The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

[amrchaos]

You know, if we are talking about a simple definition of what a God is, the need fr an argument would not be necessary.

For instance, If you define God as "the entity/entities that created you" , then my Gods exist and observable. My (biological) parents created me. I could possibly include all my ancestors as well since they are necessary for my creation.

But, for some reason, there are theologians that wish to add more to their definition of God.

For instance, God is everlasting---I don't know of anything that fit this description except nothiingness. Is God therefore the Void? Empty Space? Can you give an example of something that is everlasting because the Universe or things it do not seem t fit the bill.

Another--God created the Universe. Here is what the op seem to try to prove. I like to take a quicker, yet a somewhat illogical approach.

Let us assume that what ever created the Universe is God. So it seems what is left to do is prove that the Universe had a beginning. And then claiming whatever initiated that beginning is therefore god.

Most people assume that Universe was created in/by the Big Bang. Let assume that and we are finished---The Big Bang is God!

However, praying to an event just does not sit right with most Theologians.

In the end, it does not seem like there are any of the Christian Theologians that like to use the Abrahamic definition. I mean, this is the basic premise they are proposing and wish to prove. And if there is proof of one of this God's characteristics, what proof do they offer for the other characteristics? Why would they try to argue that the God they proved to exist under one Characteristic is equal to the God they have described? That is a logical fallacy of Equivocation. You may have falsely described your god but were one of two characteristic of someone else God!

In short, trying to prove that the Universe was created/intiated/started is not enough!! you have a whole list of things to prove in order to demonstrate the Abrahamic God exists!! And I think some of it would be virtually impossible.


See. If they kept it simple, you would not have all these problems. You probably would not have atheists or agnostics as well because it would have been so obvious.....Like knowing you have parents!!

There are actually two things that are eternal. You are correct that nothingness is one of them. Notice I use nothingness in my first dichotomy for that very reason - because it is uncaused. The second is the other side of the dichotomy with nothingness, which must be eternal because it shares the dichotomy with an uncaused other side and the dichotomy must jointly exhaust all possibilities. If the other side of the dichotomy were caused, then it would not include the cause itself, and hence would not jointly exhaust all possibilities.

The other side of the dichotomy is all possible all inclusive states of existence, which is also eternal. However, as proven by the second dichotomy that only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are real, then only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are eternal.

But, because there is no inherent order to all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real, the only real thing that is eternal is the constraint on those possible states having the ability to create them at will.

Hence, there are two - not one - things that are eternal, i.e. nothingness and the constraint aka God. And because these two are mutually exclusive, and because nothingness is not real, then God must be real.

I think I am missing something in your argument.

I am trying to find where the state of Real(I am not sure I am saying this right. Is it possible for something to come into and out of reality? ) is everlasting. I may have to reread your post again because I think I missed the proof for this claim.

Also, there is something else that is bothering me. Are you a non-theist? That is, you believe in a God but not in the theist sense such as theistic Gods have anthropomorphic qualities. Because it seems like that is what you are trying to prove: You idea of God is that God is the constraint of all the possible the states of reality. If so, you just need to define God as that and show that there are constraints
on possible states of reality. The Double Dichotomy argument is not needed.

 

[amrchaos]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

 

[John J. Bannan]

You know, if we are talking about a simple definition of what a God is, the need fr an argument would not be necessary.

For instance, If you define God as "the entity/entities that created you" , then my Gods exist and observable. My (biological) parents created me. I could possibly include all my ancestors as well since they are necessary for my creation.

But, for some reason, there are theologians that wish to add more to their definition of God.

For instance, God is everlasting---I don't know of anything that fit this description except nothiingness. Is God therefore the Void? Empty Space? Can you give an example of something that is everlasting because the Universe or things it do not seem t fit the bill.

Another--God created the Universe. Here is what the op seem to try to prove. I like to take a quicker, yet a somewhat illogical approach.

Let us assume that what ever created the Universe is God. So it seems what is left to do is prove that the Universe had a beginning. And then claiming whatever initiated that beginning is therefore god.

Most people assume that Universe was created in/by the Big Bang. Let assume that and we are finished---The Big Bang is God!

However, praying to an event just does not sit right with most Theologians.

