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.

[Jashwell]

I don't see many significant differences between this and the previous argument, some (probably not all) of the previous problems remain.

The main problem with the argument is it relies on concepts that really have no usage in the application (i.e. high abstraction philosophy). As such these terms become vague and burdened, often with heavy baggage. There are also the standard theological keywords that themselves are inherently obscuring and burdened.

"Possible" being an example, "metaphysical" being another.

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.

Once again,
A) Not a "metaphysical dichotomy"
B) Too vague and burdened down with unnecessary and obscuring vocabulary
C) The intent of the premise doesn't seem to differ from "things exist"

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.

A) "Not all possible things exist"
B) Effectively you're trying to separate "not actually possible not actual" from "actually possible not actual", when possible itself is questionable.
C) Why do you allow for logic as a distinguishing factor? This kind of argument could stop at the previous premise and claim there is a dichotomy between "logically possible" and "logically impossible" and there must be something choosing between the two. (Not that it's a sound argument)


It's like saying "Pi could have been 5". This is either false or meaningless.

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.

This seems just false prima facie.
The fastest way to dispose of this statement is probably just to say "our universe is real".

Why would something need to be real without our Universe?
If you're gonna say "but what if there isn't a Universe" then I can simply say that the first statement relies on a Universe being real, the first statement might well be false if there isn't a Universe.

If you're gonna say "but what if there wasn't a Universe" I can simply say "time (often considered a subset of Universe) is sufficient", "outside the universe" -> space, etc.

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.

Is it infinite? Is it even greater than one?
I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that.
"It is possible that it will rain tomorrow" and "It is possible that pi = -2" are two entirely different statements with entirely foreign namespaces.

Oh, and there can be a probability, because the level to which "possible" is being used in this abstract and foreign context doesn't give me reason to omit a probability of 0 or 1 to any value.

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.

Why would it have to be real to decide whether things are real or not?
Wouldn't it also have to be decided whether or not it is real?
Why one thing?

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.

If our Universe can "not be real" then premise 1 can be false and nothing can exist therefore God doesn't exist in one scenario. Argument therefore no longer proves necessity of God.

Naturally, this is down to the same usage problems with the word "possible".

"Power", yet again more vague and obscuring terminology.
"There must be a power to create the real" doesn't differ from "The real can exist and possibly not exist. There must be a thing choosing." Unsupported premise.
(and yet again based on the word possible)

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.

But is "determining based on preference which possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality" possible or possible and actual, as in accords with premise 2?
Another instance in which possible is just a bad word to use.

Why would the constraint have to be real?
Why would the constraint have to be eternal?
Why would the constraint need intellect or will?

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.

Yet again this doesn't follow.
Yet again, previous issues are inescapable.


I don't consider addressing the further statements as significant, the particular properties aren't particularly important at this stage (lack of response shouldn't indicate tacit acceptance)

[John J. Bannan]

@Jashwell

Your objections really come down to only one thing: You suggest there can be only one Universe.

However, whether you claim only one universe or only one multiverse, it appears to me that one is still inextricably stuck explaining the initial conditions.

Because those initial conditions and/or cosmological constants are seemingly arbitrary among an infinite host of possibilities, it seems to me that suggesting that only one set of initials conditions and/or cosmological constants is possibly fails by absurdity.

I suggest you also take the absence of states of existence, i.e. nothingness, into account.

So, how do you explain the arbitrariness of the initial starting conditions and/or cosmological constants?

[Jashwell]

@Jashwell

Your objections really come down to only one thing: You suggest there can be only one Universe.

No.
While one of my suggestions is that we don't know that other Universes are in fact physically possible, my major objection is that "possible" doesn't really work in this context.

As for "come down to only one thing", that's simply not the case.

However, whether you claim only one universe or only one multiverse, it appears to me that one is still inextricably stuck explaining the initial conditions.

Because those initial conditions and/or cosmological constants are seemingly arbitrary

among an infinite host of possibilities

Begging the question, but go on.
Tell us what the initial conditions of the Universe "could've been".

it seems to me that suggesting that only one set of initials conditions and/or cosmological constants is possibly fails by absurdity.

Except that
1) That's not how an argumentum ad absurdum works
and
2) That is called an argument from incredulity

Define precisely what you mean by "The initial conditions could have been different".
No appealing to tautology or circular logic (i.e. don't say possible for instance)

I suggest you also take the absence of states of existence, i.e. nothingness, into account.

Nothing is impossible because something exists.
Fairly obvious to me.

For it to be possible that nothing had existed eternally, nothing would have to exist now.
It doesn't. Therefore it's impossible.

Constants don't change over time. For the constants to have been different, they'd have to be different now. They aren't.

The intuitive concept you're grasping at doesn't work here.

So, how do you explain the arbitrariness of the initial starting conditions and/or cosmological constants?

The constants are what they are. I'd say "some might not even be independent" but I don't want to be misconstrued as implying something is the literal product of another.

What's to explain?

[Divine Insight]

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.

You're dead in the water right there. There is no credibility to the imaginary metaphysical dichotomy that you propose in your very first statement.

This statement is not a statement of fact of any kind. On the contrary it's a totally hypothetical premise being offered by you without proof upon which to build the rest of your argument.

I simply reject your hypothetical premise there there exists a strict dichotomy that either the set of all possible all-inclusive states of existence must exist, or no states of existences can exist.

