# The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

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.

1. Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

2. Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

3. 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.

4. 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.

There seems to be a problem with (2) unless you can show how a “state of existence that cannot become real” due to “logically contradicting states” can fall under the category of “possible states of existence” at all. If a state is actually “cannot become real” due to such contradictions then that state cannot really be considered a possible state of existence.

If a state of existence as or representing in itself or as consequence of itself a logical contradiction is also a possible state of existence then it follows necessarily that such a state’s contradictions are not actually absolutely logically contradictory, but would be more like surface-level or apparent contradictions only and not fatal ones.

Interesting analysis though.

@mechanicalmonster

#2 is not a problem, because it is a metaphysical dichotomy. Reality itself is what excludes all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real.

I’ll take it, however, that you like the proof.

I can give a more detailed response to your logical structure when i have the chance, but yes at first glance I enjoy what you are attempting to do.

So you draw a distinction between real possible realities and metaphysical non-real possible realities. I used to think in that way also, but now I see how “possible” cannot be extricated from “real”.

This is not a “proof” but an observation. It’s just verbage placed behind the observation.

Simply not so. Not every imaginable state of existence, exists, thus not every imaginable states are possible. To say that all imaginary states could exist would be to imply that all I would have to do is think a thing for it to be the case. This is so obviously not that case. But this is clearly a prelude to you imagining that god exists, and pretending that he does so.
What you have here is a more verbose version of step one. nothing is added.

This is confused. It is not known if the universe has a beginning. Even if you accept the BB theory there is no way to know if that is true, or whether there was a time before time. Additionally you have not sated what you mean by “real” of how beginning confers reality. hence your conclusion is false, and merely circular.

You have not established infinity. All imagined states are generated by humans; humans are finite therefore imaginary states are finite.

You start with a contradiction, and persist with a non sequitur. You are asserting an unqualified duality between reality and an unknown power that supposedly generates it without saying why reality cannot be self generating. If reality is, as you say, the set of possible states, then a reality which is self generating is as possible as one that needs a power to sustain it.

Similar problem - you start with a unestablished assertion, and make a false conclusion. Where has will and intellect come from? And what warrant do you have to think it capable is all inclusive states? Risible.

Risible.

The constraint which cannot exist, does not exist.

I do not envy you your mind.
I getting bored with this.

Who says there is a constraint? Who says it has a mind? What generated the mind? How does the constraint exist? “Sons of the constraint”? You are kidding now?

Er, not. Hence nothing. Hence you are still confused.
Keep up the meds.

@mechanicalmonster

Please explain why you believe that the “possible” cannot be extracted from the “real”.

It seems to be self-evident and plainly obvious that because there is a real Universe, there can be other possible universes. So, it seems obvious that one can extract the “possible” from the real. Now, I understand the argument that anything that is “possible” must eventually become real, and hence the “possible” would appear impossible. However, this argument does not take into account the reality of a God who can choose to suppress the “possible” from becoming real at His whim. So, the “possible” can be extracted from the real when one assumes the reality of God.

@Lev Muishkin

A self-generating Universe? You propose randomness, I take it?

However, as there are an infinite number of possible permutations of our existing Universe, then randomness would have to be able to pick our particular universe out of the infinite.

But, randomness cannot work where the set is infinite. There is no probability in an infinite set. Hence, randomness or chance cannot be the mechanism for a self-generating universe, because there is no defined probability for chance to take hold.

I like how you deny the existence of an infinite set. However, this is patently absurd, as one can always imagine a universe with just one more thing ad infinitum.

My proof is a proof based on Reductio ad absurdum. Your probable suggestion of randomness as the means of self-generating a universe is absurd.

However, do you have another theory besides God which is not absurd?

“Possibility” only means “not yet actual but will become actual”. There is no “pure possibility” because everything is determinatively fixed. Even the most transcendent conscious process of abstraction and freedom decision-making is still bound up within the deterministic whole. Freedom manifests as a kind of determinism, a strength of sorts, and freedom is always relative and subjective, meaning: 1) freedom is freedom FOR and FROM certain specific criteria/phenomena, and 2) freedom is always freedom OF a specific self-valuing system or “subjectivity”. There is no freedom in itself, but there is determinism “in itself” in so far as the whole of existence is one massive fucking deterministic clockwork machine of unfathomable complexity and subtleness.

