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 87 by wampe]

LOL! So, you admit that infinite possibilities means no probabilities, but then claim that because our universe is the only REAL universe, then those infinite possibilities have been defeated! That's circular reasoning. No, it takes a God to choose - not randomness.

My proof specifically says there must be one God with certain attributes. So, there is in fact not an infinite number of creator gods, unless of course you want to play semantics games about the name of that God.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 89 by FarWanderer]

Again, you fail to understand the difference between possible but not real and possible but real. God is possible but real. Pure nothingness is possible but not real. You seem not to comprehend the idea that something can be logically possible, but yet never become real. It is logically possible that your next ice cream cone will be filled with vanilla ice cream, but when you actually have that next ice cream cone it may turn out to be chocolate.

[Zzyzx]

.

Big Bang theory is not a claim of knowledge, but a THEORY about the origin of the universe that acknowledges it does not possess "truth."

I don't believe you said this Z.

I feel compelled to "tell it like it is" to the best of my ability. What has occurred relates to the definition of "theory" and the difference between scientific use of the term and general public use of the term.

What is a "THEORY"?

Key question.

In science, where BB comes from (and I do too), the term "theory" has specific meaning: "A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

Some add that exceptions have not been discovered.

The next step beyond theory is Scientific Law. Would anyone suggest that BB merits that classification? Those closely involved seem to prefer "theory."

Just a random speculation based on totally imagined whimsical ideas that have no evidence behind them?

Yes, the general public tends to use "theory" to mean "I just had this wild idea. It is my 'theory' that . . . . . "

However, when discussing BB we are talking science – not general public.

Hardly. That certainly wouldn't be the substance of a scientific theory.

That is correct. A scientific theory is far more than "imagined whimsical ideas" without evidence.

Big Bang "theory" do not acknowledge that it possesses no "truth". On the contrary it is based upon may confirmed and verifiable observations of fact. Facts that we have every reason to believe are indeed "true"

Truth, in science, is that which can be duplicated, verified, and used to make reliable predictions.
.

Moreover, as this "theory" itself has evolved over time more and more observational facts "truths" have been accumulating to support that the "theory" is indeed a correct explanation of what's actually going on.

Yes, valid theories are supported by additional information that becomes available. If new information conflicts with a theory (and can be validated), the theory is modified or replaced.

Keep in mind that a "theory" is simply an explanation for observed truths.

Not quite. Scientifically an hypothesis is an "explanation for observations" that has not been tested. To merit designation as a scientific theory the hypothesis must be tested repeatedly and found to have merit and no major discovered flaws.

Many of the "explanations" offered by Big Bang theory have actually been since observed to be "true". We may not have a 'theory' (an explanation) for how the Big Bang initually began, but we certainly have very valid 'theories' of how the Big Bang progressed from the very early moments (a tiny fraction of a second from its start) to today.

That is the means by which scientific study progresses – Hypothesis, testing, Theory, testing, Scientific "Law" if undisputed scientifically.

Those "theories" (or explanations) of the Big Bang have been confirmed by experiments in particle accelerators as well as by astronomical observations to be "True".

That adds credibility to the theory – but does not prove it to be true (though it may suggest truth).

So to say that Big Bang theory acknowledges it does not possess "truth", is not correct.

Are you thinking or suggesting that I say BB does not possess "truth?" If so, that is dead wrong. I make no such statement.

In fact, DI, as you may notice, I do not debate "origin of the universe." That is because I regard the whole issue as "up in the air" (undecided).

Most cosmologists and astrophysicists would argue with you on that point quite passionately. In fact, technically speaking all of Big Bang "theory" has been confirmed as truth.

Would cosmologists and astrophysicists reject the term "theory" applied to BB? If so why is it still referred to as such in scientific literature?

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 89 by FarWanderer]

Again, you fail to understand the difference between possible but not real and possible but real. God is possible but real. Pure nothingness is possible but not real. You seem not to comprehend the idea that something can be logically possible, but yet never become real. It is logically possible that your next ice cream cone will be filled with vanilla ice cream, but when you actually have that next ice cream cone it may turn out to be chocolate.

I'm not failing to comprehend anything.

"Real" or not, what you are saying is that it's possible God doesn't exist. But you also said:

Nope. I am not saying it is possible God does not exist. Rather, I am saying God would not have existed if pure nothingness were the case, which it is not the case.

Unless you mean something different by the word "possible" for each claim, you are contradicting yourself.

Clear this up. I'm not going to argue with someone if I can't even tell what their claims are supposed to be.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 94 by FarWanderer]

Ha! There is no ''clearing this up.''

Have you ever wondered why all these proofs and evidences for a creator that folk are so sure of takes the form of these long and twisty premises and ontological arguments and analogies and double rainbow dichotomy word salads?

Its the only way the attempt can even be made. And that never seems to strike anyone as odd.

I have a Nissan Maxima in my garage. Don't believe me? Check out this picture. Or come over and touch it. Whatever you like.

That's how we reasonably operate.

That a double dichotomy metaphysical string of nonsense, or convoluted and wildly abstract theorum, or syllogism, or model, or anecdote or analogy is as close as you can get to making a case (and failing) for this apparently obvious god cracks me up when compared to every other case of accepting something as true.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 95 by Inigo Montoya]

Oh I agree. That's why I try to keep my arguments simple.

The 2nd premise of this so-called proof has a string of 69 words without so much as a comma. It's quite possibly the longest unpunctuated sequence of words I've ever seen. Not a good thing in a proof.

Heck, this "proof" is so convoluted even the author can't seem to decide what it means. Other than it proving God, of course.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 94 by FarWanderer]

You appear to be under the misimpression that the possible must at some point become real. I reject this idea. There are things that are logically possible, but never become REAL. You only think I am contradicting myself regarding the word possible, because you are stuck in a particular mindset that denies there can be a "possible" that never becomes REAL. Actually, my use of the word "possible" is what most people think of as "possible", not what you think of the word "possible".

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 95 by Inigo Montoya]

LOL! Do you really so naïvely believe that physics can explain why things exist at all?

OK, let's hear your theory as to why there is existence itself or why pure nothingness is not the case. Good luck. Arguing from a position of ignorance as you are is not the least bit convincing to me.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 96 by FarWanderer]

I know exactly what my proof means. Sorry about the wordiness though. But, you can ask me for clarification about my proof.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 95 by Inigo Montoya]

LOL! Do you really so naïvely believe that physics can explain why things exist at all?

OK, let's hear your theory as to why there is existence itself or why pure nothingness is not the case. Good luck. Arguing from a position of ignorance as you are is not the least bit convincing to me.

Please point to where I asserted physics explains why things exist at all or retract your question.

My own theory isn't on trial. I didn't submit the double rainbow metajewel dichotomy proof of the creator of the cosmos. You did. You are being repeatedly shown why it fails and, instead of accepting that, asking others to supply a substitute theory.

How many rounds do you want to do this?