Introducing the Duality Argument: A New Deductive Case for God
A rigorous philosophical argument for why reality requires a Mind
I’ve just published a new paper in philosophy of religion that I’m calling The Duality Argument for a Non-Contingent Mind. It’s a deductive case for God’s existence that takes a different approach than most traditional arguments. Instead of starting with “the universe began” (Kalam) or “the universe is finely-tuned” (design), it starts with something more fundamental: the dual nature of reality itself.
Let me explain what that means and why it matters.
The Problem: Reality Has Two Faces
Look around you. Physical reality presents itself with two inseparable features:
First, there’s order. The universe follows precise mathematical laws. Logic holds everywhere, always. 2+2=4 in every galaxy. Conservation of energy isn’t a suggestion. Even quantum mechanics, for all its weirdness, follows rigorous mathematical rules. Eugene Wigner famously called this the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”—the universe is rational through and through.
Second, there’s action. The universe isn’t just a static blueprint sitting in Plato’s heaven. It’s an event. Things happen. Quantum fields fluctuate. Energy flows. Particles move. The universe is dynamic actualization.
Here’s the puzzle: If reality is contingent (could have been otherwise or not at all), what grounds both of these features?
Why This Is Harder Than It Looks
You can’t just say “physical laws do it.” Physical laws are part of what needs explaining. They’re contingent features of this universe. They could have been different. So what ensures they exist and are followed?
The paper shows—through systematic elimination—that the usual metaphysical candidates fail:
Pure abstraction doesn’t work. Plato’s Forms, the Neoplatonic One, abstract mathematical objects—these might give you rational order, but they’re causally inert. A perfect, timeless Form doesn’t do anything. It can’t actualize a dynamic universe. Blueprint without builder.
Pure matter doesn’t work. Materialism and pantheism give you dynamic stuff, but they can’t explain why that stuff follows profound mathematical laws rather than random chaos. And declaring the universe itself “necessary” just relabels the problem. A collection of contingent things (quantum fields, particles, forces) doesn’t become necessary by calling it God. Builder without blueprint.
So what’s left?
The Only Thing That Unifies Both
Think about what does inherently combine rational order with the power to act: Mind.
A mind grasps rational truths (that’s intellect—the “order” side). A mind can choose to actualize possibilities (that’s will—the “action” side). These aren’t separate components bolted together. They’re intrinsically unified in the very concept of mind.
The paper argues—deductively, through elimination—that Mind is the only ontological category that inherently unifies:
Rational comprehension (Intellect)
Executive actuation (Will)
Therefore, if contingent reality requires a non-contingent ground that unifies rational order and dynamic action, that ground must be a Mind.
A Concrete Example: The Lagrangian
For those who want something more concrete than abstract philosophy, consider the Lagrangian formulation in physics.
The Lagrangian is a mathematical function that governs how physical systems evolve. It unifies:
Structure: Symmetries, conservation laws, mathematical relationships (the rational order)
Selection: The principle of least action picks ONE path from infinite possibilities (the dynamic actuation)
The Lagrangian doesn’t just describe what happens. It prescribes it. But this raises the exact question the argument addresses: What grounds this prescription? Why does THIS Lagrangian exist? What ensures the principle of least action is followed? Why is one trajectory actualized rather than another?
The Lagrangian is a case study in the duality the argument targets: rational blueprint and executive governance inseparably joined.
Why “Mind” Isn’t Question-Begging
The obvious objection: “Aren’t you just defining Mind as ‘the thing that unifies order and action’ and then concluding that’s what we need?”
No. Here’s why the argument isn’t circular:
We identify the required features independently (from observing reality’s dual nature)
We ask: What ontological category inherently has both features?
We find: Mind (as understood in classical philosophy) has exactly this structure
We verify: No other category works (Platonism fails, Materialism fails, etc.)
We conclude: Therefore Mind
This is like identifying a murderer through fingerprints. You’re not defining “murderer” as “person with these prints.” You’re finding who matches the evidence.
How This Fits the Bigger Picture
This argument is one line of evidence in a cumulative case for Christian theism. It establishes that the metaphysical ground of reality must be:
Non-contingent (necessary being)
Rational (possesses Intellect)
Volitional (possesses Will)
Unified (not composite)
Other arguments add:
Kalam: Powerful, personal, timeless
Fine-tuning: Intelligent, purposeful
Moral argument: Morally perfect
Consciousness argument: Conscious
Historical argument: Acts in history
The lines converge. Each independent, each pointing the same direction.
The Paper Itself
The full paper includes:
Formal syllogism (10 premises, deductively valid)
Responses to five major objections
Engagement with alternative positions (Aristotle, Whitehead, Spinoza, etc.)
Defense of the argument’s deductive status against sophisticated critiques
Comparison table showing how it relates to other theistic arguments
It’s rigorous philosophy, not popular apologetics. But that’s the point. Christianity doesn’t need to retreat from serious intellectual engagement. The evidence holds up.
The Meta-Point
Here’s what strikes me about this argument: It doesn’t require specialized knowledge of cosmology or biology. It starts with something everyone can verify—that reality exhibits both rational order and dynamic action—and follows the logic to its conclusion.
You can dispute the premises. You can challenge the eliminations. But you can’t dismiss it as “faith versus reason.” It’s reason pointing to faith. It’s evidence demanding a verdict.
And that’s exactly what we should expect if Christianity is true.
Discussion
I’m publishing this as a preprint to invite feedback before journal submission. If you’re a philosopher, theologian, or just someone who thinks carefully about these things, I’d value your engagement.
Where do you think the argument is strongest? Where does it need work? Can you articulate an alternative metaphysical ground that passes the duality filter?
Contact: jdlongmire@outlook.com
Full paper: https://zenodo.org/records/17618523
ORCID: 0009-0009-1383-7698
This is part of an ongoing project examining the convergence of evidence for Christian theism. See other work at oddXian.com | “Challenge the Consensus: Working out the harmony of God’s Word and God’s World”
Academic Status: This paper is published as a preprint (Version 1.0) on Zenodo and has not yet undergone formal peer review. It will be submitted to a philosophy journal following this period of open community feedback. Comments and critiques from qualified reviewers are welcome and will strengthen the final submission.
Technical note for philosophers: Yes, I’m aware of the epistemic/modal necessity distinction. The paper addresses this in Section 4.1. The trichotomy (static/dynamic/unified) is logically exhaustive, Mind is defined functionally, and 2,500 years of philosophical inquiry without alternatives constitutes sufficient grounds for deductive conclusion. See the paper for full defense.