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 350 by Hatuey]

Who is "we"? Surely, you know that not all physicists are atheists.

[Hatuey]

Reality must be uncaused, because there is nothing besides reality to cause it, except pure nothingness.

Unproven conjecture. No data points. Unworthy of debate.

And because pure nothingness cannot cause reality, because nothing comes from nothing, then reality must be uncaused. That's a logically proof right there!

Reality CAN BE uncaused? I have no idea, but that seems to be the opinion of some atheist scientists. However, again, unproven conjecture. No data points. Unworthy of debate.

And, as material reality always requires a cause,

Unproven conjecture. No data points. Unworthy of debate.

but reality must be uncaused, then material reality cannot be all there is to reality because material reality always requires a cause.

Unproven conjecture. No data points. Unworthy of debate.

Hence, there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

Unproven conjecture. No data points. Unworthy of debate.

At best, you can try to argue that material reality causes itself.

No, I can say that I don't know. It's honest, and doesn't require belief in a invisible, undetectable, irrelevant unicorns, fairies, or gods. (Because no god can be demonstrated to be more visible, detectable, or relevant than fairies or unicorns.)

But, that requires infinite causal chains.

Unproven conjecture. No data points. Unworthy of debate. Perhaps some other unknown mechanism unlike infinite causal chains or first causes. Who knows?

But, infinity being a concept cannot create the actual numbers required for infinite causal chains.

"Infinity" doesn't create anything even though there are many types of infinities because the word "infinity" names a concept in human conceptualization; just like the number 7. There are no real "number 7"s floating around out in space.

Hence, infinite causal chains and infinite regression are impossible and therefore reality cannot cause itself. Thus, there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

Because there are no data points on "infinite regression" or "reality causing itself" then those ideas are pure conjecture that cannot be debated.

You will never get out of this logical proof.

I'm hopeful that you'll one day understand that you have not presented any "logical proof." All you have done is state your philosophical opinion with absolutely no way to verify or falsify. If your proof cannot be verified or falsified because there is zero data to consider, then you may as well be talking flying marshmallows and sugar-coated alien farts.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 350 by Hatuey]

Who is "we"? Surely, you know that not all physicists are atheists.

Of course not, but believing physicists and atheist physicists recognize the same data. Physicists understand that there is no answer (currently) to where the singularity came from or what it might have been before or if it could have not been or if it could have been something before. Believing and atheists physicists recognize that the data shows a dense singularity that inflated rapidly, but they don't lie and use conjecture to state things that the data does not show.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 352 by Hatuey]

Number 7 is not real, but I can point to seven apples in reality.

No data points? This is just your blanket objection to logical proofs. Logical proofs are used all the time - in math and law and in decision making. I find it irrational to ignore logical proofs.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 353 by Hatuey]

The data shows creation. Because you cannot explain the singularity in non-creation terms, does not mean the data does not evidence creation.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 352 by Hatuey]

Number 7 is not real, but I can point to seven apples in reality.

No data points? This is just your blanket objection to logical proofs. Logical proofs are used all the time - in math and law and in decision making. I find it irrational to ignore logical proofs.

All the examples you list have viable data points. Your conjectures do not have any verifiable data points. You're just saying stuff. Your problem; not mine.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 356 by Hatuey]

The Big Bang is a verifiable data point.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 353 by Hatuey]

The data shows creation. Because you cannot explain the singularity in non-creation terms, does not mean the data does not evidence creation.

Nope. The data does not show creation; the data shows expansion. That's why physicists don't use the word "creation," but say that a dense, hot singularity "expanded."

Nobody has to explain the singularity in "non-creation terms," science just has describe what the singularity actually did, and science has done that. The data does not evidence creation; it evidences expansion.

If the physicists could answer your conjecture, they would, but there are no data points to show the singularity was created or not created, so they remain silent on creation and explain what the singularity shows: that it existed and expanded.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 356 by Hatuey]

The Big Bang is a verifiable data point.

Yes. The Big Bang shows the expansion of a hot dense point that cannot be verified to have always existed, be part of some larger mechanism, be part of a creation event, be part of an infinite regression, be part of an invisible unicorn fart, be part of god blowing his brains out with a potato gun, be part of a huge fairy civil war. So...scientists explain what the data shows: the hot dense singularity underwent inflation and expansion.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 348 by Jashwell]
There is a difference between reality and concepts.