In the end, it does not seem like there are any of the Christian Theologians that like to use the Abrahamic definition. I mean, this is the basic premise they are proposing and wish to prove. And if there is proof of one of this God's characteristics, what proof do they offer for the other characteristics? Why would they try to argue that the God they proved to exist under one Characteristic is equal to the God they have described? That is a logical fallacy of Equivocation. You may have falsely described your god but were one of two characteristic of someone else God!

In short, trying to prove that the Universe was created/intiated/started is not enough!! you have a whole list of things to prove in order to demonstrate the Abrahamic God exists!! And I think some of it would be virtually impossible.


See. If they kept it simple, you would not have all these problems. You probably would not have atheists or agnostics as well because it would have been so obvious.....Like knowing you have parents!!

There are actually two things that are eternal. You are correct that nothingness is one of them. Notice I use nothingness in my first dichotomy for that very reason - because it is uncaused. The second is the other side of the dichotomy with nothingness, which must be eternal because it shares the dichotomy with an uncaused other side and the dichotomy must jointly exhaust all possibilities. If the other side of the dichotomy were caused, then it would not include the cause itself, and hence would not jointly exhaust all possibilities.

The other side of the dichotomy is all possible all inclusive states of existence, which is also eternal. However, as proven by the second dichotomy that only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are real, then only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are eternal.

But, because there is no inherent order to all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real, the only real thing that is eternal is the constraint on those possible states having the ability to create them at will.

Hence, there are two - not one - things that are eternal, i.e. nothingness and the constraint aka God. And because these two are mutually exclusive, and because nothingness is not real, then God must be real.

I think I am missing something in your argument.

I am trying to find where the state of Real(I am not sure I am saying this right. Is it possible for something to come into and out of reality? ) is everlasting. I may have to reread your post again because I think I missed the proof for this claim.

Also, there is something else that is bothering me. Are you a non-theist? That is, you believe in a God but not in the theist sense such as theistic Gods have anthropomorphic qualities. Because it seems like that is what you are trying to prove: You idea of God is that God is the constraint of all the possible the states of reality. If so, you just need to define God as that and show that there are constraints
on possible states of reality. The Double Dichotomy argument is not needed.

My proof doesn't attempt to prove the real until #3, which only proves a possibility for reality. #5 is where I actually prove something real - and that's the constraint only. However, #5 also notes that the constraint can make the possibility for the real in #3 actually real. The constraint could make something come into and out of reality.

I am a theist. I don't see how it is possible for a constraint to be able to pick and choose reality without having anthropomorphic qualities.

 

[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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creation is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

 

[sealybobo]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

This is Philosophy not Science.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
So well before people started lying and saying god talked to them, we've been debating this philosophically. And we probably will for another 200,000 years if we don't kill ourselves first.

Just please stop waging wars over it, telling us we'll go to hell and tell ISIS to stop it too. All for something that isn't even real??? WTF! Allah Akbar. LOL.

And this is the philosophy subforum. And, do you really expect science to explain existence? I don't. Philosophy will have to play a role in explaining existence. And I use the verifiable universe to do just that.

Do you expect Philosphers or Clergy are able to accurately explain existence or are they just giving it their best guess?

 

[sealybobo]

You know, if we are talking about a simple definition of what a God is, the need fr an argument would not be necessary.

For instance, If you define God as "the entity/entities that created you" , then my Gods exist and observable. My (biological) parents created me. I could possibly include all my ancestors as well since they are necessary for my creation.

But, for some reason, there are theologians that wish to add more to their definition of God.

For instance, God is everlasting---I don't know of anything that fit this description except nothiingness. Is God therefore the Void? Empty Space? Can you give an example of something that is everlasting because the Universe or things it do not seem t fit the bill.

Another--God created the Universe. Here is what the op seem to try to prove. I like to take a quicker, yet a somewhat illogical approach.

Let us assume that what ever created the Universe is God. So it seems what is left to do is prove that the Universe had a beginning. And then claiming whatever initiated that beginning is therefore god.

Most people assume that Universe was created in/by the Big Bang. Let assume that and we are finished---The Big Bang is God!

However, praying to an event just does not sit right with most Theologians.

In the end, it does not seem like there are any of the Christian Theologians that like to use the Abrahamic definition. I mean, this is the basic premise they are proposing and wish to prove. And if there is proof of one of this God's characteristics, what proof do they offer for the other characteristics? Why would they try to argue that the God they proved to exist under one Characteristic is equal to the God they have described? That is a logical fallacy of Equivocation. You may have falsely described your god but were one of two characteristic of someone else God!

