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.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 72 by FarWanderer]

You do not understand my proof. Sure, I am claiming that pure nothingness is possible, and yes, pure nothingness would not include God. But, I am also saying that pure nothingness is not the case. See #1 in my proof. You don't seem to be comprehending the difference between possible but not real and possible but real.

I was expecting a follow up previously, ideally more in depth response to the things I've said besides "you're wrong" you gave earlier, but here's another argument.

P1) It is possible that God does not exist
P2) God is necessary if your argument is true
C) Your argument is false as God is not necessary (P2->!P1:-!(P2&P1))

The evidence for P1 is the same evidence as you give for any claim of possibility whatsoever.


Even if your argument were sound;

P1) God must decide which possible things become actual
P2) God's decisions are possibilities and not necessities
C) God must decide which decision he makes as well as making the decision
C2) God must decide which decision he decides to make with regards to C.
C3) " " ... C2
C3) " " ... C3
etc

Alternate form & argument:
P1) God must decide which possible things become actual
P2) God's decisions are possibilities and not necessities
I) God decides which actual V is picked from a possible set X₀
C) God must decide which possibilities are actually in set X₀. The set of possibilities for this decision can be considered set X₁.
C2) God must decide which possibilities are actually in set X₁. The set of possibilities for this decision can be considered set X₂.
C3) X₁ ⊆ X₂.
C4) X₂ ⊆ X₃.
...
C∞) X_∞ ⊆ X_∞+1.

Therefore God must make an infinite number of decisions in order to make any one decision.

If you disagree with premise 1, your argument doesn't work anyway.
If you disagree with premise 2, God doesn't have a choice and isn't deciding anything. (And you're unintentionally giving the same kind of objection that I first gave)

Nope. The infinite multiverse shreds conservation of energy like a unwanted tax bill. For example, there must be an infinite number of universes created for each possible permutation of you blowing your nose this morning. An infinite multiverse very much predicts the creation of an infinite amount of energy.

1) A multiverse does not predict creation of anything
2) A multiverse does not predict violation of the conservation of energy
3) A multiverse is not fact, and there are many types of multiverse ideas.

Nope. I am not saying it is possible God does not exist. Rather, I am saying God would not have existed if pure nothingness were the case, which it is not the case. (Thank God!). I am not saying God is necessary if my argument were true. Rather, I am saying that God is not necessary for pure nothingness to be the case, but as pure nothingness is not the case, then the exact opposite of pure nothingness must be the case which deductively leads to the conclusion that God must be Real.

With regard to your second argument, while it is true that an infinite number of possibilities leaves each possibility with no probability, there must nonetheless be something REAL that is capable of deciding among infinite possibilities because one given possibility, i.e. our universe, is REAL. But, the mechanism of choice cannot be randomness, because randomness cannot choose where there is no probability of any given choice. Nonetheless, there still must be a mechanism of choice. How specifically that mechanism works is a mystery, but it nonetheless is REAL and it's not randomness. But, that ability to choose does imply attributes of omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresence, eternality and not being made. Aquinas would say that God decides based on the degree to which any given creation comports with God's goodness, not based on randomness.

Third, the objection to the infinite multiverse as a violation of conservation of energy is well known. Just Google it.

[Jashwell]

Nope. I am not saying it is possible God does not exist.

No. I am.
You're saying it's not possible that God doesn't exist; if anything exists.

Rather, I am saying God would not have existed if pure nothingness were the case, which it is not the case. (Thank God!). I am not saying God is necessary if my argument were true. Rather, I am saying that God is not necessary for pure nothingness to be the case, but as pure nothingness is not the case, then the exact opposite of pure nothingness must be the case which deductively leads to the conclusion that God must be Real.

You're saying that God necessarily exists given the premise that something exists.
If the conclusion is "that God must be real" then he does necessarily exist given those premises.

