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 339 by Hatuey

Sure I have proof of the uncaused.

No, you do not. If you did, you would be world famous and not putting up pure "it-don't-make-no-sense-to-me" conjecture and calling it "proof." How silly.

[Replying to post 339 by HatueyInfinite causal chains are illogical and hence impossible.

You have no idea if infinite causal chains or more or less logical than an infinite regression. Your idea is self refuting because you insist that every thing needs a cause except when it doesn't all of a sudden because at that point logic reverses. How silly.

[Replying to post 339 by Hatuey Therefore, the causal chains we see must have an eventual beginning with something that is uncaused or there would be impossible infinite causal chains.

Therefore, you have no idea how logic works so you just throw ideas up that you've just decided to believe by faith.

[Replying to post 339 by Hatuey Indeed, even if one were to accept the impossible idea of infinite causal chains, one would be left with an ever changing and eternal entity present in the now.

Ummm... No. What? Are you even trying to make sense, now? How could you even prove that there isn't some "ever changing and eternal entity present in the now"--whatever that is?

[Replying to post 339 by HatueySuch an eternal entity would have to be uncaused in order to be eternal. So, frankly, I am shocked that even you would deny that something in the universe has got to be uncaused.

I am shocked that you think all you've got to do is remove an idea "from the universe" and place it outside the universe and then it uses the reverse of the logic it requires to get there.

Other than you saying so and acting shocked, you have ZERO proof that either an "initial cause" or an "infinite regress" is likely or possible.

........

If it was a few thousand years ago, you would find it preposterous that the earth revolved around the sun, because it so obviously APPEARS that the sun is going round the earth; however, you would be wrong. Here, too, you are arguing from a position of "well, I've always believe in an uncaused cause even though it requires the reversal of its own logic there at the end" without realizing your lack of any proof means your intuition may be wrong.

You have beliefs that you are unwilling to give up...that for YOU constitutes enough "reason" to believe as you do (uncaused, initial cause), but you have no proof. Face it.

[Hatuey]

Why don't you know anything about the singularity? Because a singularity does not have moving parts and there is nothing for you to describe, but clearly the singularity changes into moving parts. That sure looks like the creation of energy. Why do you ignore the obvious, that energy/matter can be created? The Big Bang is obviously strong evidence of the creation of energy/matter and you ignore it.

I don't know anything about the singularity because nobody does, and currently, I do not have the facts nor the mental capabilities to figure out its properties. For you to claim that it means something because nobody understands it sure is a Christian move, though.

No, it doesn't "look like the creation of energy;" it looks like a unique energy which has potential to expand and split into discrete mechanisms. Energy change, not energy created.

Why do you ignore the obvious, that there is zero proof of any energy being created? Why do you ignore the obvious, that there is zero proof of any uncaused cause or infinite regression making both options equally plausible and equally absurd? Why do you ignore the obvious, that a priori assumptions that rely on sincere faith supply the "proof" of any position no matter how preposterous---including your?

The Big Bang is obviously evidence of no energy being created at all, but simply evidence of energy changing form and you ignore it because it doesn't fit your a priori beliefs.

[JoeyKnothead]

Post 340:

Sure I have proof of the uncaused.
...

What you don't have is proof that this entity of yours, conscious and all, suffers his condition without a physical brain. Nor do you have proof that this consciousness exists without an intake of energy. This "uncaused cause" is a dead end without answering these most basic questions.

The brain is where consciousness resides. The brain needs energy to function. Now then, we have a chicken and egg quandary. Did this consciousness exist prior to having a brain. Or should we conclude, based on available and confirmable data, that there must have first been a physical brain? What then of a physical brain that is being credited with creating the physical?

This OP has become a flight of fancy built on assumptions of things not shown so.

I propose what we're witnessing is a being so amazed at his own existence, he must create a god to contain all that incredulity.

(tagularial edit)

[Bust Nak]

You have heard of David Humes' Problem of Induction?

Why yes, yes I have. Ironically, the very book where he described the problem of induction, is also where he stated cause and effect can (or indeed must) be observed, since it cannot be proven by deductive reasoning.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 341 by Hatuey]

Reality must be uncaused, because there is nothing besides reality to cause it, except pure nothingness. And because pure nothingness cannot cause reality, because nothing comes from nothing, then reality must be uncaused. That's a logically proof right there!

And, as material reality always requires a cause, but reality must be uncaused, then material reality cannot be all there is to reality because material reality always requires a cause. Hence, there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

At best, you can try to argue that material reality causes itself. But, that requires infinite causal chains. But, infinity being a concept cannot create the actual numbers required for infinite causal chains. Hence, infinite causal chains and infinite regression are impossible and therefore reality cannot cause itself. Thus, there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

You will never get out of this logical proof.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 342 by Hatuey]

LOL! The expansion of the universe from a single point doesn't look like the creation of energy? LOL! Then, what do you think the creation of energy would look like?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 343 by JoeyKnothead]

God's brain? God is immaterial and must have the capacity to decide. But, God's intelligence is inherent to His nature.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 342 by Hatuey]

LOL! The expansion of the universe from a single point doesn't look like the creation of energy? LOL!