In short, trying to prove that the Universe was created/intiated/started is not enough!! you have a whole list of things to prove in order to demonstrate the Abrahamic God exists!! And I think some of it would be virtually impossible.


See. If they kept it simple, you would not have all these problems. You probably would not have atheists or agnostics as well because it would have been so obvious.....Like knowing you have parents!!

There are actually two things that are eternal. You are correct that nothingness is one of them. Notice I use nothingness in my first dichotomy for that very reason - because it is uncaused. The second is the other side of the dichotomy with nothingness, which must be eternal because it shares the dichotomy with an uncaused other side and the dichotomy must jointly exhaust all possibilities. If the other side of the dichotomy were caused, then it would not include the cause itself, and hence would not jointly exhaust all possibilities.

The other side of the dichotomy is all possible all inclusive states of existence, which is also eternal. However, as proven by the second dichotomy that only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are real, then only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are eternal.

But, because there is no inherent order to all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real, the only real thing that is eternal is the constraint on those possible states having the ability to create them at will.

Hence, there are two - not one - things that are eternal, i.e. nothingness and the constraint aka God. And because these two are mutually exclusive, and because nothingness is not real, then God must be real.

I think I am missing something in your argument.

I am trying to find where the state of Real(I am not sure I am saying this right. Is it possible for something to come into and out of reality? ) is everlasting. I may have to reread your post again because I think I missed the proof for this claim.

Also, there is something else that is bothering me. Are you a non-theist? That is, you believe in a God but not in the theist sense such as theistic Gods have anthropomorphic qualities. Because it seems like that is what you are trying to prove: You idea of God is that God is the constraint of all the possible the states of reality. If so, you just need to define God as that and show that there are constraints
on possible states of reality. The Double Dichotomy argument is not needed.

My proof doesn't attempt to prove the real until #3, which only proves a possibility for reality. #5 is where I actually prove something real - and that's the constraint only. However, #5 also notes that the constraint can make the possibility for the real in #3 actually real. The constraint could make something come into and out of reality.

I am a theist. I don't see how it is possible for a constraint to be able to pick and choose reality without having anthropomorphic qualities.

I want to take a #2 on your theories and then #1 all over them. LOL.

You don't see how it's possible? Just because something seems impossible or makes you uncomfortable doesn't make your god any more real.

Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time?

And if one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared.

 

[amrchaos]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creations is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

 

[sealybobo]

You know, if we are talking about a simple definition of what a God is, the need fr an argument would not be necessary.

For instance, If you define God as "the entity/entities that created you" , then my Gods exist and observable. My (biological) parents created me. I could possibly include all my ancestors as well since they are necessary for my creation.

But, for some reason, there are theologians that wish to add more to their definition of God.

For instance, God is everlasting---I don't know of anything that fit this description except nothiingness. Is God therefore the Void? Empty Space? Can you give an example of something that is everlasting because the Universe or things it do not seem t fit the bill.

Another--God created the Universe. Here is what the op seem to try to prove. I like to take a quicker, yet a somewhat illogical approach.

Let us assume that what ever created the Universe is God. So it seems what is left to do is prove that the Universe had a beginning. And then claiming whatever initiated that beginning is therefore god.

Most people assume that Universe was created in/by the Big Bang. Let assume that and we are finished---The Big Bang is God!

However, praying to an event just does not sit right with most Theologians.

In the end, it does not seem like there are any of the Christian Theologians that like to use the Abrahamic definition. I mean, this is the basic premise they are proposing and wish to prove. And if there is proof of one of this God's characteristics, what proof do they offer for the other characteristics? Why would they try to argue that the God they proved to exist under one Characteristic is equal to the God they have described? That is a logical fallacy of Equivocation. You may have falsely described your god but were one of two characteristic of someone else God!

In short, trying to prove that the Universe was created/intiated/started is not enough!! you have a whole list of things to prove in order to demonstrate the Abrahamic God exists!! And I think some of it would be virtually impossible.


See. If they kept it simple, you would not have all these problems. You probably would not have atheists or agnostics as well because it would have been so obvious.....Like knowing you have parents!!

EXACTLY! At one point god was just a concept and some people thought there must be a creator and some, the minority smart enough to need more proof, didn't believe.

Eventually the believers persecuted the non believers. It's amazing they didn't breed the smart gene out of humans but I guess straight couples can have gay kids so dumb theists can still give birth to smart atheists.