With regard to your second argument, while it is true that an infinite number of possibilities leaves each possibility with no probability, there must nonetheless be something REAL that is capable of deciding among infinite possibilities because one given possibility, i.e. our universe, is REAL. But, the mechanism of choice cannot be randomness, because randomness cannot choose where there is no probability of any given choice. Nonetheless, there still must be a mechanism of choice. How specifically that mechanism works is a mystery, but it nonetheless is REAL and it's not randomness. But, that ability to choose does imply attributes of omnipotence, omniscient, omnipresence, eternality and not being made. Aquinas would say that God decides based on the degree to which any given creation comports with God's goodness, not based on randomness.

So God can't decide, because there is either an optimal solution or multiple optimal solutions in which case random choice.

Thereby eliminating the claimed need for a God - either by showing that only this Universe is possible -
(God's existence is supposedly necessary if things exist; the optimal solution God wants would be necessary; God's implementation would necessarily be the optimal solution - and therefore there would be no other possibilities.)

Or by showing that God must himself face decisions.

As for "randomness cannot choose given no probability", that's no more sound an argument than "God cannot choose given no options".
Ignoring the past few posts of issues with the idea of possibilities, once again you make it sound like these things need giving rather than just are.

(and once again, none of those traits are necessary)

Third, the objection to the infinite multiverse as a violation of conservation of energy is well known. Just Google it.

1) As I said, multiverse doesn't necessarily imply creation of Universes.
2) A universe doesn't necessarily imply net energy.
3) Conservation of energy could plausibly be preserved within each Universe

There aren't any multiverse theories I currently believe in, not that I find a single reason to consider any of them troublesome. (The closest I get is potentially believing in a twin Universe)

[wampe]

[Replying to post 79 by John J. Bannan]

Even if all that were true, you still can't explain the initial conditions of the universe and/or multiverse among an infinite number of possible initial conditions.

Please describe the initial conditions you are looking for an explanation for. As far as I am aware we are very uncertain in this matter.

Also I think it has been pointed out that there is only one possible set of "initial conditions". In probability terms, we are after the fact. Its like rolling a set of dice, if you roll a 6and a 2, then ask what the probability of rolling a 6 and a 2. The odds of you rolling that way would be 100% as it has already occurred.

Because there are an infinite number of possible initial conditions, then no given initial condition has a defined probability. Hence, randomness cannot give rise to an initial condition that does not have a defined probability. Any way you cut it, you're stuck with a need for God to select the initial conditions.

As the universe seems to exist I think we can rule nothing out as an initial condition, that removes a possible initial condition, ie not an infinite number of possible initial conditions.

Can you explain why "randomness cannot give rise to an initial condition..." If our "initial condition" is one of the possible results I don't see any reason that it could not be "selected". We can use our dice one more time here. If we roll the dice and get a result I don't really think that we can say we selected that result. If we could select our result I think we would need to rethink Yahtzee.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 82 by Jashwell]

Aquinas would disagree with you. Aquinas said God voluntarily chooses to create the imperfect according to the degree to which it comports with His goodness. Creation is not necessary, but voluntary. Only God is necessary.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 83 by wampe]

There is most definitely no proof whatsoever in physics that only one set of initial conditions are possible.

The initial conditions of the Big Bang are those conditions that result in you and me having this discussion.

Where there are infinite possibilities, you cannot randomly select any of those possibilities. Your "die" would end up being a sphere. You can roll a sphere, but you can't tell me what number it landed on because a sphere has no sides.

[Zzyzx]

.

There is most definitely no proof whatsoever in physics that only one set of initial conditions are possible.

Agreed. However, religionists often appear to claim that only one set of initial conditions is possible – that their favorite "god" existed and created the universe.

The initial conditions of the Big Bang are those conditions that result in you and me having this discussion.

Big Bang theory is not a claim of knowledge, but a THEORY about the origin of the universe that acknowledges it does not possess "truth."

Where there are infinite possibilities, you cannot randomly select any of those possibilities.

Agreed. Likewise with an infinite number of "gods" available to the imagination one cannot rationally (or randomly) select any one of those possibilities – since the evidence cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination (ancient or modern).

Your "die" would end up being a sphere. You can roll a sphere, but you can't tell me what number it landed on because a sphere has no sides.

