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 409 by John J. Bannan]

As I said before, 1/infinity is infinitesimal. This is almost by definition.
Once again, numbers are concepts.
This is like saying "You can't divide Gandalf by 4 because 4 is a concept", no, you can't divide Gandalf by 4 because it's a meaningless statement. The very definition of divide precludes a meaningful answer if Gandalf is the first operand.

It is fallacious to say that the inability to divide by infinity means it isn't a number, as that implies something is a number IFF (if and only if) it can be divided by; an absurd statement.

Once again, there is a difference between taking the limit of 1/x as x -> infinity, and between dividing 1 by infinity. Even then, there are different infinities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
Transfinite numbers aren't finite. They're infinite in the sense that each one is bigger than any real number (i.e. counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 won't ever get you to a transfinite number).
What must be strange to you is that mathematicians call them numbers, yet they're infinite. Go figure.
(And it doesn't take a genius to realise some of the things stated in that email are dubious, it seems more like an application of authority than any meaningful truth. There certainly isn't any real math in it, just philosophy. )

Once again, it seems you don't believe zero is a number. Is this the case?

Recursion still requires a set function to apply to itself. The function must be set and the recursion cannot set its own function.

Recursion just refers to a relation in which something can be perceived to invoke itself. A recursive causal chain could just be a circular one. Saying "the function must be set" is meaningless.

This is Chaos theory.

... no. This has absolutely nothing to do with chaos theory.

But, you still need to have a set of rules that can be applied to itself, but the reiteration of those rules into themselves cannot set the initial rules.

The part that recurs only has one set of rules. Otherwise it's not recurring.

Hence, recursion also requires a beginning point which defines these rules.

No more than an ending point or any point in the middle. The current moment is sufficient.

For example, you could hold 2 mirrors parallel to each other and this would create a recursion. But, you still need the initial 2 mirrors for this to work.

Yet the initial 2 mirrors have nothing to do with the actual recursion even in the analogy; if they did it'd be a biased analogy. The mirrors aren't recurring, the reflection is.

The mirrors are the rules acting upon themselves, but someone has to define the mirrors first at the beginning.

Once again, "define" here is meaningless.


To save you the trouble, do you believe time began, or do you believe infinite time has elapsed?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 411 by Jashwell]

So, you think a math professor at a major university, Dr. Wallace, doesn't know what he's talking about then that one divided by infinity is undefined?

Recursion still needs a set ORDER. Recursion cannot create its own ORDER.

I believe material time in our particular universe began with the Big Bang.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 412 by John J. Bannan]

I think anyone that says "the reason you can't divide by infinity is it's a concept" and then compares it to dividing by justice shouldn't be taken seriously in that regard.
He's clearly not a professor of the philosophy of mathematics - and it seems he's unaware of the existence of transfinites and infinities beyond that of calculus. His critical thinking skills are worrying for a maths professor.
I wonder if he believes if zero is a number. It'd be worrying if he didn't, and contradictory if he did.

And again, shouting buzzwords is meaningless. Especially if you're going to shout buzzwords as an unjustified premise.


I take it from 'material time' you're going to imply there isn't a contradiction in believing there was nothing before the Big Bang, because you're going to be like "now i'm talking about immaterial time". Which is entirely meaningless, you may as well say "there was nothing North of the big bang".

If not and it's just some kind of guard from the flaws inherent to the argument, why don't you believe matter and energy is eternal? Eternal as in, existing for all time. If time is finite (and you don't believe in infinites, outside of special pleading) then mass-energy only needs to have existed for the same finite amount of time - and it will still have always been there.

(Though the real problem with the argument is the special pleading needed to be invoked)

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 411 by Jashwell]

So, you think a math professor at a major university, Dr. Wallace, doesn't know what he's talking about then that one divided by infinity is undefined?

Please document Dr. [no name] Wallace's credentials.
If he is a professor at Drexel University he should be listed on their faculty.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 413 by Jashwell]

I don't believe matter/energy is eternal, because there was a Big Bang that appears to have created time/matter/energy. Also, causal chains require a starting ORDER, so time must have a beginning.

Immaterial time is God's time, if God even has time.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, you think a math professor at a major university, Dr. Wallace, doesn't know what he's talking about then that one divided by infinity is undefined?

Please document Dr. [no name] Wallace's credentials.
If he is a professor at Drexel University he should be listed on their faculty.

There does not appear to be a "Dr. Wallace" listed as faculty in Mathematics Department of Drexel University.

http://www.drexel.edu/math/contact/facultyDirectory/

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 416 by Zzyzx]

"Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Even Wiki agrees that infinity is a concept and not a number. Dr. Joe Wallace, you are vindicated, wherever you are!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 416 by Zzyzx]

"Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields, predominantly mathematics and physics. In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Even Wiki agrees that infinity is a concept and not a number. Dr. Joe Wallace, you are vindicated, wherever you are!

First, you refuse to identify or give the qualifications for this Dr. Wallace you relied upon. Now you cite a sentence from Wikipedia that is not footnoted. Wikipedia itself is not a source; its value lies in the sources it relies on. You've failed to identify your claim with an actual source.

Much more importantly, as others have pointed out, you have long abandoned trying to defend your original claim of a "proof' of God, and insist on going down one rabbit hole after another that does not relate to your original failed proof. You can end the debate, as you said, by admitting you cannot back up your 'proof' as claimed in the OP.

[Jashwell]

Two sentences down the line,
" In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e., a number greater than any real number"

Incidentally, the set of integers is countably infinite in quantity. If all integers aren't just concepts in the sense you believe, then they number in infinity. If not, could you please explain to us how many are there, and which integers do and don't make the final cut?
(The same can be said for all of the real numbers, except they are uncountably infinite)

[Replying to post 413 by Jashwell]

I don't believe matter/energy is eternal, because there was a Big Bang that appears to have created time/matter/energy. Also, causal chains require a starting ORDER, so time must have a beginning.

Immaterial time is God's time, if God even has time.

Well you see; if there is an end (by which I just mean like the end of a ruler, or the "beginning" of a film) of time in the finite past, then things need only exist then and after to be eternal. Because there isn't such a thing as before that.

Which means, first of all, the big bang was immediate (I'm not sure if it were this or another thread where that was relevant), but second of all, it doesn't violate mass-energy conservation. It doesn't say "there was nothing, and then there was everything", it just describes the expansion from (at the least) a much denser state of the Universe.

If time "begins" at t0, and mass-energy "begins" at t0, then there's never a time when mass energy doesn't exist, any more than there is a time when time doesn't exist.


I use quote marks because if by beginning you mean, "a time in which the object exists, wherein at preceding moments it does not" (as in, it isn't there, THEN it is), it doesn't apply to the first point in time or anything occurring synonymously.

If on the other hand, you just mean the temporal 'end' of it, then it does apply, but then it doesn't imply that it ever didn't exist.

[Zzyzx]

.

Even Wiki agrees that infinity is a concept and not a number.

Notice that I do not debate the topic of infinity (or origin of the universe, or beginning of life) and do not pretend to know such things – but leave discussion of such things to those who claim to have adequate knowledge (but do not agree to accept their pontifications).

Dr. Joe Wallace, you are vindicated, wherever you are!

That certainly is a non-response to request for reference to your supposed source. Since there is no "Dr. Wallace" on the Drexel University Mathematics Department faculty, perhaps you are citing the Dr. Joe Wallace who is a dentist in Texas, the GP in Connecticut, the surgeon in Alabama?

Are you attempting to defend some theological position with smoke and mirrors?