One day someone said god spoke to them, and that's how organized religions were born. Fact is, that guy was either crazy or a liar.

So here we are back to arguing for and against a generic god. I can't even take the Abrahamic Theists seriously.

 

[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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creations is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

 

[amrchaos]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creations is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

Understand.

This "order" you are talking about can come about from a set of properties inherent in things that does not have consciousness--things that may exist outside our universe.

Kind of like how we speak of an order that comes about from the physical laws within our Universe.

So, there still exist the possibility of exterior laws that lead to the perceived order you are talking about.

You are assuming that it must have a conscious,and trying to ague that "states of reality" are being choosing. I am pointing out that the idea of "constraints" maybe more appropriate, and the different possible states of existence are possibly being determined by laws we may have no basic concepts of.

I think your position really boils down to "If it has an order, then something conscious created that order" which is not always true.

 

[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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

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

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

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creations is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

Understand.

This "order" you are talking about can come about from a set of properties inherent in things that does not have consciousness--things that may exist outside our universe.

Kind of like how we speak of an order that comes about from the physical laws within our Universe.

So, there still exist the possibility of exterior laws that lead to the perceived order you are talking about.

You are assuming that it must have a conscious,and trying to ague that "states of reality" are being choosing. I am pointing out that the idea of "constraints" maybe more appropriate, and the different possible states of existence are possibly being determined by laws we may have no basic concepts of.

I think your position really boils down to "If it has an order, then something conscious created that order" which is not always true.

So, you are claiming the potential existence of laws we have no concept of? Are you saying these supposed laws are not of the mathematical kind? So, it's some sort of meta-math? Sounds pretty absurd to me. Reductio ad absurdum

 

[amrchaos]

Oh, and by the way.

If there was some consciousness choosing which states of reality could exist and which could not, why would it have to "constrain" itself to a set of choices? Unless there are some "law" that governs its behavior, any reality--be it possible or impossible--becomes an available choice for it.

Unicorns could pop in and out of existence based upon this conscious whim. Is this "chooser" constrained as well? If so, then how do we know it is even conscious? Again, why can't this be a set of exterior laws that determines what is possible and what is not?

I think around about 4) you tend to assume something that you really need to prove. That is the concept of "this power that created the universe" having the ability to "determine". It is possible that this power is unable to make a determination and the resulting the universe that came into being is more the results of a constrained happenstance. That is, there are conditions of what is in this reality and these conditions by something that was sentient in any sense.

Here is an example of how to think of this. Water in a waterfall tends to fall due to gravity. Gravity is a constraint on the behavior of the water. However, gravity is not sentient and therefore not making a determination. It just "acts" on the water because that is the property of gravity.

The same can be said of what created our universe. It may been an "act" that caused it because that is the property of this "power" you are talking about.

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creations is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

Understand.

This "order" you are talking about can come about from a set of properties inherent in things that does not have consciousness--things that may exist outside our universe.

Kind of like how we speak of an order that comes about from the physical laws within our Universe.

So, there still exist the possibility of exterior laws that lead to the perceived order you are talking about.

You are assuming that it must have a conscious,and trying to ague that "states of reality" are being choosing. I am pointing out that the idea of "constraints" maybe more appropriate, and the different possible states of existence are possibly being determined by laws we may have no basic concepts of.

I think your position really boils down to "If it has an order, then something conscious created that order" which is not always true.

So, you are claiming the potential existence of laws we have no concept of? Are you saying these supposed laws are not of the mathematical kind? So, it's some sort of meta-math? Sounds pretty absurd to me. Reductio ad absurdum

First question--Yes, I am suggesting that this is possible.

2nd question---I don't know if they can or cannot mathematically model because I am suggesting there presently no known concepts of what they could be or what they actually act on.

You can't create a mathematical model if you have no concept of what you are modeling. IF this order is being dictated by some set of exteior laws, we need to have some understanding of these laws first.

3rd--Meta-math? I think this is an attempt to turn what I said into a strawman argument. Recall, I said we may not have any concepts of what these laws are. How do you create a model of something you have no concept of?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Oh, and by the way.

If there was some consciousness choosing which states of reality could exist and which could not, why would it have to "constrain" itself to a set of choices? Unless there are some "law" that governs its behavior, any reality--be it possible or impossible--becomes an available choice for it.

