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.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 48 by John J. Bannan]

It's telling though, that you immediately want a counter theory to fill that gnawing and itchy void in your knowledge regarding our origins. It strikes me akin to saying "until a better one comes along, I'm holding dear to this one with both hands."

Well, not only that, but the evidence that live on earth evolved from very simple lifeforms to more complex lifeforms is overwhelming. Not only in fossil records, but in the chemistry and biology of evolution as well. It's crystal clear that we are simply one of the Great Apes.

Also, it's crystal clear that death, disease, and animals eating animals has been the norm since long before mankind appeared on this planet. So the very idea that the ills of the world can be pinned onto humans as a "fall-from-grace" myth is also clearly false.

The evidence that we already have concerning questions of how we came to be have already ruled out religions like Hebrew mythology. If there is any "hope" left to cling to for a mystical or magical universe it would need to be with a religious philosophy that allows for evolution and does not pin the ills of the world onto mankind. These leaves various Eastern mystical philosophies as the only possible mystical answer. If indeed the answer requires mysticism.

It could be the secular materialists are simply correct. Life is just some sort of freak accidental explosion of some stuff that just happens to evolved into sentient living beings. That is a possibility.

I'll grant everyone that I personally find this purely materialistic accident to be quite difficult to believe myself. I tend to favor a mystical essence to reality. But I need to be equally truthful and honest and confess that a mystical essence to reality is just as absurd as a purely materialistic accident.

No matter what the truth of reality turns out to be it's extremely weird. Whether it be a freak materialistic accident, or the result of some sort of conscious being who has dreamed up reality in a mystical cosmic mind. Both scenarios are equally absurd.

The idea of a "God" existing doesn't make any more sense than the idea of "secular material" existing. The God explanation doesn't solve anything, or explain anything, on the contrary, it just makes the mystery even deeper yet.

~~~~~

Let's think about this very simplistically:

The Secular View:

Magical stuff just happens to exist that can evolve into living sentient beings.

That's REAL MAGIC.

The Theistic View:

We have an explanation for the magic! There exists a magician named "God" who performed the magic trick!

Like as if that explains something. Obviously this explains things in terms of stage magic. A artist of illusion has created an illusion that wasn't really magic at all. That explains stage magic, which is really just the art of illusion.

But a magical magician who created the magical dust that became the universe, it NOT an explanation for the magic. On the contrary that magician would itself need to be magic itself.

May as well just stop with the secular magic dust. No need to propose a magician who creates the magic dust. That doesn't explain anything. It just ends up with an unexplained magician.

So the whole theistic argument boils down to the idea, "There must be a magician who performed the magic act! That would explain everything!"

No, it doesn't explain anything at all. It just creates an unexplained imaginary magician.

May as well just stop with the magic dust and leave it there.

Magic dust that doesn't need a magician at all would indeed be true magic.

It if requires a magician to wield it, then it's no longer magic. It's just a mundane act of delusion.

So just believe in magic dust.

There's no need to believe in a magician to wield it. That's just an unnecessary extra step that doesn't solve anything at all.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 27 by FarWanderer]

An answer is needed because most of us (perhaps not you for some strange reason) want an answer.

Want = need?

Also, calling my attitude "strange" doesn't mean anything in debate.

If you can't find the answer is science, then where do you propose looking for it besides metaphysics?

I don't have to propose looking anywhere, because I'm not assuming an answer exists to be found.

Naturalism does attempt to explain the "why". The Naturalistic response is "there is a natural explanation for "why?", but Naturalism has no idea whatsoever what that "why" may be. Instead, Naturalism responds with various quips such as "that's only the God of the Gaps!" or "It's your burden of proof because Bertrand Russell says so!"

My proof is an explanation of "why" things are REAL and also an explanation of why GOD is REAL. Where've you been?

We aren't discussing why things are real. We are discussing why anything exists at all.

Let me be as simple and direct as possible.

You said naturalism is a dead-end philosophy because it fails to explain why anything exists at all. Please then, either

A) agree that theism is also a dead-end philosophy or
B) withdraw your claim that naturalism is a dead-end philosophy or
C) show how theism differs from naturalism in this way, i.e. show how theism explains why anything exists at all while naturalism does not.

Theism is different than naturalism, because as my proof has shown, God is necessary in order for the infinitely possible to become REAL. Something has to choose what becomes real and what does not become real out of the infinite SET of what can become REAL. Naturalism offers no means of making this choice. Thus, naturalism is a dead end philosophy and monotheism is not.

This is irrelevant.

Let me reiterate, word for word, what I said in the last post:

We aren't discussing why things are real. We are discussing why anything exists at all.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 50 by Inigo Montoya]

You are missing a simple point. Please explain to me why pure nothingness is not the case? It is, after all, uncaused. Why shouldn't it be the case? What's stopping it from being the case? My proof answers that question. Physics cannot answer that question, because there is no physics in pure nothingness. You must appeal to metaphysics to answer this question - and this question is a legitimate question that deserves an answer.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 52 by FarWanderer]

What are you talking about? What is the difference between why things are REAL and why things exist?

[Unhand Me Sir]

You are missing a simple point. Please explain to me why pure nothingness is not the case? It is, after all, uncaused. Why shouldn't it be the case? What's stopping it from being the case? My proof answers that question. Physics cannot answer that question, because there is no physics in pure nothingness. You must appeal to metaphysics to answer this question - and this question is a legitimate question that deserves an answer.

Whether or not that question deserves an answer it may not have one.

It's easy to assume that when something happens we can ask why it's the case that it did. We can do that in our every day experience of medium sized objects and it serves us well. Try asking why an unstable atom underwent alpha decay when it did rather than at a different time and you'll encounter more difficulties. Physics can't answer that, so do we postulate some other entity that decides?

To assume that our notion of cause and effect, rooted as it is in animal empiricism, necessarily applies to questions like the origin of the universe is hubris pure and simple.

[FarWanderer]

Why shouldn't (nothingness) be the case?

I don't know. Why should it be?

What's stopping (nothingness) from being the case?

Things existing.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 55 by Unhand Me Sir]

But, I did answer why pure nothingness is not the case.

Not hubris at all.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 56 by FarWanderer]

Pure nothingness should be the case because it is uncaused, and frankly a far easier explanation than what happens to be the case. No need for anything! Quite elegant and simple actually.

Things existing is indeed the answer as to why pure nothingness is not REAL. But, only a dichotomy between these two uncaused cases can explain why one happens to be the case and not the other.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 56 by FarWanderer]

Pure nothingness should be the case because it is uncaused, and frankly a far easier explanation than what happens to be the case. No need for anything! Quite elegant and simple actually.

How is pure nothingness an explanation? What would it explain?

Things existing is indeed the answer as to why pure nothingness is not REAL. But, only a dichotomy between these two uncaused cases can explain why one happens to be the case and not the other.

I agree that the state of "things existing" is uncaused.

EDIT:
I do not see a need for a dichotomy to "explain why" things exist.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 52 by FarWanderer]

What are you talking about? What is the difference between why things are REAL and why things exist?

Why things exist at all is a very different question from why thing A exists or thing B exists.

When you speak of "why things are REAL", you seem to be talking of the latter type of question.