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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Still no mention of how a conscious entity can exist without the presence of a brain, after multiple attempts to get it some addressin'.


The data we have indicates that in order to think, ya gotta have ya a thinker to do it with.

The data indicates that thinkers are a product of the physical.

The data indicates that thinkers need 'em some energy to do all that thinkin'.

Where does this conscious entity get its energy for all that thinkin'?


Why no attempt to address these glaring, gaping holes in this OP?


I'll tell it... 'cause this OP is a failure.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 288 by Bust Nak]

Al Gazali did not believe in cause and effect. Nor does David Hume. That means that both Islam and Atheism have faith leaders with strong faith traditions of irrationality.

On radioactive decay. Are you saying thorium can decay into rabbits or do you actually believe in decay chains?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 292:

...
That means that both Islam and Atheism have faith leaders with strong faith traditions of irrationality.

As opposed, I reckon, to Christian 'faith traditions' that say "Everything has a cause, 'cept good ol' God, we'll exclude him from our own rules 'bout how things are s'posed to be".

On radioactive decay. Are you saying thorium can decay into rabbits or do you actually believe in decay chains?

I'm saying too many Christians suffer from educational decay.

[Donray]

John J. Bannan: I cannot figure out if you believe everything is based on cause effect and is therefore deterministic or do you believe in free will where all things are not determined?

You cannot say everything must have a cause and then say there is free will also.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 293 by JoeyKnothead]

If God is transcendent you can't know if He has a cause or not. Only revelation can answer it and that depends on if you trust the revelation. If God is not transcendent it would mean god has a cause and is not God.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 295:

If God is transcendent you can't know if He has a cause or not. Only revelation can answer it and that depends on if you trust the revelation. If God is not transcendent it would mean god has a cause and is not God.

If is a very unreliable method for determining truth.

My position is that iit's special pleading to declare the universe can't have always existed, in one form or another, while swearin' up and down God has.

[Bust Nak]

Al Gazali did not believe in cause and effect. Nor does David Hume.

What a weird thing to say, what made you think these people did not believe in cause and effect? Al Gazali believe God is the direct cause of all effects. David Hume believe cause and effect can be apprehended through observation.

On radioactive decay. Are you saying thorium can decay into rabbits or do you actually believe in decay chains?

I believe in decay chains, why? Are you under the impression that the noncausal nature of radioactive decay could imply thorium to rabbits?

[Nickman]

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.

Not true and true at the same time. Nothing can be proven until substantial evidence is presented and evaluated. Hypothetically we can say that anything is possible, while it is not wise to assume so since anything is not always possible. This is just word play on your part and a dastardly attempt at true philosophy.

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.

Anything can become real as long as it can adequately manifest itself as real. Metaphysical attributes are not beyond our comprehension. The fact that the universe is real means nothing. In fact, the universe existing as an entity, and unverified from a creator or contributed to a source, cannot be labeled as created without a fingerprint of evidence.

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.

Your quotes:

because our universe is real

because our universe is real

You said it twice.

Who said this universe had a beginning other than you? If we agree that it did, why imply a god? By following your logic, existence can be eternal. The current universe could exist in another form prior to its current state.

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.

It is only infinite if you make it so. This is because you don't look at the available evidence, and assume things you cannot verify. This is the same as anything is possible, which is not always true until it can be verified.

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.

Key words: "then there must be something." You are making assumptions and denying chance and probability. You dismiss these factors that are statistical measures and always affect your life, my life, and everyone's lives. What calculator do you have that rules out chance and probability? If you deny these REAL statistics, you have missed the point all together, and have shown your bias for what you believe which has no place in reality.

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.

You just jumped ship. How do you get to a "power to create" and then a "power to determine?" You have made a new definition for the word "power" and given it "preference." All you are doing is making things up as you go.

Answer those and if you can I'll answer 7-12.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 293 by JoeyKnothead]

If God is transcendent you can't know if He has a cause or not. Only revelation can answer it and that depends on if you trust the revelation. If God is not transcendent it would mean god has a cause and is not God.

Why can't God have a cause and still be God? Why would that be? Why can't a being who is above normal human understanding have a cause? This seems like special pleading, or "don't touch my God" mentality.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 293 by JoeyKnothead]

If God is transcendent you can't know if He has a cause or not. Only revelation can answer it and that depends on if you trust the revelation. If God is not transcendent it would mean god has a cause and is not God.

Everyone notice that all Christians use the same response when they get cornered in a logical discussion.

"No one understands God and no one can say how or what God does or how it does it"

This is why one can never win the discussion in their opinion. They just won because you don't how God works and cannot explain therefore you lose.