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.

[Jashwell]

With little to no rewording needed. Highlighting if it helps.
The frustration of all quote replies:

[Replying to post 268 by Jashwell]

"Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. "

Are you aware of the difference between causality being methodologically useful and causality being a fundamental law of nature?

Causality is a model that clearly works perfectly fine in most scenarios.
Doesn't make it prescriptive; doesn't make it a law; doesn't make it fundamental.

"In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

Of course, none of this addresses either A) the assumption that causality is literally true (as I've objected before) or B) the assumption that causality progresses past to future, cause to effect

(in other words, offer means to justify the assumptions)

"Even if the event of a virtual particle coming into existence or the event of an atom decaying are causeless, it doesn’t follow that the virtual particle or the alpha particle themselves are without a cause for their existence. Their causes are the quantum vacuum and the decaying nucleus respectively.

Do I even need to ask you how you've reached the conclusion that "the quantum [strike]field[/strike] vacuum causes virtual particles"?

It would of course be begging the question to assume that there must be a cause and when none is seen to leap at the nearest available entity. (Metaphorically or literally).

Instead, offer some means to show that the effect is dependent on the cause beyond the everyday sense.

The events associated with the coming into existence of quantum particles simply have a probabilistic cause (as opposed to a predictable physical cause) which regulates their occurrence under given conditions. If this were not the case and these particles were truly mysterious, uncaused entities, then scientists would be unable to replicate in the laboratory the circumstances where these particles come into existence. John Jefferson Davis writes that:

If for a second we ignore the unwarranted assumptions

then there isn't much left, correlation != causation & no causation != no correlation, not to mention:

it wouldn't affect anything I've actually said if it were true - causality is not a fundamental natural phenomenon but a higher level abstraction of other phenomena.

“Quantum-mechanical events may not have classically deterministic causes, but they are not thereby uncaused or a causal. The decay of a nucleus takes place in view of physical actualities and potentialities internal to itself, in relation to a spatiotemporal nexus governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The fact that uranium atoms consistently decay into atoms of lead and other elements--and not into rabbits or frogs--shows that such events are not causal but take place within a causal nexus and lawlike structures."3


http://www.strangenotions.com/quantum-physics-kalam/

The crux of the issue:

The key fact is that all phenomena of causality are explicable under a model lacking causality as a fundamental phenomenon that is simpler than the causal counterpart.

Another way of phrasing this is to assume things need causes is stepping out of justified territory. Cause and effect is a model that is useful - but it is descriptive, it does not prescribe.

There are plenty of scenarios where it is not useful - for instance, fluid dynamics. Are you going to say "this water particle caused that water particle caused that water particle..." or "this region of water caused itself caused that region of water..." or just "the water did stuff"?

The language and modelling of causality becomes increasingly troublesome where the idea of an individual changing object is not "individual" enough.

Indeed, as I (hope) I've previously mentioned, there's additionally areas like low energy/complexity change where the second law has little affect show little causality.

When you see a ball bounce, how do you determine the causes and the effects, without assuming time asymmetry - e.g. if you had a video and you had equal grounds to assume that it had been reversed as you did to assume it hadn't.

It's a lot easier to just say "Causality is all fine and good but it's a model and it clearly isn't always useful, let alone true". Nobody is saying that denying causality as a fundamental law of reality means you can't say "this caused that" in most scenarios.

I did give other objections, unless you want to continue discussing this.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 271 by Jashwell]

Denying the fundamental truth of causality is unconvincing to me.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 271 by Jashwell]

Denying the fundamental truth of causality is unconvincing to me.

I don't see how it's my problem that you choose to assume something on faith. It's your argument (or more accurately, someone else's cosmological argument), not mine.

Do you understand what I mean when I say there's a difference between causality being a valid model and causality being prescriptive and universal?

Regardless, you could always address any of the other problems I've brought up.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 273 by Jashwell]

One does not accept causality on faith. Causality is patently obvious. Indeed, I can think of little else that has more evidence going for it than causality itself.

Simply claiming that causality is only a useful model ignores the mountains of evidence for causality being real all around us. This is why I consider your argument unconvincing.