You would need to prove #1 to me. And I don't see how you can possibly do that. It's nothing more than an arbitrary abstract ideal based upon some idea of a "set theory" which can only be an arbitrary formalism invented by mankind in the first place.

In short all you are arguing here John, is that if I accept your arbitrary premises, then I am forced to arrive at your conclusions. That may very well be the case. But I don't accept your arbitrary premises, so I see no reason to even bother with the rest of your logic.

You've lost me entirely on your first unprovable premise. I see no reason to accept that your arbitrary "metaphysical dichotomy" has anything at all to do with the state of reality.

~~~~~

And besides, even if you were able to get #1 off the ground, your conclusion that a restraint must be a sentient conscious being, does not follow anyway.

And finally, realize this,....

Since your argument is entirely "metaphysical" then your argument must necessarily also apply to your imagined sentient conscious being. And therefore you end up with an infinite regress of constraints. Something must then be constraining your proposed conscious sentient being so that it too can be well-ordered and structured.

So you end up needing an infinite regression of "Gods" anyway, each providing the constraints that allow the next one to exist. So your argument fails in the end even if you were able to get it off the ground in #1.

In short, you very argument would need to apply to your God as well.

[wiploc]

THE DOUBLE DICHOTOMY PROOF OF GOD

Mr. Translator man comes where he is needed!

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.

I found some lint in my belly button. This lint is a real thing. Therefore, it is not true that nothing exists.

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.

An impossible world (one including a logical contradiction) cannot exist. However, Kronos (this world, the actual world) does exist. Therefore, Kronos is a possible world, not an impossible world.

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.

Kronos began. (Assumption stuck in with no hint of justification. Maybe nobody will notice.)

Things could be different. (Contradiction of 1st premise. P1 says that because things happen to be this way, they therefore must be this way. But P3 says that things don't have to be the way they are.)

Restatement of P1: Because something exists, something therefore must exist, because whatever is true must be true.

Since things could be different but aren't, something in a magical nowhere-kind-of-place that gets to decide which possible reality gets to be the actual reality. (Motivated believer's leap of faith.)

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.

Forget P1; it's absurd on its face. There are an infinity of possible worlds. If you picked one at random, the odds of getting this particular one (or any other particular one) would be infinitely low: zero.

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.

But let's not assume Kronos was picked at random. Let's argue in a circle by assuming something liked this world and picked it on purpose. Thus, since we make that assumption, we reach that conclusion! That's proof that Jehovah (whom we haven't specifically mentioned yet, but which we are clearly making unjustified leaps toward) exists.

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.

What determines which possible universe exists? Every decision anyone makes, every quantum event, every physical process? No, let's call it "a power" because that's another unjustified leap towards Jehovah.

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.

People say Jehovah has will and intellect and is eternal. So let's say that the magical noplace power also has will and intellect and is eternal. Why? Because if the power that determines which possible world exists could consciously choose which one got to actually exist, why then Kronos could have been so chosen!

In other words, if a god created the world, then a god created the world. And I'm calling that a proof. I'm using this terrible argument because not even theists know of any good arguments for the existence of gods.

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.

(Sorry, this word salad does not admit of translation. I can tell, however, that the "without moving parts" bit was added on as an unjustified random afterthought.)

9) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

Jehovah is said to be omnipotent and omnipresent. Let's say our magical world-creating power is also omnipotent and omnipresent. Maybe nobody will notice we snuck that in. Jehovah has power over things nonexistent. He rules over everything that doesn't exist (but that could exist). Since we're now saying that Jehovah has power, we can no longer call him "power." Thus, Jehovah's new name is "constraint" (since we haven't yet admitted that we're talking about Jehovah."

10) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

Jehovah is omniscient. I said it before, and I say it again. I didn't justify the claim before, and I don't justify the claim now.

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.

Humans are "sons of god" because the bible says so. That biblical reference suggests that we're approaching the bit where we admit what this argument is about.

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.

Jehovah! Plus his arbitrary and unjustified collection of traditional attributes.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 4 by Jashwell]

The universe could have had the exact same initial conditions minus you tilting your head this morning by 76.99999999..... degrees and instead tiling your head by 77 degrees.

Nothingness is not impossible. Rather, nothingness is coherent, and hence logically possible but simply not the case.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

It seems to me that one cannot explain existence solely by referencing physics, because physics cannot explain why anything is REAL to being with. So, it would seem obvious that one must refer to metaphysics to explain existence.

As for God also being constrained, my proof quite neatly indicates that only one God is possible. The reason is that a constraint on the entire set would not be a constraint on the entire set, if the constrain itself were constrained. Hence, there can be only one Constraint.

There is no issue with infinite regression. The other side of the dichotomy with nothingness is also uncaused. There cannot be a power set which includes an uncaused set, because the power set would necessarily have to cause that which cannot be caused, and hence, there is no power set or infinite regression.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 6 by wiploc]

It seems to me that you cannot explain existence solely with reference to physics, because physics cannot explain why anything is REAL to begin with. Thus, only a metaphysical proof can explain existence.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 4 by Jashwell]

The universe could have had the exact same initial conditions minus you tilting your head this morning by 76.99999999..... degrees and instead tiling your head by 77 degrees.

Define "could".

Nothingness is not impossible. Rather, nothingness is coherent, and hence logically possible but simply not the case.

Coherent =/= plausible =/= possible

None of my criticisms are actually addressed.
You saying that it is possible for my head to be tilted differently is no different for me saying that it is possible to roll a 7 on a standard 6 sided dice.