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]

[Replying to post 17 by Jashwell]

I understand exactly what you are claiming about unchanging constants.

My point to you is that it is absurd to believe that only one Universe could ever be Real due to these constants and to also claim that these constants could never be any different in another Universe, whether that Universe becomes Real or not.

Quite simply, you are denying both the Reality of a multiverse and the possibility of a multiverse. I find that claim utterly bizarre.

You're grasping at an intuition that isn't necessarily reflected in reality.

With one set of initial conditions (inc. constants), only one Universe. No other possibilities.

The whole point is that usually when people say "possible" they mean "could have been different" or "could be different" and my argument logically proves that the constants (as an example) literally can't have been different. Similarly, to say that this Universe could have been different is unfounded. Possible is based on a lack of human predictive power.

Similarly, Hitler can't have won World War 2 because he didn't win World War 2. If he had won (then), he would have won (now). The same can be said for any event, ever. This is because possible is based on a human perspective.

But if you don't find this convincing, there are other objections I've raised.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

Physics cannot explain why anything is real to begin with. And string theory can't explain why there are strings or dimensions.

God does not have to be observable to be real. God only needs to exert a force, which God does by creating what is observable. This is the basis of Aquinas' Prime Mover proof of God and his assertion that God is pure Act.

How can you not realize how silly that is whilst simultaneously claiming to have any understanding of reason or rational thinking at all.

Your basically saying that the study of physics makes no sense to you and can never provide an answer that will satisfy you, therefore you are happy to imagine that a boogieman did it.

Tell me John, what is the difference between your God and the Boogieman?

Other than the spelling of these labels what's the difference?

And since there obviously is no difference, then why not just confess that you are arguing for the existence of a Boogieman?

Moreover, how would your Boogieman point to the God of Hebrew mythology? The God depicted in Hebrew mythology is an immoral moron anyway, so that pretty much leaves Hebrew mythology out of the picture as being a religion that is describing some supposedly infinite source that is the restraint for all that exists.

Even if your argument for such a being had any merit, it would only rule out Hebrew mythology and the Biblical God as being the ultimately boogieman anyway. So it's certainly not an argument that would support Christianity.

How stupid would your God need to be to design a universe where either he or his son needed to be beaten to a pulp and nailed to a pole to save it?

I mean just think of how ridiculous that would be.

That would be like an engineer designing a car that will only run correctly if you nail his son spread eagle to the hood.

We wouldn't say that this engineer was very intelligent now would we?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 22:

How can you not realize how silly that is whilst simultaneously claiming to have any understanding of reason or rational thinking at all.

Your basically saying that the study of physics makes no sense to you and can never provide an answer that will satisfy you, therefore you are happy to imagine that a boogieman did it.

Tell me John, what is the difference between your God and the Boogieman?

This'n set me to thinking...

Did Jesus come back already?

[FarWanderer]

[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.

Even accepting what you say about physics as true, your "thus" simply does not follow.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 21 by Jashwell]

@Jashwell

Are you denying that a multiverse is possible?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 24 by FarWanderer]

Physics only attempts to explain the interaction of already REAL things. Physics does not attempt to explain why those things are REAL to begin with. Any self-respecting physicist will tell you the truth, that physics cannot explain why anything is REAL to begin with. When confronted with the question of "why is anything REAL to being with?", physicists will generally reply that the question of "why" is a philosophical question which science cannot answer. They will deny that the answer to "why" is a valid scientific question. This does not mean that the "why" question cannot be answered, it only means you will not find the answer in science.

In order to answer the "why" question, you must go beyond physics into metaphysics. Metaphysics is indispensable in answering the "why" question. Those who adhere to a naturalistic philosophy will always run into a dead end. Naturalistic philosophy claims that there is a natural explanation for "why" anything exists at all, but naturalists cannot use science or Math to obtain that answer. Hence, naturalism fails as a philosophy, because the tools of naturalism, i.e. science and math, can never explain why science and math even exists. It's a dead end philosophy.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 24 by FarWanderer]

Physics only attempts to explain the interaction of already REAL things. Physics does not attempt to explain why those things are REAL to begin with. Any self-respecting physicist will tell you the truth, that physics cannot explain why anything is REAL to begin with. When confronted with the question of "why is anything REAL to being with?", physicists will generally reply that the question of "why" is a philosophical question which science cannot answer. They will deny that the answer to "why" is a valid scientific question. This does not mean that the "why" question cannot be answered, it only means you will not find the answer in science.

Agreed, more or less.

In order to answer the "why" question, you must go beyond physics into metaphysics.

Who says an answer is needed?

Metaphysics is indispensable in answering the "why" question.

This is the fallacy I was pointing out last post.

Just because physics can't answer the question doesn't mean metaphysics can.

Those who adhere to a naturalistic philosophy will always run into a dead end. Naturalistic philosophy claims that there is a natural explanation for "why" anything exists at all,

Not as far as I know it doesn't. Naturalism, as generally concieved, doesn't even go there in the first place.

but naturalists cannot use science or Math to obtain that answer. Hence, naturalism fails as a philosophy, because the tools of naturalism, i.e. science and math, can never explain why science and math even exists. It's a dead end philosophy.

First explain "why" God exists, then we'll talk.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 21 by Jashwell]

@Jashwell

Are you denying that a multiverse is possible?

I don't recall denying any kind of multiverse.
The thing about multiverses is that different things are in different places.
You don't have different things in the same places, because that's incoherent and logically impossible thanks to the identity law (A = A).

(Place includes reference to time and any other possible reference, co-ordinate or index)

[Zzyzx]

.

In order to answer the "why" question, you must go beyond physics into metaphysics. Metaphysics is indispensable in answering the "why" question. Those who adhere to a naturaAlistic philosophy will always run into a dead end. Naturalistic philosophy claims that there is a natural explanation for "why" anything exists at all, but naturalists cannot use science or Math to obtain that answer. Hence, naturalism fails as a philosophy, because the tools of naturalism, i.e. science and math, can never explain why science and math even exists. It's a dead end philosophy.

Perhaps. However, it appears to me (and I could be wrong since metaphysics is not among my primary interests) as though those who delve into metaphysics are speculating and stating opinions. Arguments are not evidence – they are opinions, no matter how "logical."

The question "why" necessarily implies a cause and effect relationship. In some cases those relationships can be determined by observing and measuring effects and searching for causes that produce or influence the result. "Why does ice melt?" is an example in which temperature, pressure and characteristics of water molecules can be observed, measured, experimented with repeatedly and be explained (and duplicated / verified by anyone interested and motivated).

In other cases the result and possible causes cannot be identified or measured. "Why does evil exist" may be an example. Evil cannot even be consistently identified or measured. Causes cannot be consistently shown to produce the same results. No one can verify conclusions.

When conditions and associated causes or influences cannot be consistently, repeatedly demonstrated one is free to speculate or express opinions – but those do not constitute answers that can be shown to be truthful and accurate. Competing ideas can be argued but cannot be demonstrated.

Thus, science / naturalism differs from philosophy / metaphysics by having the ability to demonstrate that its conclusions are accurate and repeatable for / by everyone.

Philosophers and Meta-physicians often attempt to claim intellectual high ground for their speculations, saying that they think about the "big ideas." Perhaps they do think and talk about such things, but they cannot demonstrate (beyond "argument") that they are right.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 27 by FarWanderer]

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

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

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?