Not to imply that you can't agree of the mutual conceptual existence of something.

Numbers are a reflection of reality being a discrete "thing".

What?

So, a number is but a reflection of the material real, and very different than the concept of infinity. I can see an apple, and hence, I can say there is 1 apple, and that 1 is a reflection of reality.

Or you can say 2 distinct halves of an apple (as opposed to 2 1/2 apples) and that 2 is a reflection of reality. Or you can say n-sextillion molecules, and that is reflective of reality. Or you can say an infinite number of discrete points on a continuous quantum field.

However, I have never seen an infinity of apples, nor in fact have I ever actually seen the infinity of anything. Point to something in reality that one can look at and say, "this is infinite without beginning."

> implying it can't be infinite without beginning
If you can say an apple is 1 thing, I can say a line is an infinity of things with the same reasonableness. Yes, we all know that in reality, lines don't exist. What appears to be a continuous line is a discrete series of particles.

But yes, we all know particles don't exist. They're just the excitations of quantum fields that occasionally gain traits we describe as particle-like.
Continuous quantum fields. As in, with an infinite number of points.

(except LQG which does propose discrete fields, but also proposes closed time-like curves which invalidate your argument anyway)

In fact, they're all true and valid because they're models and have scope.
Calling it an apple is conceptual, grouping it all together as 1 is conceptual.

It's also an argument from ignorance.
I've never seen 2,3014,123 of something therefore it's not possible.

And it's likely going to end in special pleading.
Have you ever seen a fraction, a negative number, an irrational number?
I bet you'll change models as soon as you try to prove they're 'more real'.

I think you are missing an obvious point. Physics is based on the assumption that there are discrete finite constituent parts of matter.

Clearly false.

And these parts can be no smaller than the Planck constant.

No reason to believe this is true.

The point you are missing is that these smallest units of material reality are inherent to the nature of the universe. There are discrete units of reality, because that's the way the universe is inherently. There is nothing illogical about this assumption.

You do realise that you can have an infinite number of discrete units?
You do realise that this is an argument from ignorance?

You are attempting to create discrete units of reality out of infinity, which can't logically or mathematically be done.

Any arbitrary grouping can do that ("that is a line"), I'm saying you haven't proven infinities are impossible.

So, why not just assume discrete units are inherent to the nature of the universe? It seems to me that because infinity cannot explain discreteness, then one must assume discreteness is inherent to the nature of the universe. And so, if discreteness is inherent to the nature of the universe, then time is also discrete in nature.

That'd be a composition followed by division fallacy, and once again on unjustified premises.

Time can have a beginning.

Anything can have a beginning, you just need to decide where you're splitting things and which way is which. It's purely conceptual.

Causal chains can have a beginning.

Your epistemology sure uses a lot of special pleading. Causal chains are concepts that, in your language, aren't actual.

The evidence of this is the Big Bang.

I don't see the relevance at all.

Now, as energy and time are discrete in nature and can have a beginning, then one must expect the creation of time and energy.

False. On both accounts.
In fact, "creation of time" is kind of meaningless. Are you saying time didn't exist before but then it did?

Once you've accepted the idea of the creation of time and energy, then one can ask about how the ORDER of creation occurs and what is the first cause of said creation of time and energy.

You can ask whatever you like whenever you like, doesn't mean the implications of the question reflect reality.

And it is quite logical to assume there must be something immaterial unknown to us and inherent to the universe that decides the ORDER of creation and permits a first cause.

If by logical you mean logical fallacy then yeah, it's called special pleading following an argument from ignorance.

You can try to answer this mystery with concepts like randomness and infinite multiverses

They aren't remotely relevant, I don't see why you would.

but you still end up with an objection based on infinity being unable as a concept to provide the discrete numbers necessary for ORDER and creation. One is invariable led to the concept of a decider aka God.

I don't understand where you're getting all these assumptions from.
You can't just throw in assumptions and make arguments from them.

This is why theism is a better argument than atheism. An atheist could concede that a decider is required, but then say, "but it's not God". However, the attributes of such a decider are very God-like. So, the atheist really ought to know that God is unavoidable.

Except that "infinity is impossible --> god exists" is not valid logic