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.

[Fundagelico]

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.

I think that's mostly right. It seems that scientific naturalism must suffer the same fate as logical positivism or any other strictly evidentialist program. Given its basic premise, "Only evidentially supported beliefs are true," evidentialism itself is false.

But I think scientific naturalism is self-undermining in another way – in the assumption that currently prevailing scientific theories, and only currently prevailing scientific theories, reliably model physical reality. The problem is that scientific theories historically have displaced one another as new evidence is continually discovered. Yesterday's current is today's passé.

On a scientific-naturalistic epistemology the theory of General Relativity, for example, is true, but only became true in the twentieth century as it replaced much of the previously dominant Newtonian paradigm. Not so long ago it was perfectly rational to embrace the entire program of classical Newtonian physics, and equally irrational to disbelieve it – at least until Einstein, after which it suddenly became rational to believe relativity and irrational to disbelieve it.

So in terms of scientific naturalism what is rational to believe today is almost certainly destined to become irrational to believe tomorrow, and vice-versa. The important thing is to continually regard prevailing science as a true depiction of physical reality. But to maintain such a view with any consistency one must believe that physical reality actually reconstitutes and reconfigures itself, in keeping with the march of scientific progress. Talk about irrational!

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]

"Therefore, different branches of Taoism often have differing beliefs, especially concerning deities and the proper composition of the pantheon."

There is no room for a pantheon under my proof. My proof is totally monotheistic. Hence, Taoism is out of the question under my proof. Judeo-Christianity is exactly the religion which complies with my proof.

[Jashwell]

Do you think Hitler could have won World War 2 given that years later he hasn't won World War 2?

But regardless (and as I've said before) - no matter what you think of that first objection, the other objections still stand. None of them have been addressed.

[Replying to post 36 by Jashwell]
I understand perfectly well what you are saying. You're wrong.

Almost tempted to use this as a signature.

[Unhand Me Sir]

But I think scientific naturalism is self-undermining in another way – in the assumption that currently prevailing scientific theories, and only currently prevailing scientific theories, reliably model physical reality.

The operative word here is model. Scientific theories model reality, they are not themselves reality. None of them are the only possible model.

To use your examples, Newton's model was good enough to land on the moon and discover Neptune and Pluto. It can't describe the orbit of Mercury particularly accurately and it's not sufficient for GPS navigation, though Einstein's model can do both of these. Einstein's model also has limitations - it breaks down near black holes and other singularities where the curvature of space-time can't be given a value.

Which is true? Both or neither, depending on what you mean by true. Science doesn't need a notion of absolute truth.

Judeo-Christianity is exactly the religion which complies with my proof.

Well that's convenient.

If you don't mind my asking, were you converted by this argument or did you come to your beliefs by another route? Assuming that it didn't persuade you, why should it persuade us? Isn't this all rationalisation after the fact?

[Inigo Montoya]

"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.

Our universe exists, which is compelling evidence that it doesn't ...not.. 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.

You, nor anyone else, can speak to the chances of imagined states of existence ''becoming real'' (horrible, horrible verbiage, by the way). Again, our universe is persuasively ''real,'' which stands as evidence that our universe is, in fact, ''real'' (whatever the hell that means.)

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 is just a mess. Is it your goal to sneak a premise past the peasants through double negatives and wounded syntax? The universe needs nothing, first of all. And while the inflationary epoch is theorized to have a beginning, it doesn't address the constituent mass/energy that went about expanding/inflating. Saying something must exist as ''real'' without our universe being ''real'' proves nothing more than your ability to put those words next to each other in print. It's ''possible'', a word you enjoy abusing here, that you don't exist at all. You would do better to invoke reasonable probabilities (grounded and demonstrable, preferably) than this splattering of word dip that, despite many fancy words, doesn't actually say much worth hearing.

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.

You, nor anyone else, have any idea what states of existence can ''become real,'' outside of your privately manufactured thought experiment here. To say you do, and then define the probabilistic set as infinite leans heavily towards dishonesty. Or good old fashioned b.s.- Let's say there's a middle ground and just call it enthusiastically reckless zeal.

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.

Here's where you start hitting yourself in the face, really. ''There must be something real which determines what becomes... real... among the ...infinite sets... conforming to the rules and probabilities.. I invented for my ''not-proof'' (since I don't seem to understand what a proof is)...''

