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.

[otseng]

Read my proof.

Moderator Final Warning

You have already been warned concerning unproductive one-liners posts. This serves as your final warning prior to probation.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 204 by FarWanderer]

Pure nothingness is the absence of states of existence.

Why "states of existence"? Why not just "Pure nothingness is the absence of existence"? Sloppy language breeds equivocation fallacies.

Think about existence itself not existing.

Think about wetness itself not being wet.

Think about the absence of even a Void.

That'd be not thinking about anything.

Ask yourself, "why should there be anything at all?" "Why not nothing instead?"

Why shouldn't there be something?

To attempt to settle the matter would suppose a determining factor between the two, but any determining factor would indeed be something, thereby making the answer circular to the question.

"Nothing is certainly simpler and seemingly preferable to the ridiculous complication of existence itself".

Simplicity is only a virtue when dealing with hypotheticals. We know we exist. We might hypothesize as to why we exist, but there's certainly no reason to hypothesize that nothing exists.

I know this is very counter-intuitive thinking and you probably would tend to rebel against the very notion of pure nothingness. However, there is absolutely nothing illogical about pure nothingness. It may seem like a crazy notion, but that's only because you are heavily prejudiced in favor of existence because 1) you like to exist and you like things and people that exist and 2) you only know existence. But, again, there is nothing illogical about pure nothingness, just your own prejudice against and unfamiliarity with the concept.

Hopefully by now you realize that I don't have the problem you think I do.

[Donray]

Some people don't understand what is nothing.

Nothing is the absents of anything.

As such, one cannot have pure nothing. You either have nothing or something.

Using pure as an attribute of nothing is meaningless.

Asking someone to define "pure nothing" show ignorance and a lack understanding of the meaning of nothing.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 258 by Jashwell]

Your example of virtual particles in QM do not defy causality. First, the quantum field must cause these virtual particles. Second, quantum entanglement shows a causal connection between two particles at a distance. Because quantum entanglement has been shown to violate Bell's inequality, there is either a non-local hidden causal variable at work or a multiverse where the particles share the same future. Again, causality is still at work. Indeed, a most recent theory suggests that the apparent randomness of QM is actually the result of causality and interaction between 41 universes.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... nary-ones/

There is nothing about general relativity that disrupts causality. "Causal notions are important in general relativity to the extent that to have an arrow of time demands that the universe's semi-Riemannian manifold be orientable, so that "future" and "past" are globally definable quantities."

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 258 by Jashwell]

Your example of virtual particles in QM do not defy causality. First, the quantum field must cause these virtual particles.

"The quantum field must cause these virtual particles"
Sorry, what?
"THE quantum field" (misunderstanding of QFT)

"MUST" (begging the question)

cause all these virtual particles (self-causation?)


Virtual particles appear ex nihilo and disappear ad nihilo during interactions.
Virtual particles, like all other particles, are excitations of fields, like the high points on a graph.

Sometimes they don't and there are no interactions.

You're going to end up making "cause" so meaningless that it can apply to anything, if you keep trying to justify it.

Second, quantum entanglement shows a causal connection between two particles at a distance.

If you think effect can precede cause then sure why not, but then you don't need a first cause.
Really though, this doesn't address what I've said.
What I've said is that causality doesn't apply uniformly and that there are regions of QM in which causality doesn't work.

Because quantum entanglement has been shown to violate Bell's inequality, there is either a non-local hidden causal variable at work or a multiverse where the particles share the same future. Again, causality is still at work. Indeed, a most recent theory suggests that the apparent randomness of QM is actually the result of causality and interaction between 41 universes.

Hypothesis and it wouldn't affect anything I've actually said if it were true - causality is not a fundamental natural phenomenon but a higher level abstraction of other phenomena.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... nary-ones/

Naturally, the quantum physicist says nothing of causality... because he's a quantum physicist.

There is nothing about general relativity that disrupts causality. "Causal notions are important in general relativity to the extent that to have an arrow of time demands that the universe's semi-Riemannian manifold be orientable, so that "future" and "past" are globally definable quantities."

to the extent that to have an arrow of time
An emphasis should also be made on 'notions'

Though I suppose you'd be better off asking quantum physicists.

