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 59 by FarWanderer]

You can say that things exist, but you still need to explain why pure nothingness is not the case instead. That's why you need the dichotomy.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 60 by FarWanderer]

Nope. I'm generally speaking of the former, not the latter if by the latter you mean thing A turns into thing B through the process of change and the conservation of energy.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

You can say that things exist, but you still need to explain why pure nothingness is not the case instead. That's why you need the dichotomy.

Consider the big bang theory. According to the theory the current universe began as a singularity. That's single, as in one. A point of matter/energy compressed so tightly that no space existed, and time had become, at least, infinitely slow. At the singularity there is absolutely no variation of any kind. All things are one. There is no up, no down, no side to side, no front, no back. Complete utter total sameness. Now, what exactly is your definition of "nothing?" "If" you could experience such a state of absolute total sameness, how would it in any way be different from a state of complete and utter nothingness? Yet from just such a state, according to the theory, arose an entire universe of diversity. Who is responsible for this? Upon what factual basis do you conclude that there must be a "who" that is responsible?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 63 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The singularity is still a state of existence. Pure nothingness is the absence of states of existence. The singularity has potential to become the universe. Pure nothingness does not have any potential whatsoever. If the singularity were pure nothingness, you would not be writing your comment.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 63 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The singularity is still a state of existence. Pure nothingness is the absence of states of existence. The singularity has potential to become the universe. Pure nothingness does not have any potential whatsoever. If the singularity were pure nothingness, you would not be writing your comment.

In what sense does such a state of pure nothingness exist, other then as a mental exercise?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 65 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Pure nothingness is the opposite of existence. Your question is meaningless.

[Divine Insight]

According to the theory the current universe began as a singularity.

That's actually an outdated theory. In fact it was never actually a "theory" it was merely an assumed conclusion if we continue to extrapolate backward in time from an expanding universe. Most physicists today no longer believe that the universe began as an infinitely dense singularity.

Inflation theory no longer requires this as a starting point. A more popular theory today is that the universe began as a random quantum fluctuation. A fluctuation that that occurred randomly in preexisting quantum fields. The fluctuation itself was not infinitely dense and did not need to be infinitely dense. It did not need to contain all the matter and energy that actually exists in the universe today. Instead this very lightweight and small amount of energy of the quantum fluctuation was caught up in a process of inflation. It was actually during the process of inflation that all the matter and energy came to be. This was offset by the amount of gravity that was simultaneously created. Gravity and matter/energy offset each other to sum to a total energy of very near zero.

So with inflation theory there is no need for the universe to have begun as an infinitely dense singularity.

String Theory (or M theory) also does not require that the universe began as an infinitely dense singularity. The idea here is that structures called "branes" preexist the physical universe. These branes then collided and gave rise to the energy and matter we see around us. In this theory we are actually living on an excited brane. So no infinitely dense singularity is required.

The only theory I'm aware of that still considers that the universe might have begun as an infinitely dense singularity is Loop Quantum Gravity. In that theory the universe is believed to be cyclic going from a Big Bang to a Big Crunch (the singularity) which then rebounds and creates another Big Bang. This process is believed to be endless. Ironically this process does not actually require a "true singularity". In Loop Quantum Gravity there is actually a smallest size that the universe can be compressed into, at which point it rebounds. So it never actually becomes a true singularity since it always maintains some actual size and volume. It never becomes infinitely small or infinitely dense.

In fact, I'm not aware of any actual theories that predict an actual singularity. I think that idea came into being from the mere speculation that if we extrapolate far enough into the past we necessarily must end up with a singularity. But that was just speculation without any actual physics behind it. Once we apply the physics we end up with things like Inflation theory, String Theory (or M Theory) and Loop Quantum Gravity, none of which require an actual singularity as the beginning of the universe.

So there may simply have always been structure and there was never a point when no structure existed.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

Pure nothingness is the opposite of existence. Your question is meaningless.

Your question was "You can say that things exist, but you still need to explain why pure nothingness is not the case instead." Pure nothingness is a hypothetical; it's an imaginary state which even you agree has no existence. You are asking for an explanation of why something which doesn't exist is, well, not the condition that prevails. Now THAT is a meaningless question.

