The double dichotomy proof of God

[FrozenWill]

r u srs

Look it up??

 

[CaptainPonysock]

Look it up??

r u srs

 

[FrozenWill]

r u srs

ar yew seris?

 

[Dorigon]

Saying the universe created itself is like saying no one made me a burger when I went to mc Donald's, the burger just popped up out of nowhere.... You basically just justified the fact that things can be created without a creator which makes no sense.

"Someone makes my hamburgers when I go to McDonalds, so God is real"

 

[Kailthas]

Saying the universe created itself is like saying no one made me a burger when I went to mc Donald's, the burger just popped up out of nowhere....

False analogy: the reconstitution of matter differs from creatio ex nihilo.

You basically just justified the fact that things can be created without a creator which makes no sense.

Semantics.

 

[Denurd]

:^)

 

[telle]

Oh, joy...
another one of these.

 

[willix]

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.

Using a bunch of big words to describe your version of reality does not make it true. A dichotomy is a human construction of language that is meant to describe the differences between two polar opposites. What you've presented is what we call a 'false dichotomy.'

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.

There's no reason to assume that the metaphysical is anything more than what people imagine it to be. In order for your dichotomy to be real one has to make the assumption that the universe is metaphysical. Thus far, we have observed that the universe is largely absent of the metaphysical.

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.

None of this necessarily leads to the existence of a god or gods, let alone the kind of god or gods who are capable of creating universes and then coming up with arbitrary rules that closely reflect the collective human thoughts instead of godly decrees. Even if our universe had a beginning, you still have all your work ahead of you to show that god was the cause of it.

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.

I don't even know what tangent you're going on now. Just a bunch of gibberish at this point.

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.

'Real' or 'not real' is yet again another human creation. We seek to define things in such terms so that we can distinguish reality from illusion, which is only important so long as one questions the reality they find themselves in. The truth is that reality doesn't care if we accept it or not. It's a cruel hard bitch who will fuck us up at the drop of a hat just because that's what reality is capable of.

Only humans (so far as we know) have this sort of trouble with the concept of 'real.' The rest of the universe just exists, and does not need such terms to define it.

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.

You still haven't shown why it's necessary for something to be distinguished as 'real.' Outside of that, you have yet to prove how things existing are the result of this 'power to create,' which seems to be yet another human construction of language to infer some grand display of creation-power in order to discern our origin. If you could show why this power is not only necessary, but the only method by which things begin to exist, then you might have a case for god. Until that time, however, you are sadly mistaken.

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.

You have yet to prove that we exist in an order which can only be the result of a god willing it into existence.

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.

You have yet to prove that universes don't spontaneously come into existence on their own.

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

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

11) Because the mind of the constraint is omnipresent and hence within all of us, our minds are contained within the mind of the constraint which calls all of us to be Sons of the constraint.

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

I'm just going to lump the rest of your extremely tangental version of the kalam cosmological argument into one point. Even if anything you said was possible, you still have a huge leap to make in order to prove that it's actually true. Physics has already shown in multiple different models how universes can exist without the need for a god to create them, let alone all the diversity of life we find on our planet.

You aren't breaking new ground with this post, as it fails in all the same places other creationist cosmological arguments fail, for all the same reasons.

Nice try though.

 

[Skeezin]

religion holds you back from being a successful twink

i stopped attending church and that very same sunday i received a lucky fishing hat on my first cast

 

[Faerondil]

religion holds you back from being a successful twink

i stopped attending church and that very same sunday i received a lucky fishing hat on my first cast

Best post of the thread!

/thread lol

 

[FrozenWill]

False analogy: the reconstitution of matter differs from creatio ex nihilo.



Semantics.

It's not a false analogy if they are both created from "nothing"...

And if you think the world is created from nothing, then you believe that things right now can be created without a creator which is completely false.

And if you want to debate it, then give me an example of something that can be made by someone when it was (in your opinion) created by something else other than being made by humans, animals etc..

Because I doubt the earth just exploded and created itself. How many things do you see explode and create things rather than destroy them?

 

[FrozenWill]

Oh, joy...
another one of these.

It's just a debate between people with different views and opinions which makes everyone unique in this world If we didn't have differing views a d opinions, then everyone would be a "yes" man, and the OP would have 20+ likes on his origional post without anyone denying and trying to prove his point wrong.

 

[Kristhoper]

#/thread

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kailthas]

No, never /thread!

And to answer your question: God is an eternal, self-existing being that can create/destroy anything without cause because he created everything.

You've only defined him as self-existent. Why is self-existence a requisite of the first cause of the universe? Why must there be a first cause of the universe anyway? Why would it have sentience or intelligence?

Again, "Who created everything?" is as meaningless to a naturalist as "Who created God?" is to a theist.

 

[FrozenWill]

No, never /thread!



You've only defined him as self-existent. Why is self-existence a requisite of the first cause of the universe? Why must there be a first cause of the universe anyway? Why would it have sentience or intelligence?