We are small instance spun out of that larger whole, smaller flows of smaller flows of smaller flows. The more our particular structure is able to concretize and conceptualize reality inside and outside of itself the more it is able to synthesize and include more information and prediction values within its decision-making process; that leads to greater awareness, responsiveness, and strength, which is all that “freedom” means anyway. There is no such thing as supposedly pure “metaphysical freedom” as in “not determined”.

This relates exactly to how you are talking about possibility, because “a possibility” is only a hidden deterministic causal chain that has yet to unfold out of the present reality state. Every future condition is already embedded within this present “moment” and in theory could be extracted to produce perfect foretelling of the future. So whatever is “possible” is by definition already going to occur necessarily at some future time from now. If it does not occur then it was never going to occur, meaning it was never possible to begin with.

There is no possibility that fails to become actual; that would merely have been an imagination, a “false” idea generated in a mind that conceived “inaccurately” of the existence around itself. Note that I put those in quotations because this imaginative process producing abstractions that never in fact predict how reality will actually unfold is also an essential part of any consciousness that is developed at least even a little, and forms a part of the deterministic whole of that being just as Nietzsche noted that the illusion of free will is nonetheless a critical component in the actual determinism of human beings. Without that “illusion” our consciousness would operate differently, it would be less profound, less significant, less far-reaching, less strong to face and overcome what for it would otherwise have been an imposing and conditioning limit… in other words, less free.

@mechanicalmonster

The simple fact of the matter is that material determinism cannot explain why anything is REAL to begin with. Hence, there must be something that creates REALITY that is not bound by material determinism. Because all of possible reality is a SET, then this thing that creates REALITY must have an ability to choose what becomes REAL from this set in a fashion not bound by material determinism.

Why can a deterministic perspective not explain why anything is real to begin with?

I have been outlining in two areas precisely how reality is able to be created based on pure determination principles: 1) the theory of value ontology i.e. self-valuing principle, and 2) in my mathematics thread where I am showing how reality is composed of circles and fractals that emerge out of the operation of the most basic geometric perfections of existence working together to produce “numbers” (values coherences and values-relations properties that cycle and spiral together creating sequences that we call numbers/quantities); these latter are what we call fundamental subatomic particles, and it is out of these that all matter and energy is “born” into existence.

Man is just a very far-removed, very derivative and monadological universal construct - we reflect existence and existence reflects us. What we call consciousness is based on the exact same principle as material deterministic existence, except more “dimensionalized” and self-reflexive. This can all be elaborated clearly and rationally in ‘hard philosophical’ terms. The only requirement is to try, and not stop until you reach the adequate understanding.

God(s) appears at the end of this process of understanding, just as understanding is always the product of effort and time and suffering perspective. Insight, wisdom, God, these things are the final products of a completed mind; the partial mind that has given up on itself can only sense the vague shadows of these, and that only if it is “lucky” enough (partially completed enough).

Basically any idea that comes from a half-realized mind or passion is fucking useless except to reflect that stepping-stone point in that particular mind’s journey upward, assuming it is actually willing to continue on that path, which most of the time it is not. Whatever your “ideas” are are only where you happen to have stopped along the path to understanding. No great man has ever been subject to “having ideas”; truth is a fucking feeling, a pathos, a goddam direct experience for any legitimate mind. All of this nonsense we call philosophy and thinking that goes on in this forum and around this planet could be re-characterized as half-delusional, half-self-validating psychopathological brain-sputum from a species that is probably somewhere around 1-2% of its total journey to self-consciousness.

So try explaining to me again that a “deterministic” view is not able to account for this universe, materiality, causality, freedom, life, consciousness or reality itself and I will show you exactly how you are wrong.

Circles and fractals made of what? Why would the fabric of existence prefer geometric perfections? Which geometric perfections?

Circles and fractals made of what? Why would the fabric of existence prefer geometric perfections? Which geometric perfections?

Material determinism will never explain why anything is real at all, because however described in terms of math and physics, such description can never take the necessarily leap into explaining why it even exists to begin with - just as you will not be able to explain why your fractals, circles and geometric perfections exist to begin with.

Logical necessity. Everything in existence comes down to it. Nothing simply exists “for no reason”, or “just is”. To exist means necessarily to exist for a reason, because of causes. You may not know those causes but you can know they are there.

