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.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 94 by FarWanderer]

You appear to be under the misimpression that the possible must at some point become real. I reject this idea. There are things that are logically possible, but never become REAL. You only think I am contradicting myself regarding the word possible, because you are stuck in a particular mindset that denies there can be a "possible" that never becomes REAL. Actually, my use of the word "possible" is what most people think of as "possible", not what you think of the word "possible".

I'm fully aware that "possible" means different things in different contexts.

My problem is that you are saying both of these things:

A) That nothingness is possible.
B) That you aren't saying that nothingness is possible.

Here is where you claim nothingness is possible:

You do not understand my proof. Sure, I am claiming that pure nothingness is possible, and yes, pure nothingness would not include God. But, I am also saying that pure nothingness is not the case. See #1 in my proof. You don't seem to be comprehending the difference between possible but not real and possible but real.

Here is where you deny claiming that nothingness is possible:

Nope. I am not saying it is possible God does not exist. Rather, I am saying God would not have existed if pure nothingness were the case, which it is not the case.

It doesn't matter what you mean by "possible"; you are still contradicting yourself. At best you simply meant different things each time you used the word "possible" and have failed to realize that the reader has no way to tell which "possible" is supposed to be which.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 1 by John J. Bannan]

Bannan, metaphysics is not a science and is not even a soft science. It is the same as using astrology to prove some science theory.

Why haven't you submitted your theory to be published for review in a scientific publication?

Second, Plato was trying show that gods must the cause for such things as rain, movement of the moon, etc. Multiply gods and movers for almost everything that could not be explained. gods of the gap. And you are still using the God of the gap argument.

So, from about 370 BC Philosophers (not scientists) have discussed things science have not formed a working theory to explain. Again, a god for all the gaps in human knowledge.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to John J. Bannan]

You speak of the multiverse as if it were not only a proven fact, but something we actually know something about. Which is pretty far from the truth. The concept of a multiverse makes sense on many levels, but it's still pretty far from a proven fact. We as yet have no direct proof of a multiverse, only indirect speculation. So making predictions that violate the law of conservation of energy, something we DO have good direct evidence for, is hardly warranted yet. And there certainly is no evidence to support the notion that the universe, or multiple universes, is anything other than a natural phenomenon.

It is often said, and widely postulated to be true, that everything has a beginning. In fact this is entirely ERRONEOUS. Everything is in fact a continuation of things that went before. No spontaneous beginnings are observed AT ALL. For example, I did not exist as a discreet individual prior to 1948. The material that had the potential to become me however, existed with my parents, just as the material that would become them existed with their parents. Every particle in my body, from the moment of my conception to this very moment has existed for billions of years, AT LEAST, in other forms. Everything is recycled and reused. Energy takes many forms, but it's potential always remains constant. If the law of conservation of energy is correct and inviolate, then the material that the universe is composed of has in fact existed eternally. Based on all observation, when we consider the beginning of the universe as a discreetly unique collection of energy, there is absolutely no basis for supposing that the universe simply popped into being where nothing had existed before. We have ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE with such a condition. Based on all observation and experience, we have every reason to suppose that the universe was born as a result of conditions which already existed.

Even if all that were true, you still can't explain the initial conditions of the universe and/or multiverse among an infinite number of possible initial conditions. Because there are an infinite number of possible initial conditions, then no given initial condition has a defined probability. Hence, randomness cannot give rise to an initial condition that does not have a defined probability. Any way you cut it, you're stuck with a need for God to select the initial conditions.

First, apologies for this tardy reply. I have been away for several days attending my son's wedding.

Can I explain in complete detail the conditions that existed, from the moment prior to the big bang right down to the present time? No. Most physicists feel that they can describe MOST of the conditions that existed, but not all. Admittedly, there are gaps in our knowledge. Being human and not possessing supernatural powers, I suspect that there will always be gaps in our knowledge. And yet the clear and obvious success of our technology leads us to conclude that what we think we DO understand about the workings of the universe is probably reasonably accurate. One of the things that has become obvious over the last few centuries, is that declaring "God did it," is a sure fire path to a dead end, because IT ELIMINATES ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

Your problem is that you are still insisting on viewing the universe from a religious perspective, which is to say, that the entire universe was created to accommodate human beings. This is such an incredibly chauvinistic and human centric position to take that it is almost child-like in it's simplicity. How much more reasonable is it to suppose that we exist in a universe that simply allows for our sort of existence. Because while it could be true that "an infinite number of possible initial conditions" COULD have arisen to define the parameters of our universe, only ONE set of conditions can prevail at any given time. The conditions which exist at this given time, allow for the existence of life. And because the universe is vast and the expanses of time are enormous, those things which are possible have an increasingly statistical chance of becoming real.

