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]

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

What made you think something eternal needs creating in the first place? Are you forgetting that it is the same arguement why the first cause does not need a cause?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 421 by Bust Nak]

Pointing out the need for a first cause or first order does not mean material reality must be eternal. Rather, it means that there must be something immaterial responsible for first cause and first order. It is illogical to assume the material can exist eternally without beginning. Therefore, the logical thing to do is assume the immaterial is responsible. There is no law on this Earth that says that we must know or be capable of seeing all that there is in terms of the universe.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 418 by Danmark]

So, Dr. Wallace and Wiki still aren't good enough for you. They would be for most people. Nonetheless, here's an explanation for you.

You can show me 1 apple. You can never show me an infinity of apples.

Even if you showed me the largest grouping of apples you could gather, I could always say, I want 1 more apple. This is why infinity is a concept, and not a number. Infinity is the concept of "just one more". Infinity is not a number.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 419 by Jashwell]

Let me point out the obvious for you. The Big Bang is the beginning of time in our particular universe. It is utterly inconceivable that only one Big Bang could ever be the case. Hence, there must be the possibility of other Big Bangs. Hence, there is an "outside" of our particular universe in another form of reality than what we are used to. Hence, the beginning of time in our particular universe is not the beginning of reality despite the Big Bang being the beginning of reality in our particular universe. Hence, there is a reality beyond our particular universe. Hence, the reality beyond our particular universe is not affected by the beginning of time in our particular universe. Hence, the beginning of time in our particular universe is not the end all of reality. Hence, you know nothing of the reality beyond our particular universe that nonetheless must be real. Hence, you should start admitting of things which you do not know and probably an absolute understanding of which cannot be derived from anything within our particular universe. Therein lies the mystery of the reality beyond our universe that must be the case and the God-like attributes of this reality beyond our universe.

[Bust Nak]

Pointing out the need for a first cause or first order does not mean material reality must be eternal.

What are you talking about? That's unrelated to anything I said, no where have I implied material reality must be eternal because you claimed there was a need for a first cause. I am saying it is the exact same argument used to suggest first cause is itself uncaused.

Rather, it means that there must be something immaterial responsible for first cause and first order. It is illogical to assume the material can exist eternally without beginning. Therefore, the logical thing to do is assume the immaterial is responsible.

Is it illogcal to assume the material can exist eternally without beginning? Is it less logical to assume the material cannot exist eternally without beginning? That's for you to demonstrate.

Beside I was talking about infinite regression, even if there was an immaterial cause for this universe, doesn't imply that immaterial cause was itself uncaused.

There is no law on this Earth that says that we must know or be capable of seeing all that there is in terms of the universe.

Sure, what of it? You are under the impression that I was suggesting we must know or be capable of seeing all that there is in terms of the universe?

Hence, you should start admitting of things which you do not know and probably an absolute understanding of which cannot be derived from anything within our particular universe. Therein lies the mystery of the reality beyond our universe that must be the case and the God-like attributes of this reality beyond our universe.

You didn't find that the least bit ironic? No one knows anything "before the Big Bang" therefore it MUST be the case that...

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 425 by Bust Nak]

1) Reality implies the option of absence of reality aka pure nothingness.
2) Because pure nothingness cannot cause reality, then reality must be uncaused by process of elimination because there is nothing else available to cause reality.
3) Because all material reality requires a cause and because nothing can cause itself, and because reality is ultimately uncaused, one can conclude that there must be more to reality than just material reality.
4) Hence, one can conclude there is an uncaused immaterial reality with God-like attributes.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 419 by Jashwell]
Let me point out the obvious for you. The Big Bang is the beginning of time in our particular universe. It is utterly inconceivable that only one Big Bang could ever be the case.

It's entirely conceivable. More to the point is that one's ability to conceive of a different reality does not make it a possibility.

Hence, there must be the possibility of other Big Bangs.

This does not follow.

Hence, there is an "outside" of our particular universe in another form of reality than what we are used to.

This does not follow.

Hence, the beginning of time in our particular universe is not the beginning of reality despite the Big Bang being the beginning of reality in our particular universe.

This does not follow.

Hence, there is a reality beyond our particular universe.

This might well follow from the previous, not that it matters at this point.

Hence, the reality beyond our particular universe is not affected by the beginning of time in our particular universe.

This does not follow.

Hence, the beginning of time in our particular universe is not the end all of reality.

"end all" ?

Hence, you know nothing of the reality beyond our particular universe that nonetheless must be real.

I see no reason to think there is reality "beyond" this Universe. It also wouldn't follow that I knew nothing - I'd know it cohabited with or was occupied by this Universe.

Hence, you should start admitting of things which you do not know and probably an absolute understanding of which cannot be derived from anything within our particular universe.

I know (in the sense that I believe with good reason) that there is nothing beyond a "physical" reality, whatever it means to be "non-physical" (an ill defined pseudo category with no real positive attributes). Believing in such would be a violation of the principle of Occam's razor, and would lead me to forfeit the ability to deny any truth claim.

This also doesn't follow, but I'm just assuming "hence" was a poor choice of words.

Maybe I should start engaging in arguments from ignorance and ask you to show me an outside of the Universe in reality.

Therein lies the mystery of the reality beyond our universe that must be the case and the God-like attributes of this reality beyond our universe.

You should start admitting of things which you do not know

[McCulloch]

I don't believe matter/energy is eternal, because there was a Big Bang that appears to have created time/matter/energy.

It all depends on what you mean by the word eternal. To me, the word eternal does not mean for an infinite length of time. It means for all time. So matter/energy is eternal; it has existed and will continue to exist for all time. But since time itself is finite, matter/energy is finite as well.

Also, causal chains require a starting ORDER, so time must have a beginning.

Agreed. Time appears to be finite.

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

I don't know what you mean. All time is immaterial. To some, God exists outside of the time space continuum, but then to avoid certain paradoxes, whatever it is that God exists within is usually provided with at least one hypothetical time-like dimension.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 418 by Danmark]

So, Dr. Wallace and Wiki still aren't good enough for you. They would be for most people. Nonetheless, here's an explanation for you.

You can show me 1 apple. You can never show me an infinity of apples.

Even if you showed me the largest grouping of apples you could gather, I could always say, I want 1 more apple. This is why infinity is a concept, and not a number. Infinity is the concept of "just one more". Infinity is not a number.

Well, infinity has the same quality as a number. They BOTH are conceptual. A number is a concept too.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 427 by Jashwell]

Why do you maintain that it is reasonably conceivable that only our particular Big Bang ever happened or could ever happen?