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 28 by Jashwell]

Do you agree that the multiverse is real and/or possible?

And, are you claiming that a multiverse can only consist of one universe followed by another in the same location?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 28 by Jashwell]

Do you agree that the multiverse is real and/or possible?

I think many different multiverse theories are plausible, or possible in the sense that they are not yet ruled out by my understanding of reality.

And, are you suggesting that a multiverse can only consist of one universe followed by another in the same location?

No.

[Replying to post 27 by FarWanderer]
An answer is needed because most of us (perhaps not you for some strange reason) want an answer.

Maybe the answer is "no reason".
Maybe you shouldn't assume there is a reason.

How does metaphysics remotely address this?
How is metaphysics even meaningfully defined?

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

No it isn't.
You haven't explained either why anything exists, nor why a God exists (you haven't even shown that a God does exist).

Not to mention, that if by "Why" you mean for what purpose, then you are begging the question by assuming gods exist. Furthermore, if by "Why" you mean "for what purpose", then God exists for no reason. God can't explain why he exists, because he wasn't created. He has no external purpose.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 29 by Zzyzx]

You are simply appealing to science as your sole source of proof by claiming that all truths must be verifiable and demonstrable. I reject the idea that truth cannot be made known through argument, especially argument substantiated by evidence, such as my proof is substantiated by the reality of our particular universe.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 32 by Jashwell]

If you admit that a multiverse is possible, then how do you explain the initial conditions of that multiverse?

Things are REAL, because the first metaphysical principle is that all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real become REAL if the constraint allows them to become REAL. This is because this principle shares the other side of the dichotomy with nothingness which is uncaused, but nonetheless not REAL but demands an answer as to why nothingness is not REAL.

God is REAL, because as the SET of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become REAL are not inherently ordered, then a GOD must be real to choose that order because randomness cannot do it because the SET is infinite.

[Zzyzx]

.

You are simply appealing to science as your sole source of proof by claiming that all truths must be verifiable and demonstrable.

1) Perhaps others are not so quick to dismiss with a wave of the finger what I present in post #39

2) If a "truth" cannot be checked for accuracy, why assume that it is correct?

I reject the idea that truth cannot be made known through argument, especially argument substantiated by evidence,

Can the "evidence" to which you refer be shown to be valid, accurate and applicable?

such as my proof is substantiated by the reality of our particular universe.

"The universe exists so I must be right in what I say" is about equal to "The universe exists so my favorite god must have made it like my book says."

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 32 by Jashwell]
If you admit that a multiverse is possible, then how do you explain the initial conditions of that multiverse?

1) I didn't say I believed a multiverse exists
2) I didn't say I believed a temporally finite multiverse exists
3) Why would I need to "explain the initial conditions of that multiverse"?

Things are REAL, because the first metaphysical principle is that all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real become REAL if the constraint allows them to become REAL.

No. Things are real. End of.
Examining the real things, we can find relations and rules between them.

In a more abstract sense, with the addition of temporal flow and entropy, you get cause and effect. Most of the time. In this sense, you might say "this is real because this and this constraint" - like in everyday language.

It is unnecessarily multiplicative to assume something is deciding and applying constraints at a global scope. Not to mention that you end up with an infinite chain of levels of possibility, and an infinite chain of constrainers until you either beg the question by assuming the answer, or allow a single exception to your rules so that your god doesn't get burdened by it..

This is because this principle shares the other side of the dichotomy with nothingness which is uncaused, but nonetheless not REAL.

God is REAL, because as the SET of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become REAL are not inherently ordered, then a GOD must be real to choose that order because randomness cannot do it because the SET is infinite.

I don't think you've understood what I've been saying.
Possibility is about lack of knowledge. To say "it's possible for me to roll a 3 on this dice" is to say "nothing I know rules out me rolling a 3 on this dice".

Doesn't mean that it isn't certain that I'll roll a 4. If I knew I would roll a 4, then I'd say it's impossible.

[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.

[Divine Insight]

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

You can't always get what you want. And making up silly answers just to pacify your wants is hardly rational motivation.

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

To begin with you don't even have a "proof". Just because you call your argument a "proof" does not make it so. You've already failed to be convincing in your very first unprovable premise that some totally imaginary dichotomy supposedly exists. You have created a totally hypothetical premise that has no foundation in anything.

You also keep using the term "REAL" in all caps when you haven't even defined what you mean by that concept. Actually the Eastern Mystics have done a very fine job of defining that concept and their philosophy makes far more sense than your proposal.

You "argument" (which is not a proof of anything) has many problems, the greatest one being that you start off in #1 with an unprovable assertion of an imaginary dichotomy that you cannot demonstrate to be true.

But your argument fails far worse as you progress because you make outlandish assumptions about an imaginary conscious entity supposedly being a constraint on how reality behaves. But you have totally failed to acknowledge that your very own imaginary entity would also need to have the same type of restraints in order to give it the complexity it would need to have to be a sentient conscious being.

In short your "argument" (which is not a proof of anything) doesn't even make any sense, and it most certainly doesn't "explain" anything because it leaves your imaginary God unexplained.

So your entire belief that you have actually explained anything is nothing more than an imaginary delusion on your part.

And how you can jump to the absurd conclusions that your argument would then show that one specific version of Hebrew mythology must then be the correct description of God is beyond me.

Like I say, even if you were onto something in terms of a "prime mover" or "Prime constraint" on reality, it wouldn't lead to Hebrew mythology anyway.

Taoism is your best mystical philosophy if your going to go that route. Hebrew mythology is totally out of the question.

But unfortunately your "argument" is so weak and dependent upon a make-pretend unprovable dichotomy, that it can't even be used to prove the existence of a mystical God.

So you haven't even scratched the surface.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 36 by Jashwell]

I understand perfectly well what you are saying. You're wrong.

[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.

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.