A numbered sphere could come to rest with one number uppermost. How would that be significantly different from a die coming to rest with one number uppermost?

[wampe]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

There is most definitely no proof whatsoever in physics that only one set of initial conditions are possible.

The initial conditions of the Big Bang are those conditions that result in you and me having this discussion.

Where there are infinite possibilities, you cannot randomly select any of those possibilities. Your "die" would end up being a sphere. You can roll a sphere, but you can't tell me what number it landed on because a sphere has no sides.

You could say that there used to be infinite possibilities but not that there are infinite possibilities. Its like asking what the possibility is of it raining yesterday. The event has happened thus eliminating all other potential outcomes. As the universe exists that would mean that your nothing "initial condition" can be eliminated from the potential "initial conditions".

While we are talking about infinite possibilities it would seem that we would have to include infinite creator gods, otherwise we are not talking in terms of infinite.

Can you point to where you proof indicates what specific god would exist? I assume that it would be the Christian version but I could use some clarification.

[Divine Insight]

Big Bang theory is not a claim of knowledge, but a THEORY about the origin of the universe that acknowledges it does not possess "truth."

I don't believe you said this Z.

What is a "THEORY"? Just a random speculation based on totally imagined whimsical ideas that have no evidence behind them?

Hardly. That certainly wouldn't be the substance of a scientific theory.

Big Bang "theory" do not acknowledge that it possesses no "truth". On the contrary it is based upon may confirmed and verifiable observations of fact. Facts that we have every reason to believe are indeed "true".

Moreover, as this "theory" itself has evolved over time more and more observational facts "truths" have been accumulating to support that the "theory" is indeed a correct explanation of what's actually going on.

Keep in mind that a "theory" is simply an explanation for observed truths.

Many of the "explanations" offered by Big Bang theory have actually been since observed to be "true". We may not have a 'theory' (an explanation) for how the Big Bang initually began, but we certainly have very valid 'theories' of how the Big Bang progressed from the very early moments (a tiny fraction of a second from its start) to today.

Those "theories" (or explanations) of the Big Bang have been confirmed by experiments in particle accelerators as well as by astronomical observations to be "True".

So to say that Big Bang theory acknowledges it does not possess "truth", is not correct. Most cosmologists and astrophysicists would argue with you on that point quite passionately. In fact, technically speaking all of Big Bang "theory" has been confirmed as truth.

We need to realize that there is nothing in Big Bang "theory" that says anything about how the Big Bang actually got started. We don't have an "explanation" for that specific event, and therefore we have no "theory" for that. A theory is an explanation.

What we have at that point are unproven hypotheses. These are "speculations" of possible "explanations'" for how things may have gotten started. They have the potential of also becoming "theories" (i.e. full-fledged and explanations) if the mechanisms they propose can be shown to be both physically plausible, and more importantly, confirmed to have actually occurred. If that happen, then we will have a theory of the 'truth' of how the universe began. At least in terms of the physical mechanism. And if that mechanism is based on randomness, then there's good reasons to say that we have a complete theory. There would be no reason to explain why randomness existed in the first place. At least not from the standpoint of physics.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 81 by John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 72 by FarWanderer]

You do not understand my proof. Sure, I am claiming that pure nothingness is possible, and yes, pure nothingness would not include God. But, I am also saying that pure nothingness is not the case. See #1 in my proof. You don't seem to be comprehending the difference between possible but not real and possible but real.

Nope. I am not saying it is possible God does not exist. Rather, I am saying God would not have existed if pure nothingness were the case, which it is not the case.

Get your story strait.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 86 by Zzyzx]

A sphere is not comprised of a finite set of points on its surface. Hence, you cannot read which side a sphere lands on, because the surface of the sphere does not have any sides.

My proof predicts a very specific single God. There are not an infinite number of Gods under my proof, unless you want to play semantics games and call the same single God an infinite number of different names.

When I said, "The initial conditions of the Big Bang are those conditions that result in you and me having this discussion", I was not referring to knowledge but was being cheekily deterministic.