For an answer to why there is existence, let's turn to what is perhaps the most fundamental law of physics. It's known as the law of conservation of energy. As we know from Einstein's famous therorem E=MC^2, matter IS energy. Matter is one of the forms that energy takes. Energy constantly reforms itself, taking many forms, but nothing is ever lost or gained in the process. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It is therefore eternal, finite in amount, but infinite in duration. And if energy cannot be created, there can be no creator. But perhaps your comment is the most pertinent. If energy didn't exist, there could be no commenting.

***

Conservation of energy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

***

So, what we observe, empirically and without prejudice, is that energy exists. And again I ask, upon what factual basis do you conclude that there must be a "who" that is responsible? And just "who" is responsible for the "who" that you have concluded must be responsible?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

According to the theory the current universe began as a singularity.

That's actually an outdated theory. In fact it was never actually a "theory" it was merely an assumed conclusion if we continue to extrapolate backward in time from an expanding universe. Most physicists today no longer believe that the universe began as an infinitely dense singularity.

Inflation theory no longer requires this as a starting point. A more popular theory today is that the universe began as a random quantum fluctuation. A fluctuation that that occurred randomly in preexisting quantum fields. The fluctuation itself was not infinitely dense and did not need to be infinitely dense. It did not need to contain all the matter and energy that actually exists in the universe today. Instead this very lightweight and small amount of energy of the quantum fluctuation was caught up in a process of inflation. It was actually during the process of inflation that all the matter and energy came to be. This was offset by the amount of gravity that was simultaneously created. Gravity and matter/energy offset each other to sum to a total energy of very near zero.

So with inflation theory there is no need for the universe to have begun as an infinitely dense singularity.

String Theory (or M theory) also does not require that the universe began as an infinitely dense singularity. The idea here is that structures called "branes" preexist the physical universe. These branes then collided and gave rise to the energy and matter we see around us. In this theory we are actually living on an excited brane. So no infinitely dense singularity is required.

The only theory I'm aware of that still considers that the universe might have begun as an infinitely dense singularity is Loop Quantum Gravity. In that theory the universe is believed to be cyclic going from a Big Bang to a Big Crunch (the singularity) which then rebounds and creates another Big Bang. This process is believed to be endless. Ironically this process does not actually require a "true singularity". In Loop Quantum Gravity there is actually a smallest size that the universe can be compressed into, at which point it rebounds. So it never actually becomes a true singularity since it always maintains some actual size and volume. It never becomes infinitely small or infinitely dense.

In fact, I'm not aware of any actual theories that predict an actual singularity. I think that idea came into being from the mere speculation that if we extrapolate far enough into the past we necessarily must end up with a singularity. But that was just speculation without any actual physics behind it. Once we apply the physics we end up with things like Inflation theory, String Theory (or M Theory) and Loop Quantum Gravity, none of which require an actual singularity as the beginning of the universe.

So there may simply have always been structure and there was never a point when no structure existed.

Outdated is not precisely correct. It is a theory which is currently being revisited and reconsidered however. One of the problems that has plagued physicists for most of the last 100 years, is the problem that modern physics simply falls apart when attempting to reconcile the conditions which would have existed at the state of an absolute singularity. Those first few fractions of a second prior to the big bang cannot be explained mathematically as a true singularity. The reason for this may simply be that our current understanding of physics is insufficient. Or perhaps we simply are not smart enough. Another possibility is that a state of true singularity CANNOT OCCUR. At a crucial point of contraction it simply flies apart again. This itself implies that there was a time and a condition that preceded the big bang. But then, all of our experience establishes quite conclusively that every effect is inevitably preceded by an earlier cause. So why should the big bang be any different?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 68 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You are not thinking at all in terms of the opposite of existence. You can't ask why the opposite of existence is not the thing it is the opposite of. Your question is contradictory and meaningless.

I can however assert an opposite to existence, and say that existence is the case and the opposite of existence is not with the understanding that pure nothingness is not existence.

Conservation of energy is ruined by the infinite multiverse. So, even some physicists are quite willing to abandon the whole principle. Nonetheless, the Big Bang is itself a good argument for energy being created.