Again, "Who created everything?" is as meaningless to a naturalist as "Who created God?" is to a theist.

Why did the earth make itself? Why are we here?

 

[Kailthas]

Why did the earth make itself? Why are we here?

We can mostly answer how. What makes you think there is a why?

Why does God exist? Why is his will effective rather than ineffective or partially effective? Why does he possess the traits that he does rather than others?

 

[willix]

It's not a false analogy if they are both created from "nothing"...

And if you think the world is created from nothing, then you believe that things right now can be created without a creator which is completely false.

Classic misunderstanding of science and how it works. When the Bible (or whatever holy book you're into) says 'created from nothing,' it means literally nothing, like there wasn't any things in existence, not even the universe or empty space. And then some magic being just poofs everything into existence through some magical unknown/unexplainable force. When science says 'created from nothing' they mean a causal agent (which can be anything, including non sentient, non living materials, acting/reacting according to the laws of physics we find in this universe), that is responsible for things happening, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Moreover, 'nothing' isn't the absence of stuff in science. 'Nothing' is full of stuff in science, and as far as we know there can't truly be nothing. Even before the Big Bang (or whatever current scientific cosmological model), it's likely that there are more than one universes, that this universe wasn't created from thin air (as many religious people seem to think we claim), and that there was likely something before the start of this universe. However, there is no evidence to imply that the creation of the universe was done intentionally, intelligently, or by a being, let alone one who is 'god.'

And if you want to debate it, then give me an example of something that can be made by someone when it was (in your opinion) created by something else other than being made by humans, animals etc..

Because I doubt the earth just exploded and created itself. How many things do you see explode and create things rather than destroy them?

There's not much of a debate to be had. You're dead set in your beliefs, which are largely unsubstantiated and confounded by your lack of understanding of any field of science, where you completely ignore and/or misinterpret what science is actually saying about the universe you find yourself in, because you don't like how it doesn't jive with your beliefs. There is no point in trying to inform you of the facts we know about our universe because they will most certainly not support your world view, and be rejected out of hand by your willful ignorance.

Why did the earth make itself? Why are we here?

Why do you keep using language that implies a 'who,' and not a 'what?' We know planets form all on their own, without the need for a supernatural explanation. There's absolutely zero reason for anyone to assume that a magic-man created earth, or that it was 'created' at all. It totally could have formed out of space debris on it's own, according to the laws of physics.

 

[FrozenWill]

We can mostly answer how. What makes you think there is a why?

Why does God exist? Why is his will effective rather than ineffective or partially effective? Why does he possess the traits that he does rather than others?

God doesn't need to be here infront of everybody to prove anything. Believing that the world was made by Him should be enough to believe that there is a greater being that created everything. That's the whole point of having faith in something.

 

[FrozenWill]

Classic misunderstanding of science and how it works. When the Bible (or whatever holy book you're into) says 'created from nothing,' it means literally nothing, like there wasn't any things in existence, not even the universe or empty space. And then some magic being just poofs everything into existence through some magical unknown/unexplainable force. When science says 'created from nothing' they mean a causal agent (which can be anything, including non sentient, non living materials, acting/reacting according to the laws of physics we find in this universe), that is responsible for things happening, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Moreover, 'nothing' isn't the absence of stuff in science. 'Nothing' is full of stuff in science, and as far as we know there can't truly be nothing. Even before the Big Bang (or whatever current scientific cosmological model), it's likely that there are more than one universes, that this universe wasn't created from thin air (as many religious people seem to think we claim), and that there was likely something before the start of this universe. However, there is no evidence to imply that the creation of the universe was done intentionally, intelligently, or by a being, let alone one who is 'god.'



There's not much of a debate to be had. You're dead set in your beliefs, which are largely unsubstantiated and confounded by your lack of understanding of any field of science, where you completely ignore and/or misinterpret what science is actually saying about the universe you find yourself in, because you don't like how it doesn't jive with your beliefs. There is no point in trying to inform you of the facts we know about our universe because they will most certainly not support your world view, and be rejected out of hand by your willful ignorance.



Why do you keep using language that implies a 'who,' and not a 'what?' We know planets form all on their own, without the need for a supernatural explanation. There's absolutely zero reason for anyone to assume that a magic-man created earth, or that it was 'created' at all. It totally could have formed out of space debris on it's own, according to the laws of physics.

So you believe that there was nothing and then something(in your opinion, space debris) came from nothing which created the world.

Yet, you can't fathom the fact that someone like God couldn't make the universe...

 

[willix]

So you believe that there was nothing and then something(in your opinion, space debris) came from nothing which created the world.

Again, you display an astounding lack of understanding of what science even claims to know about the universe. having this conversation with you is indeed, pointless.

Yet, you can't fathom the fact that someone like God couldn't make the universe...

1. 'God exists' is not a fact.

2. Modern physics has shown how universes can exist without the need to invoke gods.