Of course, none of this addresses either A) the assumption that causality is literally true (as I've objected before) or B) the assumption that causality progresses past to future, cause to effect



The key fact is that all phenomena of causality are explicable under a model lacking causality as a fundamental phenomenon that is simpler than the causal counterpart.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 265 by Jashwell]

Virtual particles do not appear ex nihilo. Virtual particles are caused by the quantum field. The quantum field is something - not pure nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing. Hence, as virtual particles can come from the quantum field, the quantum field cannot be pure nothingness.

"Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy."

"Thus, according to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

"The theory considers vacuum to implicitly have the same properties as a particle, such as spin or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. According to the theory, most of these properties cancel out on average leaving the vacuum empty in the literal sense of the word. "

Causality is fundamental in all fields of physics. In fact, physicists refer to causality as "information", i.e. the fact that cause precedes effect is an order which is referred to as "information". Physics does not at all like the idea of information being lost.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 265 by Jashwell]

Virtual particles do not appear ex nihilo. Virtual particles are caused by the quantum field. The quantum field is something - not pure nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing. Hence, as virtual particles can come from the quantum field, the quantum field cannot be pure nothingness.

"Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy."

"Thus, according to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

"The theory considers vacuum to implicitly have the same properties as a particle, such as spin or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. According to the theory, most of these properties cancel out on average leaving the vacuum empty in the literal sense of the word. "

Causality is fundamental in all fields of physics. In fact, physicists refer to causality as "information", i.e. the fact that cause precedes effect is an order which is referred to as "information". Physics does not at all like the idea of information being lost.

Moderator Clarification
Please give references for your quotations. See Rule 8. "Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagiarism."
Also see: evidence.
"Referencing evidence

Evidence presented should provide a source. References should be as specific as possible. If you quote a book, provide the book information as well as the page number. If you quote a website, give the full URL."

For example:

Lawrence Krauss: To a physicist, the first version of nothing of is simply empty space with nothing in it. You wouldn' t have any particles, all the radiation and so, there's literally nothing in it. But that nothing is actually quite complicated because of quantum mechanics and relativity. It turns out empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that you can' t even measure them.

http://www.ttbook.org/book/transcript/t ... ng-nothing

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 265 by Jashwell]
Virtual particles do not appear ex nihilo. Virtual particles are caused by the quantum field. The quantum field is something - not pure nothingness. Nothing comes from nothing. Hence, as virtual particles can come from the quantum field, the quantum field cannot be pure nothingness.

If for a second we ignore the unwarranted assumptions (and "the quantum field", still?), the absurdity of the epistemological content of this statement is astounding.

Do I even need to ask you how you've reached the conclusion that "the quantum field causes virtual particles"?

"Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations of vacuum energy."

I'm aware.

"Thus, according to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

"The theory considers vacuum to implicitly have the same properties as a particle, such as spin or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. According to the theory, most of these properties cancel out on average leaving the vacuum empty in the literal sense of the word. "

Irrelevant, but sure.

Causality is fundamental in all fields of physics. In fact, physicists refer to causality as "information", i.e. the fact that cause precedes effect is an order which is referred to as "information". Physics does not at all like the idea of information being lost.

If you think causality and quantum information are synonymous, then you're mistaken.

Are you aware of the difference between causality being methodologically useful and causality being a fundamental law of nature?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 268 by Jashwell]

"Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. "

"In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

"Even if the event of a virtual particle coming into existence or the event of an atom decaying are causeless, it doesn’t follow that the virtual particle or the alpha particle themselves are without a cause for their existence. Their causes are the quantum vacuum and the decaying nucleus respectively. The events associated with the coming into existence of quantum particles simply have a probabilistic cause (as opposed to a predictable physical cause) which regulates their occurrence under given conditions. If this were not the case and these particles were truly mysterious, uncaused entities, then scientists would be unable to replicate in the laboratory the circumstances where these particles come into existence. John Jefferson Davis writes that:



“Quantum-mechanical events may not have classically deterministic causes, but they are not thereby uncaused or a causal. The decay of a nucleus takes place in view of physical actualities and potentialities internal to itself, in relation to a spatiotemporal nexus governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. The fact that uranium atoms consistently decay into atoms of lead and other elements--and not into rabbits or frogs--shows that such events are not causal but take place within a causal nexus and lawlike structures."3


http://www.strangenotions.com/quantum-physics-kalam/

[JoeyKnothead]

I think it should be clear to all by now that there's no getting around the notion that minds are the product of the physical. Without a brain, there is no mind, no consciousness.

Thus, the OP fails on this account.