This is a wonderful non sequitir. Why have you suddenly invented, here in step 5, an arbiter contingent on existence that goes about deciding what gets to be in existence? I'm afraid to see #6.

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.

No power is required or demonstrated by your rambling here. It may be that there must be an outcome, i. e. existent or non existent. But in this case, your insisting on a must doesn't make it so, and further strikes me more as ''need,'' as in, you ''need'' this ''power'' to make sense of this wishful gibberish.

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.

Does your arm hurt from reaching so far? ''Is not inherently ordered?'' Really? You've now spewed out a truth claim based on your own flawed reasoning, and worse, continue to pretend there's now demonstrably been shown to exist a ''power'' with a ''preference'' that leads where, you ask? I'll tell you. To a ''real,'' eternal ''constraint'' that ''determines through will AND intellect.....''

Does anyone else hear WLC's voice saying ''and therefore it necessarily follows that a timeless, spaceless, intentional....?''

This is in the running for the most excruciatingly bloated and empty collection of pdeudo-scientific/pseudo-philosophical ramblings taking a stab at what amounts to ''goddidit.''

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.

''Everything which begins to exist has a cause, except my favorite god, because that would destroy my silliness quickly.'' Without moving parts is a shotgun blast to the face of your perfectly fitting judeo/christian deity, by the way. I hope I don't need to remind you how many times this god intervened and interacted, in multiple forms, PHYSICALLY (read=moving parts) with its alleged creation.

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

''Said god must have superpowers like omni-stuffs and heat vision or this won't work when I make my way to YHVH.''

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

''And if I don't take a swing at defining its omniscience suddenly into place, they might doubt it's YHVH.'' Is Krishna immune from this litany of ''proofs?''

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.

''Because I say the mind of the constraint is everywhere, and must therefore reside in all of us, we are One with the Maker, oh and I forgot to mention it calls all of us be its Sons, in capital letters, but don't hold me to further explanation of that either. Just assume it's true like the previous ten points I'm calling true in this case.''

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.

I call that thing banana creme pie ice cream. Which is a ''real'' ''possible'' arrangement of matter that is ''delicious.''

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 38 by Divine Insight]

"Therefore, different branches of Taoism often have differing beliefs, especially concerning deities and the proper composition of the pantheon."

There is no room for a pantheon under my proof. My proof is totally monotheistic. Hence, Taoism is out of the question under my proof. Judeo-Christianity is exactly the religion which complies with my proof.

Taoism is panentheistic, nothing is more monotheistic than that. Besides Christianity is most definitely polytheistic. Jesus himself is the demigod Son of God who supposedly sits at the right-hand of God in even. So Christianity already has two Godheads to be sure. They even claim a polytheistic mufti-personality disorder for their God as a "Trinity". That wouldn't fit with your mathematical theory based on a set of all possibilities. And Christianity also has Satan the evil God whom they claim was a "fallen angel", but we all know that can't be true. A fallen angel couldn't be a threat to a monotheistic God. So Satan needs to be an evil God in his own right. The Christian fairytale shoots itself in its own foot.

If you need a monotheistic theology Taoism is your best bet. Certainly not Christian polytheism of a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Satan. That's a pretty psychologically screwed up polytheistic Godhead. He'd have to be his own enemy.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 44 by Unhand Me Sir]

Not rationalism after the fact at all. Actually, it was a stunning coincidence that the dichotomies predict a single Constraint caused by the obvious fact that a SET of all possibilities is not inherently ordered and therefore something must be able to order it in terms of creation.

[John J. Bannan]

"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.

Our universe exists, which is compelling evidence that it doesn't ...not.. 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.

You, nor anyone else, can speak to the chances of imagined states of existence ''becoming real'' (horrible, horrible verbiage, by the way). Again, our universe is persuasively ''real,'' which stands as evidence that our universe is, in fact, ''real'' (whatever the hell that means.)

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 is just a mess. Is it your goal to sneak a premise past the peasants through double negatives and wounded syntax? The universe needs nothing, first of all. And while the inflationary epoch is theorized to have a beginning, it doesn't address the constituent mass/energy that went about expanding/inflating. Saying something must exist as ''real'' without our universe being ''real'' proves nothing more than your ability to put those words next to each other in print. It's ''possible'', a word you enjoy abusing here, that you don't exist at all. You would do better to invoke reasonable probabilities (grounded and demonstrable, preferably) than this splattering of word dip that, despite many fancy words, doesn't actually say much worth hearing.