Unicorns could pop in and out of existence based upon this conscious whim. Is this "chooser" constrained as well? If so, then how do we know it is even conscious? Again, why can't this be a set of exterior laws that determines what is possible and what is not?

You are arguing randomness as your mechanism for creation. However, even Quantum Mechanics is not necessarily random. Quantum entanglement proves that there is no randomness in QM due to the violation of Bell's inequality. However, it must either be a non-local deterministic hidden variable or an infinite multiverse where the entangled particles have their futures entangled. But, just within the last few days, a new theory has been published positing 41 universes that interact with each creating the appearance of randomness in QM, but in truth the randomness is deterministic classical physics.

Quantum World Proposed to Arise from Many Ordinary Ones - Scientific American

So, the problem with claiming randomness as the mechanism for creations is that the proof of the reality of randomness is getting skimpier by the hour.

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

Understand.

This "order" you are talking about can come about from a set of properties inherent in things that does not have consciousness--things that may exist outside our universe.

Kind of like how we speak of an order that comes about from the physical laws within our Universe.

So, there still exist the possibility of exterior laws that lead to the perceived order you are talking about.

You are assuming that it must have a conscious,and trying to ague that "states of reality" are being choosing. I am pointing out that the idea of "constraints" maybe more appropriate, and the different possible states of existence are possibly being determined by laws we may have no basic concepts of.

I think your position really boils down to "If it has an order, then something conscious created that order" which is not always true.

So, you are claiming the potential existence of laws we have no concept of? Are you saying these supposed laws are not of the mathematical kind? So, it's some sort of meta-math? Sounds pretty absurd to me. Reductio ad absurdum

First question--Yes, I am suggesting that this is possible.

2nd question---I don't know if they can or cannot mathematically model because I am suggesting there presently no known concepts of what they could be or what they actually act on.

You can't create a mathematical model if you have no concept of what you are modeling. IF this order is being dictated by some set of exteior laws, we need to have some understanding of these laws first.

3rd--Meta-math? I think this is an attempt to turn what I said into a strawman argument. Recall, I said we may not have any concepts of what these laws are. How do you create a model of something you have no concept of?

God cannot do the impossible. Of course, God is constrained by the limits of possibility. God cannot create a square circle. God cannot make God disappear.

Exterior laws has no meaning if you can't describe them for me besides simply purposing their existence. It is absurd to claim something with no meaning requires a response.

 

[amrchaos]

Oh, and by the way.

If there was some consciousness choosing which states of reality could exist and which could not, why would it have to "constrain" itself to a set of choices? Unless there are some "law" that governs its behavior, any reality--be it possible or impossible--becomes an available choice for it.

Unicorns could pop in and out of existence based upon this conscious whim. Is this "chooser" constrained as well? If so, then how do we know it is even conscious? Again, why can't this be a set of exterior laws that determines what is possible and what is not?

You could claim that I am speaking of "randomness", but I don't think "randomness" need t be invoked what s ever.

I just suggested that it is possible that this "Power" you speak of may just exhibit a property it has that led to the creation of the universe. It may not be a random coincident in itself, but similiar to a force of nature like gravity(which is not random).

It acts without conscious determination, what are needed are the conditions for it to act. Kind of like the need of the Earth to be present to create the gravity for water to fall in a waterfall.

The possibility remains of this being the case remains and you haven't really argued that is not possible.

In fact, What I am trying to say kind of remind me of your example against the idea of randomness. How do you know that the universe was not created by outside features/forces/events that do not possess the ability to make conscious decisions? The examples you gave featured such things that lack consciousness but can act upon objects within our universe. Why could this not be the a case for the creation of our universe?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

Understand.

This "order" you are talking about can come about from a set of properties inherent in things that does not have consciousness--things that may exist outside our universe.

Kind of like how we speak of an order that comes about from the physical laws within our Universe.

So, there still exist the possibility of exterior laws that lead to the perceived order you are talking about.

You are assuming that it must have a conscious,and trying to ague that "states of reality" are being choosing. I am pointing out that the idea of "constraints" maybe more appropriate, and the different possible states of existence are possibly being determined by laws we may have no basic concepts of.

I think your position really boils down to "If it has an order, then something conscious created that order" which is not always true.

So, you are claiming the potential existence of laws we have no concept of? Are you saying these supposed laws are not of the mathematical kind? So, it's some sort of meta-math? Sounds pretty absurd to me. Reductio ad absurdum

First question--Yes, I am suggesting that this is possible.

