed, the Big Bang theory clearly supports the idea of a starting off point. Nevertheless, it is not illogical to assume that something uncaused and unnecessary must be real in order to start these casual chains off and running.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 252 by Jashwell]

You haven't come close to answering why science exists.

Explain how general relativity and quantum mechanics deny causality.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 253:

A universe in one form or another could always have existed in its own time, because God has always existed with the ability to create a universe in one form or another with it's own time.

Okay, if that's your angle.

Now, please offer us some means to confirm this God of yours has...

1- existed for all time
2- Has the ability to create a universe

I'll go ahead and open another thread, so we can get some brains on the issue.

I refer you to the remainder of the referenced post...

while declaring this conscious entity has. I find it a purely anthropomorphic argument from incredulity.

Data indicates that consciousness is a product of the physical.

^My emphasizin'

Notice there's some argument, even concession about the one part, and no mention of the remaining part, quoted above.

Why the need to otherwise ignore this part?


I propose we're witnessing the god concept at play...

Declare a god exists, with whatever properties one wishes, but then ignore or brush aside a fundamental flaw in the argument.

I propose this is some evidence to indicate the incredulous nature of the god concept. Where data refutes parts or all of it, there is no attempt to address contradictory notions.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 256 by JoeyKnothead]

Read my proof.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 252 by Jashwell]

You haven't come close to answering why science exists.

While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is often traced back to the early modern period and in particular to the scientific revolution that took place in 16th- and 17th-century Europe. Scientific methods are considered to be so fundamental to modern science that some consider earlier inquiries into nature to be pre-scientific.[3] Traditionally, historians of science have defined science sufficiently broadly to include those inquiries.[4]

Explain how general relativity and quantum mechanics deny causality.

Deny is the wrong word.
Doesn't affirm is perhaps better, but this is still like saying that non-uniform motion 'denies' velocity = distance / time (as opposed to saying that you're using the wrong model from the start).

Relativity: Relativity of simultaneity (pretty much a deal breaker for causality)
QM: Just in general. Virtual particles is an example.

Once again, the response to my post is unnecessarily disproportionate to the actual post.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 256 by JoeyKnothead]

Read my proof.

See again.

No attempt to address the fundamental flaw/s in the argument, just a request to reread a "proof", where various arguments have been put forth both for and against that "proof".


Gotta lotta gall to ask me to read a "proof", when evidence indicates you won't read challenges to your proof.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 251 by Hatuey]

I personally have found very few atheists on various websites that understood pure nothingness and I've been arguing my proof for months now with dozens of atheists.

I'm sorry that you've either been arguing with unintelligent atheists or that you haven't been honestly evaluating their replies to your confusing style of debate that never addresses concerns put directly to you. Your record here seems to indicate that it's probably the latter.

A first starting point makes far more sense than infinite regression of causation.

No, it does not. You simply prefer it. There is zero evidence for either case and both are equally logical and preposterous.

If you were able to live for a few billion years, and if you were able to live life in reverse seeing the causes to the effects, infinite regression would seem far more likely than an initial cause, because you would observe billions upon billions of effects for causes but zero uncaused causes.

Infinite regression of causation makes no sense at all.

It makes as much and as little sense as an initial cause because there is equal evidence for both: None.

However, a first starting point at least logically answers why the causal chain is ordered the way it is.

It doesn't even do that unless you erroneously add special pleading to the mix, which you seem to add into every one of your arguments whether it needs it or not.

Now, the concept of something starting off is not illogical at all.

Really? Your entire argument rests on the observation that no one has ever witnessed any event that did not have a prior cause, yet it's logical to imagine one? Really? You may need to rethink how you present your arguments... "Hey, this thing that you've never witnessed even once, and I claim is a problem for you, but it has never occurred except in an invisible and undetectable 'gawd' is sooooo logical!!! Yes sir!"

Indeed, the Big Bang theory clearly supports the idea of a starting off point.

Nope. The BBT suggests a very dense and energetic "point" expanded. The BBT says nothing at all about that point having a beginning or being eternal or anything at all about an essential beginning. Besides, are you really suggesting that there was one initial condition that was the BBT's singularity, but no, really, I mean really, there was actually a prior condition that was your god??? Again, you need to spend some time rethinking your logic. You alternately argue for or against your own axioms depending on what you want to claim in the particular sentence you happen to be writing.

Nevertheless, it is not illogical to assume that something uncaused and unnecessary must be real in order to start these casual chains off and running.

Since there's zero proof or philosophical necessity, I'll just leave it at "We don't know." That's honest and doesn't require a nonproven infinite regression or a nonproven first cause. Simple.