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.

You, nor anyone else, have any idea what states of existence can ''become real,'' outside of your privately manufactured thought experiment here. To say you do, and then define the probabilistic set as infinite leans heavily towards dishonesty. Or good old fashioned b.s.- Let's say there's a middle ground and just call it enthusiastically reckless zeal.

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.

Here's where you start hitting yourself in the face, really. ''There must be something real which determines what becomes... real... among the ...infinite sets... conforming to the rules and probabilities.. I invented for my ''not-proof'' (since I don't seem to understand what a proof is)...''

This is a wonderful non sequitir. Why have you suddenly invented, here in step 5, an arbiter contingent on existence that goes about deciding what gets to be in existence? I'm afraid to see #6.

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.

No power is required or demonstrated by your rambling here. It may be that there must be an outcome, i. e. existent or non existent. But in this case, your insisting on a must doesn't make it so, and further strikes me more as ''need,'' as in, you ''need'' this ''power'' to make sense of this wishful gibberish.

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.

Does your arm hurt from reaching so far? ''Is not inherently ordered?'' Really? You've now spewed out a truth claim based on your own flawed reasoning, and worse, continue to pretend there's now demonstrably been shown to exist a ''power'' with a ''preference'' that leads where, you ask? I'll tell you. To a ''real,'' eternal ''constraint'' that ''determines through will AND intellect.....''

Does anyone else hear WLC's voice saying ''and therefore it necessarily follows that a timeless, spaceless, intentional....?''

This is in the running for the most excruciatingly bloated and empty collection of pdeudo-scientific/pseudo-philosophical ramblings taking a stab at what amounts to ''goddidit.''

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.

''Everything which begins to exist has a cause, except my favorite god, because that would destroy my silliness quickly.'' Without moving parts is a shotgun blast to the face of your perfectly fitting judeo/christian deity, by the way. I hope I don't need to remind you how many times this god intervened and interacted, in multiple forms, PHYSICALLY (read=moving parts) with its alleged creation.

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

''Said god must have superpowers like omni-stuffs and heat vision or this won't work when I make my way to YHVH.''

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

''And if I don't take a swing at defining its omniscience suddenly into place, they might doubt it's YHVH.'' Is Krishna immune from this litany of ''proofs?''

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.

''Because I say the mind of the constraint is everywhere, and must therefore reside in all of us, we are One with the Maker, oh and I forgot to mention it calls all of us be its Sons, in capital letters, but don't hold me to further explanation of that either. Just assume it's true like the previous ten points I'm calling true in this case.''

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.

I call that thing banana creme pie ice cream. Which is a ''real'' ''possible'' arrangement of matter that is ''delicious.''

So, what's your theory? The sort of vague wordy objections you make are always rooted in some alternative theory the person harbors, but generally refuses to disclose until pushed into it.

[Divine Insight]

So, what's your theory? The sort of vague wordy objections you make are always rooted in some alternative theory the person harbors, but generally refuses to disclose until pushed into it.

People don't need a theory. On the contrary owning up to the fact that we don't know is the only truthful thing to do.

Proclaiming that you can't stand not having an answer so you are going to surmise "A God must of done it" is hardly impressive.

And then to go further and claim that it must have been a specific God of a specific faction of Hebrew mythology only goes to prove that you have a very particular agenda in mind.

You don't even seem to realize that the most "monotheistic" religious possible are the pantheistic religions. Nothing can be any monotheistic than that.

In fact, in Hebrew mythology we are supposedly somehow "separate" conscious sentient beings from God. Beings that could potentially be cast into an eternal hell.

That's hardy a monotheistic picture of the source of all reality.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 48 by John J. Bannan]

I don't make the mistake of formulating theories regarding phenomena we don't understand. That would appear to be an exercise left to folk like yourself.

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."

The universe exists, and we appear to exist within it. How that came to be has haunted and will continue to haunt thinking minds a good deal longer, I suspect. Allowing that you don't understand how it came to be is an acceptable, if unfortunate, position to hold.

Formulating wildly unfounded premises that steer toward a personally foregone conclusion...well, isn't.