There is a specific reason why reality prefers geometric perfections to imperfections: perfections lead to a kind of increase that is ordered and is able to build upon itself, whereas imperfections degrade and lead only to dissolution. The more “perfect” a thing is the more it will endure necessarily against whatever comes into contact with it that would otherwise act to dissolve or destroy it, to reduce it to constituent parts. Those “circles and fractals” are merely expressions of that underlying rationale. They are not “things” in the way that your chair is a thing, but they are the cause, at essence, of things like chairs. Fractals and circles are laws of the ways in which existence exists. they are consequences of necessities. 1+1=2 and a triangle has three sides in every possible world, to use your kind of terminology. God cannot create a square circle or make 1+1=126. Meaning is the heart of existence, rather of ours or God’s.

No thing will or can exist if it does not value itself, if it does not hold itself actively in existence by acting in such a way that its own self and necessity is for it and its action a standard. This is very basic but I see you have not thought about this at all, so it will require much “hard work” from you if you are ever going to comprehend even this very basic knowledge.

Whatever is able to order and organize itself in a more enduring way is going to last longer, and whatever is able to order and organize perfectly is going to endure perfectly. Error appears in derivative forms. If this were not the case, if reality were not “perfections” at the basic level, then nothing could exist, which would be a contradiction. Error and death and dissolution are only possible because those things which experience these are so far removed from their own fundament that it becomes quite easy for them to decay into constituent pieces as those pieces merely flow elsewhere in the cosmic order. We know existence is the case, so that whole line of thinking is rendered moot and the questions becomes to examine what kind of existence exists, which forms and why, and how.

But I really don’t feel like trying to explain logical necessity and self-valuing to you if you cannot even grasp that basic reasoning. You are clearly trying to delimit and edify your conception, which is admirable, but you have stopped your process which is evident by the kinds of things you take issue with here. What do you think “God” is? Or energy? Or materiality, or form, or freedom, or consciousness, or life, or existence “itself”? Do you think existence is finite or infinite; if you travel in one direction forever are you going to reach an “end of existence” or are you going to keep going without end? If you were to descend smaller and smaller into the constituent parts of matter are you going to reach an end, or are you only going to keep progressing smaller and smaller without end? Before you can start thinking you must know how you will answer each or these questions. And you must know what logic is, not just think logically but understand what it means when we use the words “logic” and “necessity”.

Existence exists because that is what it means to say “existence”. It is absolutely not possible that nothing would exist, anywhere, ever, at all. That is literally an insanity in your mind, which you have yet to root out.

Well said, MM.

But I still disagree with you on the following point:

As stated earlier, I disagree.

I don’t think something has to value itself in order to emerge and remain.

For example -

Something that does value itself, can force into existence another being that does not value itself. The self-valuing being can constantly maintain the existence of the being lacking self-value.

Pure nothingness is not insanity. Pure nothingness is coherent and therefore cannot be insanity. I never said pure nothingness was REAL or could be REAL, however. I just pointed out that pure nothingness is on the other side of a dichotomy with everythingness, both of which are uncaused things - and both of which could have been the case.

You only say things are necessary because you assume they are necessary, otherwise they wouldn’t exist. Not so. Somewhere along the line there’s got to be that which causes without itself being caused. This is the true nature of existence resulting from the other side of the dichotomy with pure nothingness. I don’t see why the uncaused is going to create perfect geometric shapes. Why? Because they last longer? Couldn’t a less than perfectly geometric shape last just as long? Heck, couldn’t they even get banged up into perfect geometric shapes?

Rather, the uncaused will be able to make all that is possible to be made. That is the exact opposite of pure nothingness. Not just triangles.

A) Absolute Nothingness, for complex reasons, is actually an oxymoron - a logical impossibility.
B) Nothing throughout the entire universe is a perfect geometric form. The universe can never contain such a thing.

“The uncaused”? Explain to me how something can exist without ever having had any causes for that existence. How exactly does “uncausality” work? And how do you know?

I’m listening.

The “uncaused” is that which has always existed. And you know of it via logical necessity.

Why do you say that pure nothingness is a logical impossibility? What is so illogical about no states of existence? What’s to prevent it? Pure nothingness is uncaused and a perfectly acceptable answer.

I suspect you only think pure nothingness is illogical because you don’t want to believe it. That’s fine, but that doesn’t make pure nothingness an oxymoron.

What “complex reasons”?

How is pure nothingness a perfect geometric form? What form? Pure nothingness does not have a form. Pure nothingness does not have a universe.

Pure nothingness is uncaused. Pure nothingness does not contain physics, and therefore, does not need a cause.

Now, the other side of a dichotomy with pure nothingness would also be uncaused. So, what’s the exact opposite of pure nothingness?

The answer is the uncaused “all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real”.

Hence, my proof of God. =D>