A Proof of Creation

[John J. Bannan]

A PROOF OF CREATION

1] A universe that exists forever must be capable of an infinite number of permutations that can become real.

2] A universe that is capable of an infinite number of permutations that can become real must also never reach an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.

3] It is impossible for an infinite number of permutations that can become real to co-exist with an infinite number of permutations that cannot become real because infinity cannot distinguish itself.

4] Hence, the universe must not exist forever.

5] Because the universe does exist but cannot exist forever, the universe must be created.

6] Because creation must be real, then there is no such thing as an infinite number of permutations that can never become real because the creator can create all possible permutations.

7] Because there is no such thing as an infinite number of permutations that can never become real, an eternal universe without a creator is impossible because such a universe must admit of an infinite number of permutations that can never become real.

8] Hence, a creator of the universe must be real in order to distinguish infinity from itself.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 167 by Jashwell]

I did not ask you what the purpose of the universe is. I asked you why the universe exists in the first place? Assume for argument's sake that there is no purpose. So, how comes the universe exists in the first place?

You asked WHY, that typically means "for what purpose" - I obviously don't believe there is one. If you mean "how", then it would've been better to say "how", in which case, yet again there is no further explanation.

It exists, and that's that. It is a static 4D(+) object. (or a dynamic 3D(+) object if you want to look at it that way). It doesn't need a further mechanism, anymore than you can say "How is pi 3.1415...?" - sure, you could say "it's the ratio of circumference to diameter", but it doesn't depend on that, it just is that.

[Replying to post 167 by Jashwell]

I know God is an intelligent creator, because determinism and random selection cannot adequately explain the mechanism of choice necessary to solve the triple paradox nor adequate explanations to explain first ORDER.

You mean you THINK that they can't solve a paradox you THINK exists.
Once again, we've gone back to "ORDER". See every previous response.

The creator must be something that can create anything it wants whenever it wants to and wherever it wants to in order to solve the triple paradox.

If you were on the other side, you'd be asking how the creator decides what to create, and pointing out the supposed quadruple paradox.

Now, the best description for such a mechanism is an "intelligent" mechanism, although the analogy to human intelligence is obviously at best a rough analogy but the best analogy one can give in light of the fact that the human brain being the greatest machine known to us in the universe is the best possible analogy one can give.

I wouldn't call it a machine, the body is the machine, the brain is the computer.
Don't see why this is any better than either a necessary or random solution.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 166 by Divine Insight]

I am extrapolating on reality. I am pointing out that our universe APPEARS to be paradoxical because the universe APPEARS to be everlasting and undergoing an infinity of new permutations and an infinity of new permutations it can never reach and an infinity of new permutations it MAY or MAY NOT reach.

My proof is not mathematical per se, but based on the simple observation of reality and where it APPEARS to be headed in terms of infinity creating a triple paradox under determinism and/or random selection.

But your so-called "triple paradox" is indeed based upon nothing more than abstract mathematical concepts.

And more to the point, your claim on that point is even false. I have already shown how to resolve your so-called "triple paradox" that is easily resolved as a "single" concept, not a triple concept, as you have claimed. So you haven't even offered up a single valid paradox much less a "triple paradox".

Your entire objection is totally based on your own personal problems with the mathematical formalism of the concept of infinity.

Moreover, imagining an immaterial God character that doesn't physical exist who can do whatever he wants even if his behavior is paradoxical doesn't solve anything.

All you've proposed in this entire thread is that you can't handle reality in your mind, so you need to pretend that there exists a "God" who can.

You claimed to have a "Proof of Creation". But we have since learned that you don't even accept modern mathematical formalism, and that you view the concept of infinity itself to be paradoxical. Therefore you claim to have a mathematical "Proof of Creation" is absurd. You don't even accept mathematical formalism in its current modern form. Therefore you can hardly claim to have a mathematical proof of anything.

You don't have any valid paradoxes. And you most certainly don't have any solution for them even if your imagined paradoxes could be confirmed, because your imaginary God would necessarily have the same paradoxes too.

An eternal God would have precisely the same problem that you claim the universe has.

