The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:45 pm

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.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:56 am

[Replying to post 358 by Hatuey]

Expansion emanating from a singularity is evidence of creation. The beginning of time with expansion leads to the conclusion that the singularity was not caused. If the singularity was not caused, then why was it there? One can say this is evidence of creation of the singularity by the immaterial inherent uncaused nature of the universe to create the material.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:59 am

[Replying to post 359 by Hatuey]

Well, the unicorns and farts are stupid suggestions. That leaves creation or a larger mechanism. But, a large mechanism always runs into problems with infinity being a concept and not the source of discreteness. Hence, by process of elimination, creation is the best option.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:02 am

[Replying to post 360 by Jashwell]

So, the quantum field is infinite, is it? How does the infinite allow for the discrete?

Ok, I see you don't accept the Planck constant either. Now, you have engaged in fringe physics. Show me an infinitesimal in reality.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:04 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 358 by Hatuey]

Expansion emanating from a singularity is evidence of creation. The beginning of time with expansion leads to the conclusion that the singularity was not caused. If the singularity was not caused, then why was it there? One can say this is evidence of creation of the singularity by the immaterial inherent uncaused nature of the universe to create the material.

No, expansion emanating from a singularity is evidence of the singularity's expansion.

The beginning of time with expansion means that the expansion brought forth what we humans perceive as time, not that the singularity was caused. Because the singularity produced time, it is reasonable to assume that the singularity's existence needed no time in which to exist, be caused, or have an infinite regression. That the expansion produced time is MORE an argument AGAINST "first cause" than for it or some first-causing-god.

There is ZERO REASONING one could use in this case to say "this is evidence of creation of the singularity by the immaterial inherent uncaused nature of the universe to create the material." It's not only science-y sounding gibberish, but there are zero data points to produce the "hypothesis" (if that's what you'd like to call that string of nonsensical words).

I have no idea why the singularity existed, nor if it was caused or not. Not knowing doesn't provoke me to imagine some invisible, undetectable magical sky wizard.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:07 am

[Replying to post 364 by Hatuey]

OK. If you deny that the singularity is caused by immaterial reality, and that's all there ever is, was or ever will be, then you've got a problem explaining cosmological constants and the utterly unbelievable proposition that we exist by an infinitely unlikely chance that the only universe possible also happens to create us. This is not a very convincing argument at all. Far saner to assume creation of the singularity by the immaterial, than what you are proposing.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:08 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 359 by Hatuey]

Well, the unicorns and farts are stupid suggestions. That leaves creation or a larger mechanism. But, a large mechanism always runs into problems with infinity being a concept and not the source of discreteness. Hence, by process of elimination, creation is the best option.

Again, you're missing the point.

Unicorn farts causing the universe: Zero data points; pure conjecture.

God committing suicide with a spud gun causing the universe: Zero data points; pure conjecture.

Fairy civil war causing the universe: Zero data points; pure conjecture.

Infinite regression causing the universe: Zero data points; pure conjecture.

Sky wizard chanting magic spells causing the universe: Zero data points; pure conjecture.

Yes, these ideas are ALL silly because they have the same amount of evidence: None. They can simply all be typed up into similar sentences with similar claims with no data to support them.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:16 am

John J. Bannan wrote:
OK. If you deny that the singularity is caused by immaterial reality, and that's all there ever is, was or ever will be, then you've got a problem explaining cosmological constants and the utterly unbelievable proposition that we exist by an infinitely unlikely chance that the only universe possible also happens to create us. This is not a very convincing argument at all. Far saner to assume creation of the singularity by the immaterial, than what you are proposing.

I don't deny that the singularity is caused by immaterial reality (whatever that is), I'm saying that with ZERO DATA POINTS, it's not worth anybody's time to consider as true or untrue. It's a pointless conjecture.

I don't have any problems explaining the cosmological constants. They're proven to be as they are, and we may or may not ever find reasons for the precise way that they exist or came to be. Certainly if they did not exist as they seem to, we'd not have the liberty of discovering them.

As to whether we exist due to unbelievable propositions or chance, I have no idea if such things are true or not. Just because I don't know, does not mean that I feel the need to posit some invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant sky wizard that can't manage to make his existence as obvious as gravity or chemistry--which nobody argues about existing or not.

I'm not putting forth an argument, here, you are. I'm merely stating the objection that your "argument" is just philosophical filibustering with zero data points to evaluate and no logical structure worth considering. You just keep saying what you want to be true as if it is and then pretending you have offered some "proof" or other. No. With no data points or measurements there is no argument other than your silly insistence---which is not a logical foundation.

Since you offer as many data points for consideration as does the patient at a mental ward for his invisible companions, I consider your proposition to be just as insane. When you offer more data points than the mental patient for his hallucinations, I will consider them.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:26 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 360 by Jashwell]
So, the quantum field is infinite, is it? How does the infinite allow for the discrete?

... There is insufficient reason to think quantum fields aren't continuous.. and continuous fields are seemingly simpler (by Occam's razor) than discrete ones.
What are you actually trying to ask? What is meant by "how does the infinite allow for the discrete"? Are you still assuming that everything is discrete? Did you not read the "any arbitrary grouping can do that"?

If a line segment is continuous... guess what? You've got 1 line segment. A discrete, finite quantity, as opposed to a non-finite or a continuous quantity. (Discrete doesn't mean not infinite)
A line segment is continuous so it contains an infinite number of points.
Is that what you're asking? How do you call something a line segment?
A line segment has two 'ends', and yes, if you feel like it, you could call one the beginning. You could even call both the beginning. Doesn't change the fact that this one line segment contains an infinite quantity of something else.

Unless models like LQG are correct, spacetime isn't discrete and quantum fields aren't either.

Ok, I see you don't accept the Planck constant either. Now, you have engaged in fringe physics. Show me an infinitesimal in reality.

The planck constant is definitely a number with applications in physics.
Few models consider spacetime to be discrete.
For instance, LQG as I mentioned.

Do you believe in calculus?

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:06 pm

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

Only 99%!!!

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:41 am

John J. Bannan wrote: 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.

What made you think there is a distinction between reality and material 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.

The premise that an infinite regression that is eternal needs to be created, is false. Infinity is a word we used to describe something, of course it doesn't create anything. This is made all the more ironic because it's the exact same argument you used to say an uncaused cause is indeed uncaused. Does it make any sense to argue that "an uncaused cause" is a concept and cannot cause anything hence it is impossible?

Besides you are forgetting circular regression. It's not a dilemma, but a trilemma.