Let me tell you a story of a conversation I once had with a woman. She told me that the existence of God is obvious, and she could prove it. It has been thousands of years, she declared, since Noah's flood. And in all of that time the level of the oceans has remained reasonably constant. And yet every year, during all of those intervening thousands of years, it has rained. A supernatural power, she maintained, is responsible for causing the water level to remain constant, otherwise the world would have been entirely covered in water again by now. Because in her mind it is just an obvious fact that the rain falls directly from heaven fresh and new each time it rains. This sort of child-like view of the world is hard to explain in the 21st century. It does nicely explain how the ancients viewed reality however. And you still share in this ancient misconception of reality yourself, to a degree, as do so many religious individuals, who continue to cling to the notion that this entire vast universe was "created" specifically for us to exist in. Seriously, we are neither that great, nor that important. Science ceased to be "stuck with the need for a God" to explain existence decades ago. What science is busily doing now is trying to figure out how to best utilize the prevailing conditions to our advantage. As opposed to over a thousand years of the so called "dark ages," when the stultifying notion that "God did it" so therefore no other investigation was warranted, kept humanity deeply enveloped in abject misery and squalor. Ancient beliefs and concepts die hard, even among modern people who routinely use smart phone and computers, and yet all the while dismissing the very science that made these devices possible.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 100 by Inigo Montoya]

So, I take it you have no theory of why existence exists?

No one has popped a hole in my proof. There are of course contrary assertions, but not a single one of those assertions amounts to more than a difference in opinion.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 101 by FarWanderer]

There is metaphysically possible and real.

There is metaphysically possible but can never be real.

There is possible but not real.

Pure nothingness is metaphysically possible but can never be real.

God is metaphysically possible and real.

Another universe, say, is possible but not real.

Clear enough?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 102 by Donray]

When did I say metaphysics is science?

Metaphysics is philosophy.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 106 by John J. Bannan]

Maths and science were philosophy. (Whether they are now is up for debate)

Metaphysics, applied for theology, is an area rich in vague, ill-defined terms carrying unexpected baggage leading to arguments that practically assume the conclusion.

The word supernatural, for instance. It has no positive properties save the fact that it's almost universally used to describe something that is impossible by any reasonable sense of the word by saying "oh no, those are the natural laws, it doesn't need to follow those" as if that were a good excuse.

Similarly, simply using "metaphysical" as an adjective adds nothing. Describing concepts as an element of metaphysics is not descriptive and claiming concepts are "grounded in metaphysics" or "metaphysically justified" is neither usefully descriptive nor validatively impressive.


For example: care to describe a theoretically plausible and otherwise inexplicable difference between a possibility and a metaphysical possibility?


I would've made a joke about the following, but it is in fact a real topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metametaphysics

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 105 by John J. Bannan]

What's the difference between "metaphysically impossible" and "can never be real"?

[Zzyzx]

.

So, I take it you have no theory of why existence exists?

I have no theories about "existence", origin of the universe, or beginning of life. If such things made any difference in my life I would delve into them and attempt to learn all I could. However, having no such speculations has not adversely affected my life in any way.

The people who seem most concerned about such speculations appear to be religionists attempting to make a case for their favorite "creator god" plus occasional philosophers, plus a few scientists who study such things.

Religionists tend to put forth their conjecture about "gods" and demand that others provide alternatives OR disprove the god conjectures.

No one has popped a hole in my proof.

Your "proof" appears to be speculation.

There are of course contrary assertions, but not a single one of those assertions amounts to more than a difference in opinion.

Exactly. You make assertions others make assertions. How does that differ from school recess arguments about the existence of Santa Claus (other than perhaps use of more complex terminology – bigger words)?

There is possible and real.

Agreed

There is possible but not real.

Can absolute non-existence or impossibility be demonstrated (beyond conjecture and speculation)?

There is metaphysically possible but can never be real.

Metaphysical speculation appears to me to be the recourse of those who cannot support their contentions with sound evidence – or who are unconcerned with evidence.

(Using the definition of metaphysics: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses – or – Based on speculative or abstract reasoning – or – Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse )

It might be useful to know that in these debates many are realists / naturalists (as opposed to surrealists / supernaturalists) – this one in particular. Unless one can substantiate that their claims of knowledge are based upon verifiable information, they are just "blowing smoke" as far as I am concerned.

Show me what is real – not what you (generic term) speculate about. Show evidence – not testimonials. Show that the sources you rely upon or quote are truthful and accurate.

Pure nothingness is metaphysically possible but can never be real.

That may be meaningful to those who fancy themselves as knowledgeable of metaphysics.

God is possible and real.

Any of the thousands of proposed "gods" are POSSIBLE. None have been shown to be real or to be anything more than the product of human imagination.

Another universe, say, is possible but not real.

Can anyone prove that another universe is or is not real?

Clear enough?

What has been made clear to me is that religionists will often go to great lengths to justify their belief in "gods."

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 107 by Jashwell]

Metaphysical possibility ---> 1.....X...4 There is a possibility X=3.

Possibility -----> Janet .........X...........Dave. There is a possibility X is named Carl and he works at a pub.