I did not find any of your other arguments convincing, but thought to address the casualty argument because it was the most apropos.

[Bust Nak]

One does not accept causality on faith. Causality is patently obvious. Indeed, I can think of little else that has more evidence going for it than causality itself.

The Earth is obviously flat, the sun obviously goes round the earth. You are talking about common sense here, what is obvious isn't necessarily true.

Simply claiming that causality is only a useful model ignores the mountains of evidence for causality being real all around us. This is why I consider your argument unconvincing.

Can't get more convincing than the counter examples of virtual particles and radioactive decay. Your quote talks of "even if the event of a virtual particle coming into existence or the event of an atom decaying are causeless, it doesn’t follow that the virtual particle or the alpha particle themselves are without a cause for their existence. Their causes are the quantum vacuum and the decaying nucleus respectively."

If the events are causeless, that alone is enough to destroy the premise of causation. Besides, at best quantum vacuum and the unstable nucleus are merely the necessily preconditions to said particles, not the cause.

I did not find any of your other arguments convincing, but thought to address the casualty argument because it was the most apropos.

You talk as though you are the one we are trying to conivnce, make no mistake, you are on trial here, you have to convince us, not the other way round.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 273 by Jashwell]

One does not accept causality on faith. Causality is patently obvious. Indeed, I can think of little else that has more evidence going for it than causality itself.

Simply claiming that causality is only a useful model ignores the mountains of evidence for causality being real all around us. This is why I consider your argument unconvincing.

I did not find any of your other arguments convincing, but thought to address the casualty argument because it was the most apropos.

A simple "No, I don't understand the difference between causality being methodologically useful and being a fundamental law of nature" would have sufficed.

If there are mountains of evidence for causality being more than a methodologically useful model, care to point a grain out?
I.e, something that establishes literal dependence of effect on cause?

Once again, not my problem that you find my "arguments" unconvincing... they're objections to yours, and they're perfectly valid.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 271 by Jashwell]

Denying the fundamental truth of causality is unconvincing to me.

And that fundamental truth is what, exactly? That everything must absolutely necessarily have a cause unless it's your favorite deity?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 271 by Jashwell]

Denying the fundamental truth of causality is unconvincing to me.

And that fundamental truth is what, exactly? That everything must absolutely necessarily have a cause unless it's your favorite deity?

The God of Special Pleadings. The GOSP declares:
'Thou shall not have any uncaused causes but me, for I am a jealous uncaused cause and thou shall have no other uncaused causes before me.
Selah'

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 271 by Jashwell]

Doubting cause and effect may be the single most destructive thing one can do to society.

It's the biggest explanation for why Christianity produced science and why pagan cultures didn't.

If you doubt cause and effect and Islamic philosopher Al Gazali did then there is no reason to investigate the world. Similarly the polytheistic cultures had capricious gods and so attributed effects to the gods. Certainly if you believe in evolution you already are in a position to doubt cause and effect because you believe random mutationstuff can create order.

The ramifications of not believing in cause and effect are dramatic.

[Bust Nak]

Doubting cause and effect may be the single most destructive thing one can do to society.

You don't have to doubt cause and effect to note that some events are not effects. Not to mention that it is science itself that is casting doubt over causality.

It's the biggest explanation for why Christianity produced science and why pagan cultures didn't.

Way to dismiss the contribution of pagan cultures. Christianity "produced science" only in the sense that religion was a stabilizing force in society. Besides, what gave you the impression that pagan cultures doubt cause and effect?

If you doubt cause and effect and Islamic philosopher Al Gazali did then there is no reason to investigate the world. Similarly the polytheistic cultures had capricious gods and so attributed effects to the gods.

Al Gazali is one of you. He thought all effect caused directly by God. But that's beside the point, in what way does thinking God(s) is/are causing things to happen, not affirming causality?

Certainly if you believe in evolution you already are in a position to doubt cause and effect because you believe random mutationstuff can create order.

What an odd thing to say. In what sense does random mutationstuff creating order, not fit causality?