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 238 by Jashwell]

Of course, determinism logically results in the necessity of a first cause. As you appear to disagree, then I would love to hear how you explain the order of any given causal chain as well as explain how a causal chain can logically have no starting point.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 242 by John J. Bannan]

I'm not disappointed and not surprised. I just don't believe you.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 239 by Danmark]

Your belief that my proof is the prime mover argument just goes to show that you do not understand my proof. If you want to call my proof something, you should try "Prime Constraint" argument - although I prefer "double dichotomy".

The "Prime Mover" argument does not talk about pure nothingness, it does not talk about dichotomies, it does not talk about the need for an unnecessary uncaused first starting point, it does not talk about the inherent order of creation, and it does not talk about undefined probabilities making randomness impossible.

My proof is quite a bit different than the "Prime Mover" argument.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 244 by Danmark]

So you don't believe me? Why don't you trying asking the atheists themselves whether they understand pure nothingness. Try that, and you'll see that I am not lying at all.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 240 by Danmark]

Well, if you understood him, then explain what he meant.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 244 by Danmark]

So you don't believe me? Why don't you trying asking the atheists themselves whether they understand pure nothingness. Try that, and you'll see that I am not lying at all.

I did not accuse you of lying. I said I don't believe you. There's a big difference. Perhaps an atheist here will agree with your claim. They have not so far.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 243:

Of course, determinism logically results in the necessity of a first cause. As you appear to disagree, then I would love to hear how you explain the order of any given causal chain as well as explain how a causal chain can logically have no starting point.

My issue with this first cause notion is where folks declare some conscious entity is the first cause.

It also rejects the notion that the universe can't have always existed, in one form or another, while declaring this conscious entity has. I find it a purely anthropomorphic argument from incredulity.

Data indicates that consciousness is a product of the physical.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 239 by Danmark]

Your belief that my proof is the prime mover argument just goes to show that you do not understand my proof. If you want to call my proof something, you should try "Prime Constraint" argument - although I prefer "double dichotomy".

The "Prime Mover" argument does not talk about pure nothingness, it does not talk about dichotomies, it does not talk about the need for an unnecessary uncaused first starting point, it does not talk about the inherent order of creation, and it does not talk about undefined probabilities making randomness impossible.

My proof is quite a bit different than the "Prime Mover" argument.

"Sorry to disappoint you," but yours is exactly the "Prime Mover" argument. You wrote:

However, the universe must have had a first starting point which cannot have been necessary, because anything necessary is only made necessary due to its cause. The uncaused cannot be necessary.

Rewording it or changing the terms does not distinguish it.
The rest of your explanation is pure doubletalk:

Knowing that the 2nd option is pure nothingness also allows one to know the nature of existence as the mutually exclusive jointly exhaustive opposite of pure nothingness, i.e. all possible all inclusive states of existence.

This is an example of why I do not believe can objectively judge whether someone does not understand you, or whether what you wrote is not comprehensible. And those are certainly not 'mutually exclusive.'

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 238 by Jashwell]

Of course, determinism logically results in the necessity of a first cause. As you appear to disagree, then I would love to hear how you explain the order of any given causal chain as well as explain how a causal chain can logically have no starting point.

1. No, determinism does not rely upon a "first cause" because there are various types of determinists, and various ideas within determinism.

2. Not all atheists are determinists.

3. Nobody can tell whether there was a "first cause" or "infinite regression" or some other equally unlikely idea. "First cause" has no more logic or evidence for it than "infinite regression" or another idea that might be true-yet-so-far-unidentified.

4. "Pure nothingness" is quite simple to imagine, and atheists are better at it than believers for obvious reasons--but I'll spell it out for you--atheists don't always have a "god idea" rattling around in the back of their heads like believers do that resists any imagination attempt to think without its presence.

5. Just because you want to chase rabbit trails that appear when an atheist here sounds refutes one of your premises does not mean that the atheists here have forgotten the impotence of your original "arguments" that were proven ineffective.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 238 by Jashwell]

Of course, determinism logically results in the necessity of a first cause. As you appear to disagree, then I would love to hear how you explain the order of any given causal chain as well as explain how a causal chain can logically have no starting point.

No, determinism merely makes the entire Universe certain, future and past.
Once again you smuggle in premises that not everyone accepts.

Causality is a model that is relevant where the second law is relevant, and away from relativity, and nowhere else.
Causality does not work so well when the change in energy and/or complexity is small or when modelling time as a variable completely separated from everything else is not appropriate.
Yeah, it's intuitive, and that's because it applies to everyday life... not to high energy physics, not to general relativity, and certainly not to quantum physics.

It is literally impossible to demonstrate causality as true beyond being a model that happens to be valid in these situations. That includes day to day happenings, not so much the temporal edges of the Universe... and that's not even given zero-energy Universe models. Causality has a context, and you can't just use it wherever you please. Every cause has an effect so what business are we in assuming that because one comes first that it has to be the reason for the second? How do we know that effects don't lead to causes, but retroprogressively? We don't, because causality is a trivial model dating back to Aristotle and he never quite thought that through. In fact I'd say that we know either way makes equal sense.

Think of the Universe as a flip book or as a film - it's all there, all moments are 'real' in some context, you can just only play through them one page/frame at a time (and it makes more sense in one direction).
There was never not a Universe - the Universe has always existed because time is a part of the Universe. In the same sense that the Universe exists everywhere because space is a part of the Universe.


Summary version:
Not all determinists accept the same premises you do.


Oh, and even if they did accept that everything had a cause, loop quantum gravity suggests a Universe in which time can have a closed timelike curve - in which case, you'd get no infinite chain of causality, you'd get the future causing the past.


So are you happy with
1) Admitting you were wrong about science "not knowing why science exists"
2) That you are doubly guilty of special pleading
3) That you are doubly guilty of begging the question
4) That God is not only an unnecessary violation of Occam's razor but a fairly meaningless and uninterpretable one at that