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.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 322 by Jashwell]

The can of soda sitting on my desk next to my computer is in what most people would describe as a "discrete location".

No, it is what most people (in North America) would describe as a can of soda.
If you mean the whereabouts of said can... people might call that a location.

Why would they call it a discrete location? Are they referring to discrete space time hypotheses such as quantum loop gravity? Unlikely.

What do you mean when you call the location 'discrete'?

"To have a discrete location you need X" implies X is not known to be necessary for a non-discrete location. Depending on what you actually mean by discrete; your requirement might have a different meaning.

Now, there is a causal chain that determined that my soda would be in this discrete location at this particular time.

No, there is a causal chain that describes what previous state of affairs corresponds with the can's location at that time.

Once again there's the previous trap of assuming cause determines, but there's the additional pitfall that you've said chain. (A first cause isn't a causal chain; if a first cause is to be considered possible we must first reject that a causal chain is required)

However, all the events giving rise to the current location of my can of soda must all be determined by prior events in order for my can of soda to be where it is.

Determined in a trivial sense; not literal dependence. Unless you'd care to prove that?

Now, an infinite causal chain could never have placed my soda can in its discrete location, because my can requires an initial starting position of the causal chain for it to end up where it is.

Begging the question. (That second clause; or your justification; is almost word for word the same as the conclusion (the premise to your previous argument) you are attempting to demonstrate)

An infinite causal chain has no determinism without an initial starting point.

Another unsupported premise.

Hence, infinite causal chains are impossible.

That doesn't logically follow from "there is a causal chain that placed this on my desk" and "an infinite causal chain can't place this on my desk"; not that I grant either premise.

[Hatuey]

.[Replying to post 319 by Hatuey]

In order for an object to have a discrete location, there must be an initial starting point for the causal chain which determined the object's location. That's proof enough that "first cause" is a better argument than "no first cause".

Nope.

Sorry.

Nice try.

That objects have a discreet location means that the effects of the expanding singularity (big bang) are continuing.

I do not claim to know what the singularity was or if it came into existence or if it existed forever or anything at all about it.

An infinite regression has as much evidence (none) as an initial cause (none) and thus, both are equally plausible and ridiculous...as is any other action that we are not considering but yet may be true.

And get it straight...I'm not saying "no cause" any more than I'm saying "infinite regression." I'm saying I don't know and you don't either, but you seem to need to posit some invisible, undetectable being that can't be demonstrated to exist at all that cares about you in order to feel valuable.

I don't know; and I'm okay with the mystery, since it's all we've got...if we're honest. If you want to make claims, then by all means, please start proving them instead of continuing with ridiculous self-serving gibberish that do not even amount to deserving the descriptor of "non-sequitur."

[Hatuey]

(A first cause isn't a causal chain; if a first cause is to be considered possible we must first reject that a causal chain is required)

bingo, baby. What say you, John? More arrogant filibustering?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 327 by Inigo Montoya]

Belief in infinite causal chains without starting points is believing in the impossible.

So...wait, you've got to believe in a causal chain in order to not believe in a cause for one thing in the causal chain? Really?

What (other than your declaration) makes infinite regression more unlikely than an initial condition?

[Zzyzx]

.

How does one define "perfect" for God?

That would be a hypothetical "perfect" since gods are hypothetical

One can define "perfect" for man. But, God?

Since the bible claims that God is perfect, bible proponents should be willing to state very clearly the definition that applies.

God is reality itself.

Opinion noted

Is reality less than "perfect"? What does one compare reality itself to in order to deem it less than perfect? And, one must know what is less than perfect in order to understand what is perfect.

This applies only if one accepts the presupposition / conjecture that God is perfect.

There is no reality outside of God.

Opinion noted

Hence, there is nothing to compare God to.

Tales about the bible God can be compared to tales about the thousands of other proposed gods.

Hence, the "perfection" of God is saying no more than that God is God.

That makes as little sense as saying round is round.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 333 by Hatuey]

A first cause does not require a causal chain. However, a first cause can start a causal chain. Obviously, we are talking about the creation of energy/matter. And we do have very strong evidence called The Big Bang, which sure looks like the creation of energy/matter.

[Wootah]

Al Gazali did not believe in cause and effect. Nor does David Hume.

What a weird thing to say, what made you think these people did not believe in cause and effect? Al Gazali believe God is the direct cause of all effects. David Hume believe cause and effect can be apprehended through observation.

On radioactive decay. Are you saying thorium can decay into rabbits or do you actually believe in decay chains?

I believe in decay chains, why? Are you under the impression that the noncausal nature of radioactive decay could imply thorium to rabbits?

Yes you could say that Al Ghazali believed in cause and effect if the cause if always God but that would be a caricature of the notion of Cause and Effect as it is meant to mean.

You have heard of David Humes' Problem of Induction?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 337 by Wootah]

Radioactive decay has a definite cause. It's called the Big Bang.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 333 by Hatuey]

A first cause does not require a causal chain.

How do you know? You're the one arguing every thing visible and detectable is the result of causal chains. You have ZERO proof of anything not caused--according to your own methods of analysis.

[Replying to post 333 by Hatuey]
However, a first cause can start a causal chain.

How do you know? You have ZERO proof of any "first cause" or anything subsequent to it.

[Replying to post 333 by Hatuey] Obviously, we are talking about the creation of energy/matter.

No, we're talking about whether or not you have any proof of your god, and your lack of any evidence beyond what you simply state from your own opinion--which weighs nothing more than mine or anyone else's.

[Replying to post 333 by Hatuey]
And we do have very strong evidence called The Big Bang, which sure looks like the creation of energy/matter.

Nope. The Big Bang is the expansion of the singularity. Nobody knows anything about the singularity--such as if it "began" or is "eternal" or anything else. We know that from our perspective pure energy broke into four separate "forces" that are elemental to all particle/energy interactions, but we don't know anything about any "creation" at all. Your ignorance is no excuse, here.

When will you actually present a cogent and reductive reason for you to continue to believe according your unfounded presumptions? Never?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 339 by Hatuey

Sure I have proof of the uncaused. Infinite causal chains are illogical and hence impossible. Therefore, the causal chains we see must have an eventual beginning with something that is uncaused or there would be impossible infinite causal chains. Indeed, even if one were to accept the impossible idea of infinite causal chains, one would be left with an ever changing and eternal entity present in the now. Such an eternal entity would have to be uncaused in order to be eternal. So, frankly, I am shocked that even you would deny that something in the universe has got to be uncaused.

Why don't you know anything about the singularity? Because a singularity does not have moving parts and there is nothing for you to describe, but clearly the singularity changes into moving parts. That sure looks like the creation of energy. Why do you ignore the obvious, that energy/matter can be created? The Big Bang is obviously strong evidence of the creation of energy/matter and you ignore it.