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 428 by McCulloch]

Time is connected to matter/energy as space-time. So, I connect material time with material reality. Immaterial time I would connect with immaterial reality, if indeed the immaterial requires time. However, God is often presented as actus purus (Aquinas), which means God doesn't have moving parts. So, in that presentation of God, God would not have God's own time-like dimension. But, perhaps immaterial reality such as Heaven might have an immaterial time, but God doesn't have such immaterial time. I don't know.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 429 by Goat]

A number reflects the reality that one can point to, e.g. 1 apple.

Infinity does not reflect any known reality that one can point to, e.g. show me an infinitesimal.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 430 by John J. Bannan]

Because if you want to use possibility in an argument, you have to admit that possibility comes from personal lack of foresight not from a literal dichotomy of reality.

For instance, if I flip a coin, I say it's possible to get a heads or tails.
But whether or not it will be heads or tails is certain; the mechanics are purely deterministic beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are robots that can flip coins and predict the outcome within expected error. It being predicted isn't necessary - but it is sufficient as proof.

Not just that, but the language of possibility doesn't make sense.
If we're playing a card game, and I have a King of Spades, I might say "He can't have drawn the King of Spades". But I could also say "He could have drawn the King of Spades" and it's consistent.

Another problem. Hitler didn't win WW2, ergo the possibility of Hitler having won WW2 is 0. It is IMPOSSIBLE that Hitler won WW2. He CAN'T have. But at the same time, you'd consistently say "Hitler could have won WW2" "Hitler winning WW2 was a possibility" (in the latter case, 'was' is indicative of the subjective existence of a possibility space). Because they can mean different things - but the one thing they don't mean is that there is some dichotomy of reality - unless you believe in a many worlds hypothesis. (In which case there isn't a dichotomy anyway; all possibilities exist).

You can talk about possibility in the everyday, and you can talk about it in almost every scenario. I'm not saying possibility doesn't exist and I'm not saying you can't say "that's possible", "it could have been different", etc. But trying to use it in these kind of philosophical proofs that are based around the method of possibility is presumptuous in the extreme, and requires special pleading.

Have we gone back to your original argument now?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 432 by John J. Bannan]

"1 Apple" is a subjective evaluation. You could also say "2 different halves" (not the same as 2 halves - apples aren't perfectly symmetric) or "n-hundred-sextillion molecules".

Do you believe fractions exist? Or negative numbers? Or decimals? Or irrational numbers? What about imaginary and non-real complex numbers? Does 0 exist?

If a number "reflects the reality that one can point to", and numbers are reality, then the infinite reflects the reality of numbers that one can point to.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 433 by Jashwell]

Determinism does not admit of possibility. However, creation does. God, with the power to create, can turn the possible into the materially real. The inherent nature of the universe is to create and God is the "embodiment" of that inherent nature. The inherent nature of the universe to create is mysterious, and yet necessary.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 434 by Jashwell]

Show me an infinitesimal.

Show me an infinite number of apples.

Then, I would agree with you. LOL!

[Donray]

John J. Bannan could you just answer one question.

Why do you feel the need to prove to your self that your god exits? I thought all you needed was faith?

Where faith is defined as belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion and (3) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

If you have not noticed, your proof is not working, not one person has said I now believe because of your proof John.

You are using metaphysics as if it is a subject within science. Metaphysics was developed by religious people in orders to try prove existence of things that don't exist.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 437 by Donray]

Reason informed by faith. That's always been the position of the Catholic Church.

As for convincing you atheists, well, I am sure some of what I have said has made you less sure of yourselves. And that's reason enough to argue with you.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 433 by Jashwell]
Determinism does not admit of possibility. However, creation does. God, with the power to create, can turn the possible into the materially real. The inherent nature of the universe is to create and God is the "embodiment" of that inherent nature. The inherent nature of the universe to create is mysterious, and yet necessary.

None of this is anything more than presumptive poetry with no actual logical process of deduction used. Blending intuition with heavily baggaged concepts to create overbearing premises and hide non-sequiturs and various fallacies, that is what so-called 'metaphysics' is.

[Replying to post 434 by Jashwell]
Show me an infinitesimal.
Show me an infinite number of apples.
Then, I would agree with you. LOL!

The only way you appear to respond to counterarguments about this topic is by replying "show me an infinitesimal". Unfortunately, repetition doesn't stop this from being an argument from ignorance, nor does it make it valid, nor does it answer the responses.

[Zzyzx]

.

Reason informed by faith.

Reasoning and faith are near polar opposites. There is no reasoning involved in "believe without evidence" and there is no (religious) faith involved in reasoning.

That's always been the position of the Catholic Church.

LACK of reasoning by the RCC caused me to reject Catholicism as a child. Though raised by a devout Catholic mother and forced to attend church and Catholic school, the attempted indoctrination did not succeed because REASONING (even at ten years old) told me that the silly stories the church demanded I believe were no more believable than Humpty Dumpty or Snow White or Santa Claus.

As for convincing you atheists, well, I am sure some of what I have said has made you less sure of yourselves.

Perhaps you seriously overestimate your effect OR your effect may well be quite the opposite of that which you congratulate yourself

I can't speak for any Atheists, but I do speak for this Non-Theist to say that what you present is just further indication that emotional beliefs do not hold up well in debate – though they may be convincing in church or in environments where all share "faith" and do not allow opposing arguments to interfere with preordained conclusions.

And that's reason enough to argue with you.

It would be even better to actually DEBATE than "argue." Pontificating on one's beliefs and upon "infinity" is evasion rather than debate.