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 441 by Donray]

Actually, I do know the answer. It's not 42.

We exist because God created our universe.

God exists because God is uncaused and because pure nothingness is not the case.

God simply is.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 442 by Danmark]

Pure nothingness and reality as both uncaused but mutually exclusive are not ridiculous claims. A God-like mechanism necessary for the creation of material reality is not a ridiculous claim. The Big Bang is evidence of the creation of material reality. Infinite causal chains without beginning and infinitesimals, now that's absurd.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 443 by FarWanderer]

That which caused the Big Bang.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 449 by John J. Bannan]

I think I'm catching on to ORDER equalling "the reason your idea doesn't work but mine does", though whether it's intuition or intention is beyond me.

Why must a material reality be caused? ORDER
Why can't you have a recursive causal cycle? ORDER
Why can't you have an infinite causal chain? ORDER
Why can an immaterial reality be uncaused? ORDER

If the supernatural card is already being played (i.e. "everything must follow these laws except X") what's with the need for "ORDER"?

Why not just say "It's supernatural so it works because magic while yours doesn't work because no magic"

Actually, I do know the answer. It's not 42.

We exist because God created our universe.

God exists because God is uncaused and because pure nothingness is not the case.

God simply is.

In other words, either God doesn't have purpose or we don't need God for purpose.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 454 by Jashwell]

No. Actually there are 2 arguments: first cause and first order. But, they are related. First cause is the simple observation that all material things have a cause. Hence, there must be a first cause because infinite causal chains without beginning are absurd.

First ORDER is the simple observation that there is a discrete spatial relationship between all things and that spatial relationship is determined by a prior spatial relationship. Hence, there must be a first ORDER because infinite causal ORDER without beginning is also absurd.

An immaterial reality can be uncaused because of the dichotomy with pure nothingness. Because pure nothingness is not the case, then it must be the case that the inherent nature of the universe is to create - however, because pure nothingness cannot cause this immaterial reality and there is no option left for causing it, then it must be uncaused. It must be immaterial, because all material reality has a cause. So, there must be something more to reality than just material reality, and hence there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

The inherent nature of the universe to create is not magic - it simply is and must be the case. God is the "embodiment" of this inherent nature of the universe to create.

[Hatuey]

Hence, there must be a first cause because infinite causal chains without beginning are absurd.

Please demonstrate that a first cause is less absurd than infinite causality.

_____________

You keep insisting that your god is logical because it's the only way your world makes sense, but you have yet to show one logical reason why anyone should think as you do.

[Hatuey]

Because pure nothingness is not the case, then it must be the case that the inherent nature of the universe is to create - however, because pure nothingness cannot cause this immaterial reality and there is no option left for causing it, then it must be uncaused. It must be immaterial, because all material reality has a cause. So, there must be something more to reality than just material reality, and hence there must be an uncaused immaterial reality.

The inherent nature of the universe to create is not magic - it simply is and must be the case. God is the "embodiment" of this inherent nature of the universe to create.

Plenty of nonchristian deists might agree with this sentiment, but they have no logical reason to do so, nor any philosophical justification, but either way, it doesn't get you any closer to the god of the bible. In fact, the sort of god one might propose from the above reasoning would NOT be the god of the bible.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 454 by Jashwell]

No. Actually there are 2 arguments: first cause and first order. But, they are related. First cause is the simple observation that all material things have a cause.

It's not simple to observe ALL material things.
Perhaps you're thinking of another argument from ignorance?

More to the point, causality is descriptive not prescriptive.
All material things must have words to describe them because all material things I know have words to describe them. This is a clearly silly premise, there's no physical law that requires things to be named, it's just useful to name things ... like it is to label things caused.

You can't observe literal dependence, you can't prove a literal cause to effect mechanism.

Hence, there must be a first cause because infinite causal chains without beginning are absurd.

You mean because you find them absurd and really want there to be a first cause.

First ORDER is the simple observation that there is a discrete spatial relationship between all things and that spatial relationship is determined by a prior spatial relationship.

Once again, it may be simple for you to observe all things but it isn't for me.

How did you reach the conclusion "and that spatial relationship is determined by a prior spatial relationship"? Why not "and that spatial relationship is determined by a later spatial relationship" or "and that spatial relationship is consistent with a prior spatial relationship"?

You are seeing a pyramid one cross section at a time and assuming that each depends on the last, rather than recognising that it is simply a geometric shape of a higher dimension.

Hence, there must be a first ORDER because infinite causal ORDER without beginning is also absurd.

Why's it absurd?

An immaterial reality can be uncaused because of the dichotomy with pure nothingness.

No. The issue is why you say "Material reality can't but immaterial can". Not only this, but the fact that I'm assuming your set of possibly immaterial things ain't that inclusive.

It is entirely trivial whether or not by immaterial you simply mean uncaused or otherwise capable of evading your own premises (you have been and will continue to be using an argument that specially pleads), what lead you to think that "God is immaterial" and that the first seemingly material thing wasn't? What if the singularity were immaterial?

It'd be a lot simpler to acknowledge that some conventions are descriptive and not prescriptive, and that you shouldn't assume literally every thing must follow an intuition.

It's like saying "everything is describable", and then when you find something that you can't describe, saying that it's supernatural so your first premise is still the case. There can be reasons to categorise things, but to specially plead ain't a good one.

Because pure nothingness is not the case, then it must be the case that the inherent nature of the universe is to create

No.
Not even if I acknowledged the use of buzzword, heavily baggaged metaphysical terms (do they all mix description with prescription?) in attempts logical proofs would I say this, in any way, follows.

"Because it's not raining, it must be the case that the inherent nature of the weather is ..."
"to not rain" - clearly false
"to not rain... now" - clearly meaningless

because pure nothingness cannot cause this immaterial reality and there is no option left for causing it, then it must be uncaused.

Aside from the fact that "caused by nothing" literally means "uncaused" (and "caused itself" can be used for this, though that is semantically different), you've assumed there is an immaterial reality for no reason.

It must be immaterial, because all material reality has a cause.

It's a much better model to say "Almost everything has a cause" or "Causality generally applies in these conditions: { ... }" than it is to invent a binary categorisation for the explicit purpose of violating your own premise.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 442 by Danmark]

Pure nothingness and reality as both uncaused but mutually exclusive are not ridiculous claims. A God-like mechanism necessary for the creation of material reality is not a ridiculous claim. The Big Bang is evidence of the creation of material reality. Infinite causal chains without beginning and infinitesimals, now that's absurd.

Whenever you resort to "God-like mechanism" and similar claims you are conceding:
1. Special Pleading
and
2. The invocation of Magic to support your claims.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 454 by Jashwell]

No. Actually there are 2 arguments: first cause and first order. But, they are related. First cause is the simple observation that all material things have a cause. Hence, there must be a first cause because infinite causal chains without beginning are absurd.

In addition to your other errors, your entire 'proof' rests upon your bare and unsupported claim there must be a "first cause" [which is self contradictory],and your arbitrary special pleading that, that first cause must be your personal choice:
"God."
This spurious and futile attempt has been repeated by you on this thread ad nauseum and has convinced no one, except possibly yourself.