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.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 368 by Jashwell]

Show me an infinitesimal in reality.

[Jashwell]

[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.

Perhaps you didn't recognise that it's a BBC article highlighting a discussion, and even then it's an attempt to make it expressible to the average reader.

Have we seriously got to the point that your only objection to the crushing wall of counter responses you've received is "That article I linked said infinitely small, not infinitesimal"?

[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.

Perhaps you didn't recognise that it's a BBC article highlighting a discussion, and even then it's an attempt to make it expressible to the average reader.

Have we seriously got to the point that your only objection to the crushing wall of counter responses you've received is "That article I linked said infinitely small, not infinitesimal"?

The article talks about the debate concerning whether infinitesimals are real or rather that there is a finite smallest unit of matter. The relevance of the article is to clearly point out that infinitesimals are mathematical constructs perhaps having nothing to do with reality.

"If space is composed of lots of small grains, then our problem can be solved, since no two particles can ever be closer together than the size of a grain."

[Danmark]

[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.

I just did, but it was too small for you to see. No, this debate will never end because some cannot see the writing on the wall.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 394 by Danmark]

More from the article, perhaps you missed:

"But all attempts to split quarks or electrons, even using the awesome power of the LHC have failed.

The basic building blocks seem to be points, certainly smaller than 0.0000000000000000001 metres across."

Looks like the LHC is having a hard time finding your infinitesimals. LOL!

[Jashwell]

[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.

Perhaps you didn't recognise that it's a BBC article highlighting a discussion, and even then it's an attempt to make it expressible to the average reader.

Have we seriously got to the point that your only objection to the crushing wall of counter responses you've received is "That article I linked said infinitely small, not infinitesimal"?

The article talks about the debate concerning whether infinitesimals are real or rather that there is a finite smallest unit of matter. The relevance of the article is to clearly point out that infinitesimals are mathematical constructs perhaps having nothing to do with reality.

"If space is composed of lots of small grains, then our problem can be solved, since no two particles can ever be closer together than the size of a grain."

Yes, the two year old article mentions two distinct solutions to a problem.
One of which has an infinitesimal minimal unit.
Perhaps you haven't realised it finishes with "In the end, the answers will be found in experiments, not in our imaginations.", concluding that the answer isn't yet known.

Are we really going to stay on this topic of countering your arguments from ignorance about infinity, or do you want to move on to a different objection that's been raised?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 396 by Jashwell]

The scientific answer is not known. But the logical answer is. Infinitesimals are impossible.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 396 by Jashwell]
The scientific answer is not known. But the logical answer is. Infinitesimals are *not known to be* impossible.

There, I fixed it for you.

But honestly, who do you hope to convince by throwing out the same old assertions?
Your intuition is not the same as the logical answer.

[Danmark]

The scientific answer is not known. But the logical answer is. Infinitesimals are impossible.

I think you may be missing the point [no pun intended] entirely regarding infinitesimals.
They are simply a tool, a logical reference for calculations. They are, by definition, not measurable.

'Infinitesimals have been used to express the idea of things so small that there is no way to see them or to measure them. The insight with exploiting infinitesimals was that entities could still retain certain specific properties, such as angle or slope, even though these entities were quantitatively small. The word infinitesimal comes from a 17th-century Modern Latin coinage infinitesimus, which originally referred to the "infinite-th" item in a sequence. It was originally introduced around 1670 by either Nicolaus Mercator or Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Infinitesimals are a basic building block of infinitesimal calculus. In common speech, an infinitesimal object is an object which is smaller than any feasible measurement, but not zero in size; or, so small that it cannot be distinguished from zero by any available means.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal

Or as Jashwell put it more succinctly, "Infinitesimals are mathematical constructs perhaps having nothing to do with reality."

I'm not sure how we got on this subject of infinitesimals in the first place. They are mathematical constructs, just as God is a construct, an idea. The essential issue is the question of whether there is a 'god' or not. There is not much debate if any that 'God' or 'god' is an idea, a concept. The question is whether or not this 'god' actually exists. You've shown no evidence or logical proof that he does or that he must. Bringing in another concept or construct from the field of mathematics means nothing, proves nothing about the key issue of the debate.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 399 by Danmark]

I don't think I put it that succinctly, I just implied they're as real as any other number (which I'd argue is a different context of real entirely), but he's trying to draw a line in the sand between finite and infinite numbers in the hopes that he can show "infinite causal chains" are impossible, which he seems to believe is beneficial to his argument.

Unfortunately in the 40 pages of this thread, there have been plenty other problems brought up with the various arguments put forward. And it still hasn't been demonstrated that infinite causal chains are impossible.

We've gone well off the argument in the original post and into a pseudo cosmological argument, and anything short of fully accepting the premises - including unwritten premises (for instance, that infinite causal chains or recursive causal chains are impossible) is simply stated to be false or illogical with little to no evidence beyond arguments from ignorance.

No amount of reposting "show me an infinitesimal" will demonstrate anything. I doubt the same standard would be accepted if applied to God.