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.

[Bust Nak]

The uncaused cause must be real for anything to be real.

Unless there is an infinite chain of causes, or a circular chain of causes.

The uncaused cause albeit immaterial is a real thing. However, because I can't show you a picture of God the Father, I can only assert that God is real, but must use conceptual language to do so. Infinity, on the other hand, is not a real thing. Show me an infinitesimal.

Easy enough. Look no further than our universe, unbound AND flat.

Surely, if all material reality is made of infinitesimals, you ought to be able to show me one. No. Instead, we get the Planck constant and the rejection of infinitesimals by physics. So, infinity without beginning is not reality, but only a concept.

So is your uncaused cause, it's only a concept. You want me to believe that there is something that actually fits the concept, first you have to prove it.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 377 by Jashwell]

You can't convince me of real material infinities with no beginning, because you can't actually show me any.

Unsurprisingly it seems you haven't read my post. The only model I'm aware of, LQG, that proposes discrete (not continuous) spacetime, also proposes closed time-like curves, allowing for a recursive 'causal chain'. The only model I know that agrees with you that 'actual' infinities don't exist in any sense, does not need a first cause.

As for this "order", that literally means nothing to me whatsoever. Though if you're gonna reject LQG, that discrete spacetime is gonna have to go too. (Unless you find another discrete spacetime model).

Yet again, arguments from ignorance (that will result in special pleading).

You only added the "with no beginning" a few posts ago. Have you become convinced that infinities with beginnings exist?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 376 by Hatuey]

MORE NONSENSE.

You just don't like logical proofs.

Moderator Warning
Multiple violations here;

-uncivil tone
-personal attack and
-one liner which does not advance the debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 375 by Hatuey]

NONSENSE.

The convergence of all of time, space, energy and matter into a single point from which it expands is a data point evidencing the creation of matter.

Wrong. The convergence of time, space, energy, and matter into a single point which went through inflation before going into the expansion that is still occurring define an entire set of data points evidencing an energetic point of immense heat and density that went through inflation and then continued into an ongoing expansion. Energy appearing as matter and matter appearing as energy is a phenomena of physics.

As to the singularity that went through inflation and expansion, you do not have one single data point to show that it was fairy farts, unicorn smiles, infinite regression, uncaused cause, invisible and undetectable wizard chanting magic spells, or any god. There's just no evidence for any idea, yet. Your nonsequitur ramblings don't amount to data or reasoning, they just amount to nonsequitur ramblings that align to what you want to believe.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 376 by Hatuey]

MORE NONSENSE.

You just don't like logical proofs.

I don't like or dislike logical proofs; I am convinced by them, though, if they seem tenable and without fault.

When you put forth a logical proof, I will consider its rationality and do my best to understand whether it makes proper sense or not. So far you have not presented any logical proofs; you have provided your own personal opinions and called those opinions "logical proofs" which simply demonstrates that you don't know what a logical proof is.

>>>>>>>

Here is a logical proof:

Premise 1: Mammals have hair
Premise 2: Dolphins are mammals
Conclusion: Dolphins grow hair


Although it appears that dolphins do not have hair, they actually do grow hair in one place on their bodies, but I will leave that to you to investigate.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 382 by Jashwell]


Good article. You should read it.

"If we imagine particles as points, you can make the distance between two of them as small as you like, so the force becomes infinite. Ultimately this would break up the fabric of space, creating a foam of black holes. That would certainly slow Achilles down!"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19434856

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 386 by John J. Bannan]

Thanks for the link to the article going on to describe how string theory has strings with infinitely small width.
I'm not sure of what relevance your quote has to anything, but the link certainly has relevance to the most popular model that happens to flat out disagree with you.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 382 by Jashwell]


Good article. You should read it.

"If we imagine particles as points, you can make the distance between two of them as small as you like, so the force becomes infinite. Ultimately this would break up the fabric of space, creating a foam of black holes. That would certainly slow Achilles down!"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19434856

And you should read the next sentence and the rest of the article.
"Physicists can normally sidestep this problem, using the fuzziness built into quantum mechanics which allows matter to behave as particles or waves."
....

Achilles would move along in a series of small, but finite, steps. By looking at particles travelling over huge distances across the cosmos, we hope to see the accumulated effect of bumping along lots of tiny grains, rather than gliding through the smooth space which we imagine.

In the end, the answers will be found in experiments, not in our imaginations. Perhaps the most amazing thing we have discovered is the scientific method, which allows us to pose and answer questions like "How small is the Universe?". Not bad for slightly evolved cavemen!

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 387 by Jashwell]

Did you not read the title, "What is the smallest possible thing in the universe?"

It didn't say infinitesimals, by the way.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 388 by Danmark]

Ah, and the point being there is a DEBATE. Of course, you could end this debate right now if you could show me an infinitesimal.