Do you think bursting a balloon creates energy?

Then, what do you think the creation of energy would look like?

Why would you ask him? He's not the one proposing it now, is he?

[Replying to post 341 by Hatuey]
Reality must be uncaused, because there is nothing besides reality to cause it, except pure nothingness. And because pure nothingness cannot cause reality, because nothing comes from nothing, then reality must be uncaused. That's a logically proof right there!

Wait, so we don't need God? Great.
Not that you haven't implied an error in "nothing besides ... except pure nothingness" and then gone through with it for the sake of your logic. (If anything, making it confused and less simple).
Not that you haven't made another error in concluding a difference between being uncaused and being caused by nothing.
Not that the many assumptions have been supported or anything.

And, as material reality always requires a cause, but reality must be uncaused, then material reality cannot be all there is to reality because material reality always requires a cause. Hence, there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

But, non-material reality always requires a cause, and reality must be uncaused, so non-material reality can't have caused it. QED. I can question beg too you know.
Did you expect anyone to agree "reality can be/is uncaused" and then agree to "material reality must be caused"? Do you realise that the person you're debating with needs to agree with your assumptions for your conclusion to be reasonable to them?

At best, you can try to argue that material reality causes itself. But, that requires infinite causal chains.

Or recursive causation. Or you could just argue that material reality is uncaused because you haven't shown otherwise.

But, infinity being a concept cannot create the actual numbers required for infinite causal chains.

What? If numbers aren't concepts (they are), neither is infinity. Infinities are a class of numbers, like imaginary (poorly named) numbers and complex numbers (which includes imaginary and real numbers too).

Do you believe that lines exist? If so, you believe that an infinite chain of points exist. (This is a poor analogy but a better one would be more complicated and wave/field based)

Hence, infinite causal chains and infinite regression are impossible and therefore reality cannot cause itself. Thus, there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

Previous conclusions clearly aren't sound.
Uncaused immaterial reality; in light of a prior premise; is special pleading.

You will never get out of this logical proof.

It's like being trapped in a plastic bag.
You need to understand that premises need to be agreed upon for the proof to apply.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 348 by Jashwell]

There is a difference between reality and concepts. Numbers are a reflection of reality being a discrete "thing". So, a number is but a reflection of the material real, and very different than the concept of infinity. I can see an apple, and hence, I can say there is 1 apple, and that 1 is a reflection of reality. However, I have never seen an infinity of apples, nor in fact have I ever actually seen the infinity of anything. Point to something in reality that one can look at and say, "this is infinite without beginning."

I think you are missing an obvious point. Physics is based on the assumption that there are discrete finite constituent parts of matter. And these parts can be no smaller than the Planck constant. The point you are missing is that these smallest units of material reality are inherent to the nature of the universe. There are discrete units of reality, because that's the way the universe is inherently. There is nothing illogical about this assumption. You are attempting to create discrete units of reality out of infinity, which can't logically or mathematically be done. So, why not just assume discrete units are inherent to the nature of the universe? It seems to me that because infinity cannot explain discreteness, then one must assume discreteness is inherent to the nature of the universe. And so, if discreteness is inherent to the nature of the universe, then time is also discrete in nature. Time can have a beginning. Causal chains can have a beginning. The evidence of this is the Big Bang.

Now, as energy and time are discrete in nature and can have a beginning, then one must expect the creation of time and energy. Once you've accepted the idea of the creation of time and energy, then one can ask about how the ORDER of creation occurs and what is the first cause of said creation of time and energy. And it is quite logical to assume there must be something immaterial unknown to us and inherent to the universe that decides the ORDER of creation and permits a first cause. You can try to answer this mystery with concepts like randomness and infinite multiverses, but you still end up with an objection based on infinity being unable as a concept to provide the discrete numbers necessary for ORDER and creation. One is invariable led to the concept of a decider aka God.

This is why theism is a better argument than atheism. An atheist could concede that a decider is required, but then say, "but it's not God". However, the attributes of such a decider are very God-like. So, the atheist really ought to know that God is unavoidable.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 342 by Hatuey]

LOL! The expansion of the universe from a single point doesn't look like the creation of energy? LOL! Then, what do you think the creation of energy would look like?

I don't know what the creation of energy would look like since what we see is not the creation of energy but the expansion of a hot, dense point of energy. I leave conjecture to people who use it to believe in invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant ideas.