2nd question---I don't know if they can or cannot mathematically model because I am suggesting there presently no known concepts of what they could be or what they actually act on.

You can't create a mathematical model if you have no concept of what you are modeling. IF this order is being dictated by some set of exteior laws, we need to have some understanding of these laws first.

3rd--Meta-math? I think this is an attempt to turn what I said into a strawman argument. Recall, I said we may not have any concepts of what these laws are. How do you create a model of something you have no concept of?

God cannot do the impossible. Of course, God is constrained by the limits of possibility. God cannot create a square circle. God cannot make God disappear.

Exterior laws has no meaning if you can't describe them for me besides simply purposing their existence. It is absurd to claim something with no meaning requires a response.

Can the same not be said of assuming a Sentient being that makes choices? A being that you have described in no more details than I have described these exterior laws?

That is what you did. A sentient being that makes choices under a constraint versus A set of laws that act based on conditions and constraints.

How is the description of one any better than the other? They both do the same function--that function is the only description given.

The possibility is there, why you think my proposal is so absurd while yours, which has relatively the same amount of description is not is a bit strange, don't you think?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Oh, and by the way.

If there was some consciousness choosing which states of reality could exist and which could not, why would it have to "constrain" itself to a set of choices? Unless there are some "law" that governs its behavior, any reality--be it possible or impossible--becomes an available choice for it.

Unicorns could pop in and out of existence based upon this conscious whim. Is this "chooser" constrained as well? If so, then how do we know it is even conscious? Again, why can't this be a set of exterior laws that determines what is possible and what is not?

If you are not arguing randomness, then you must be arguing unconscious determinism. Laws of physics, perhaps? However, as all possible states of existence that can become real are a set, and as there is no inherent order to those states of existence, then you must explain how unconscious determinism can pick and choose. So, what is your unconscious mechanism for picking and choosing?

I argue that such an unconscious mechanism is impossible via Reductio ad absurdum. So, what is your mechanism to prove your suggestion is not absurd?

Understand.

This "order" you are talking about can come about from a set of properties inherent in things that does not have consciousness--things that may exist outside our universe.

Kind of like how we speak of an order that comes about from the physical laws within our Universe.

So, there still exist the possibility of exterior laws that lead to the perceived order you are talking about.

You are assuming that it must have a conscious,and trying to ague that "states of reality" are being choosing. I am pointing out that the idea of "constraints" maybe more appropriate, and the different possible states of existence are possibly being determined by laws we may have no basic concepts of.

I think your position really boils down to "If it has an order, then something conscious created that order" which is not always true.

So, you are claiming the potential existence of laws we have no concept of? Are you saying these supposed laws are not of the mathematical kind? So, it's some sort of meta-math? Sounds pretty absurd to me. Reductio ad absurdum

First question--Yes, I am suggesting that this is possible.

2nd question---I don't know if they can or cannot mathematically model because I am suggesting there presently no known concepts of what they could be or what they actually act on.

You can't create a mathematical model if you have no concept of what you are modeling. IF this order is being dictated by some set of exteior laws, we need to have some understanding of these laws first.

3rd--Meta-math? I think this is an attempt to turn what I said into a strawman argument. Recall, I said we may not have any concepts of what these laws are. How do you create a model of something you have no concept of?

God cannot do the impossible. Of course, God is constrained by the limits of possibility. God cannot create a square circle. God cannot make God disappear.

Exterior laws has no meaning if you can't describe them for me besides simply purposing their existence. It is absurd to claim something with no meaning requires a response.

Can the same not be said of assuming a Sentient being that makes choices? A being that you have described in no more details than I have described these exterior laws?

That is what you did. A sentient being that makes choices under a constraint versus A set of laws that act based on conditions and constraints.

How is the description of one any better than the other? They both do the same function--that function is the only description given.

The possibility is there, why you think my proposal is so absurd while yours, which has relatively the same amount of description is not is a bit strange, don't you think?

Your description has no basis in reality. Mine does. A human mind does in fact exist. One can extrapolate from there and propose an eternal mind capable of deciding which possible realities come into existence and which do not. A human mind is capable of picking and choosing. However, the same cannot be said of meta-math. Math itself is not capable of picking and choosing. So, you cannot extrapolate from math to claim a meta-math capable of picking and choosing.