An eternal God would either be faced with not being able to complete an infinite number of permutations, or it too would need to be cyclic and just keep repeating the finite permutations over and over again.

So the problem you claim that universe would have necessarily becomes a problem for any "God" that is claimed to be eternal, because your complaint is concerned with the problem of an eternal reality never being able to complete an infinite number of permutations.

Therefore your "God' would necessarily be faced with the very same "Triple Paradox" that you claim an infinite universe would be faced with.

There would be no difference at all. Giving the God a "mind" doesn't help. Being able to make willful choices doesn't help. An eternal God would still be faced with precisely the same problem of either never being able to complete an infinite number of permutations or having the need to eternally repeat only a finite number of permutations.

You objections to the universe apply to your God character. Giving your God a "mind" doesn't solve a thing.

Your problem has nothing to do with whether or not the universe can think. It has to do with the universe being eternal. And the same goes for your God.

Proclaiming that your God can think and do as it chooses doesn't help your problem of not being able to complete infinitely many permutations.

Proposing the existence of a God doesn't solve your problem.

Therefore you most certainly have not proved the existence of a creator.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 171 by Jashwell]

Why God decides to create what God creates is of course a mystery. But, this mysterious mechanism of choice must nonetheless be real, because determinism and random selection do not solve the triple paradox.

So, you don't know why or how the universe came to exist?

Too bad. LOL!


Actually, the reason the universe exists is because in my opinion God is the other uncaused side of the dichotomy with pure nothingness, which is nothing with no existential value. God created our universe.

See, I just answered it for you.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 172 by Divine Insight]

Do you just like making contrary assertions as if you've actually said or proven something?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 172 by Divine Insight]

Do you just like making contrary assertions as if you've actually said or proven something?

Just pointing out the weaknesses and fallacy of your debate presentation. That's the whole point of a debate forum.

[Jashwell]

Why God decides to create what God creates is of course a mystery. But, this mysterious mechanism of choice must nonetheless be real, because determinism and random selection do not solve the triple paradox.

And with that, you've just finished off your own argument.
If your argument works (it doesn't), then your own position is not just as weak but WEAKER than other positions.
(Not to imply it wasn't already entirely dismantled.)

I have no further plans to address the argument, but I might address other things.

As a strong atheist, I (claim to) know why the Universe exists. For no reason. As an eternalist, I (claim to) know how the Universe exists. For no reason - it just does.

[instantc]

As a strong atheist, I (claim to) know why the Universe exists. For no reason. As an eternalist, I (claim to) know how the Universe exists. For no reason - it just does.

How did you come to the conclusion that there is no reason for the existence of the universe?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 177 by instantc]

Because I don't believe in an intelligent creator, making any discussions of why it made the Universe somewhat moot.

Since I actively believe a God doesn't exist, there literally can't be a reason for the Universe's existence - because a reason (in this context) would be a purpose, which would obviously require an intelligent creator. (otherwise it isn't really purposeful)

Since I'm an eternalist and believe in a static 4D Universe (that can be interpreted as a dynamic 3D one), there isn't really anything being mechanised so you can't exactly have a mechanism. It's like asking how a triangle is a triangle. There's nothing to explain.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 177 by instantc]

Because I don't believe in an intelligent creator, making any discussions of why it made the Universe somewhat moot.

Since I actively believe a God doesn't exist, there literally can't be a reason for the Universe's existence - because a reason (in this context) would be a purpose, which would obviously require an intelligent creator. (otherwise it isn't really purposeful)

I see your rationale, but I was more interested in what makes you positive that there is no God. Usually people have positive arguments against specific kinds of Gods. For example, there are good reasons to think that Thor doesn't exist. What are the arguments against a personal creator altogether?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 179 by instantc]

I don't think a God is logically inconsistent, just extremely unreasonable, namely for parsimony.

If I were to agree "you can't prove God doesn't exist" I would have to deny the ability to prove anything at all (beyond matters relating to logical inconsistency). It's not that hard to twist something impossible into a perfectly logically consistent idea.

A God could exist in the same sense the world could be flat. I happen to think that's "not at all".