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.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

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.

You can certainly IMAGINE a state which is the opposite of existence. Much like the supernatural realm, it is a state which can ONLY be imagined. Such states are refered to as "make believe." Like the number zero, such concepts can serve a useful purpose as mental exercises. They have no actual value however.

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.

Perhaps you missed the part about matter/energy constantly changing and reforming itself. If energy cannot be created or destroyed as all observation and experimentation suggests, then it has been changing and reforming itself infinitely, perhaps in a closed loop, or perhaps simply in an ever going process of change without end. The concept of a multiverse is becoming increasingly popular among theoretical physicists. There is no indication that the law of conservation of energy does not remain inviolate however. Even an infinitely timeless multiverse would experience ongoing change. The big bang theory represents the current limits of what we think we know about the origins of the universe. You are suggesting that the big bang proves that energy CAN be created, in direct violation to all observation and experimentation. Again, this represents make believe, since it contradicts physical observation and experience. As I pointed out to Divine Insight, all of our direct experience indicates that every effect is preceded by a prior cause WITHOUT FAIL. There is not real indication, as yet, that this doesn't apply to the big bang as well. We have every reason to suppose that the big bang had a prior cause, which has yet to be accurately determined. What you have done is to take a position at the very limits of our knowledge and declare an endgame that you call God. But you just made that up, you see. And that is NOT the way to accurately acquire knowledge.

[FarWanderer]

[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.

I'm not referring to anything having to do conservation of energy or whatever. It's entirely logic.

The problem is that your argument is all about God being necessary to to pick our world from eligible possibilities. But nothingness would imply God's non-existence, so it'd be logically impossible for God to pick it. Therefore, your conclusion that God is necessary contradicts your first premise's claim that nothingness is possible.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 71 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Einstein: "“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.�

Nope. The infinite multiverse shreds conservation of energy like a unwanted tax bill. For example, there must be an infinite number of universes created for each possible permutation of you blowing your nose this morning. An infinite multiverse very much predicts the creation of an infinite amount of energy.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 72 by FarWanderer]

You do not understand my proof. Sure, I am claiming that pure nothingness is possible, and yes, pure nothingness would not include God. But, I am also saying that pure nothingness is not the case. See #1 in my proof. You don't seem to be comprehending the difference between possible but not real and possible but real.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

Nope. The infinite multiverse shreds conservation of energy like a unwanted tax bill. For example, there must be an infinite number of universes created for each possible permutation of you blowing your nose this morning. An infinite multiverse very much predicts the creation of an infinite amount of energy.

You speak of the multiverse as if it were not only a proven fact, but something we actually know something about. Which is pretty far from the truth. The concept of a multiverse makes sense on many levels, but it's still pretty far from a proven fact. We as yet have no direct proof of a multiverse, only indirect speculation. So making predictions that violate the law of conservation of energy, something we DO have good direct evidence for, is hardly warranted yet. And there certainly is no evidence to support the notion that the universe, or multiple universes, is anything other than a natural phenomenon.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, I did not exist as a discreet individual prior to 1948. The material that had the potential to become me however, existed with my parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in my body, from the moment of my conception to this very moment has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms. Everything is recycled and reused. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then the material that the universe is composed of has in fact existed eternally. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was born as a result of conditions which already existed.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 72 by FarWanderer]

You do not understand my proof. Sure, I am claiming that pure nothingness is possible, and yes, pure nothingness would not include God. But, I am also saying that pure nothingness is not the case. See #1 in my proof. You don't seem to be comprehending the difference between possible but not real and possible but real.

Responding to the part I bolded:

Contingent on what?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 72 by FarWanderer]

You do not understand my proof. Sure, I am claiming that pure nothingness is possible, and yes, pure nothingness would not include God. But, I am also saying that pure nothingness is not the case. See #1 in my proof. You don't seem to be comprehending the difference between possible but not real and possible but real.

I was expecting a follow up previously, ideally more in depth response to the things I've said besides "you're wrong" you gave earlier, but here's another argument.

P1) It is possible that God does not exist
P2) God is necessary if your argument is true
C) Your argument is false as God is not necessary (P2->!P1:-!(P2&P1))

The evidence for P1 is the same evidence as you give for any claim of possibility whatsoever.


Even if your argument were sound;

P1) God must decide which possible things become actual
P2) God's decisions are possibilities and not necessities
C) God must decide which decision he makes as well as making the decision
C2) God must decide which decision he decides to make with regards to C.
C3) " " ... C2
C3) " " ... C3
etc

Alternate form & argument:
P1) God must decide which possible things become actual
P2) God's decisions are possibilities and not necessities
I) God decides which actual V is picked from a possible set X₀
C) God must decide which possibilities are actually in set X₀. The set of possibilities for this decision can be considered set X₁.
C2) God must decide which possibilities are actually in set X₁. The set of possibilities for this decision can be considered set X₂.
C3) X₁ ⊆ X₂.
C4) X₂ ⊆ X₃.
...
C∞) X_∞ ⊆ X_∞+1.

Therefore God must make an infinite number of decisions in order to make any one decision.

If you disagree with premise 1, your argument doesn't work anyway.
If you disagree with premise 2, God doesn't have a choice and isn't deciding anything. (And you're unintentionally giving the same kind of objection that I first gave)

Nope. The infinite multiverse shreds conservation of energy like a unwanted tax bill. For example, there must be an infinite number of universes created for each possible permutation of you blowing your nose this morning. An infinite multiverse very much predicts the creation of an infinite amount of energy.

1) A multiverse does not predict creation of anything
2) A multiverse does not predict violation of the conservation of energy
3) A multiverse is not fact, and there are many types of multiverse ideas.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 76 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Even if all that were true, you still can't explain the initial conditions of the universe and/or multiverse among an infinite number of possible initial conditions. Because there are an infinite number of possible initial conditions, then no given initial condition has a defined probability. Hence, randomness cannot give rise to an initial condition that does not have a defined probability. Any way you cut it, you're stuck with a need for God to select the initial conditions.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 77 by FarWanderer]

"Contingent on what?"

Glad you asked!

It's not contingent at all!

The dichotomy between pure nothingness and all possible all inclusive states of existence does not require a contingency for a choice to be made! That's the beauty of the dichotomy. It's either one side or the other - and there's no need for an explanation as to why one side is the case and the other is not. It simply happens to be the case!

This is a SPECIAL CASE dichotomy. It's SPECIAL because both sides are uncaused. Pure nothingness obviously can have no cause, because nothing comes from nothing. However, the exact opposite of pure nothingness must also have no cause, because the other side must contain all other possibilities under the definition of dichotomy. If the other side of pure nothingness had a cause, then the cause itself must be included in the dichotomy or the dichotomy would be invalid. Hence, the uncaused other side of the dichotomy with pure nothingness must be the exact opposite of pure nothingness and the exact opposite is also uncaused. The exact opposite is all possible all inclusive states of existence. And because both sides of this dichotomy are uncaused, then neither side can have a power set, because a power set cannot be created from a subset that cannot itself be caused.