The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:45 pm

THE DOUBLE DICHOTOMY PROOF OF GOD

1) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence and no states of existence proves that no states of existence cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

2) A metaphysical dichotomy between the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real and the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real being those possible all inclusive states of existence that contain two logically possible but contradictory states proves that the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that cannot become real cannot be the case, because our universe is real.

3) Because our universe had a beginning and does not need to be real, and because something must be real without our universe being real due to the fact that no states of existence cannot be real, then there must be something real without our universe being real proving that all inclusive states of existence that can become real must be possible in reality.

4) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is infinite because one can imagine any given universe with the addition of just one more thing ad infinitum, then there cannot be a probability for any given universe because the set is infinite.

5) But because the universe is real, then there must be something real which determines what becomes real among the infinite set of all possible all inclusive states of existence where said determination is not based on probability or random chance.

6) Because something can be real and our universe not be real, then there must be a power to create the real such as our universe, and as there is a power to create the real, then there must be a power to determine what is real based on an order of preference.

7) Because the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is not inherently ordered, and because it is possible to determine based on preference which possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality, then there must be a real eternal constraint that determines through will and intellect to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real.

8) Because the actualization of any or all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real requires the constraint to actualize them, then the constraint cannot be made and therefore must be infinite pure act without moving parts.

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

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

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

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

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 3:47 pm

John, why can't you answer the question of why you need to believe in your personnel god?

Just because a god could have crated the universe is no reason to support and believe in it.

Do you believe because your god will punish you if you don't?

I think most people like you believe only because your unhappy in this life and hope your god provides some kind of afterlife. Of course you have no logical definition of this afterlife.

So, why do support the god of the bible even if a god created the universe you have no proof it is the same god.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:19 pm

[Replying to post 481 by Donray]

Well, actually I do have proof it is the same God.

One can derive certain attributes of a God-like creator, such as singularity, not being made, eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. This describes the God of the Bible quite nicely.

The God of the Bible is One God (singularity).
The God of the Bible is not made. (I AM WHO I AM).
The God of the Bible is eternal. ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.")
The God of the Bible is omnipresent. ("I am with you always, to the very end of the age . . . .").
The God of the Bible is omnipotent. ("with God all things are possible . . .").
The God of the Bible is omniscient. ("all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him").
The God of the Bible is immaterial. ("God is spirit").

One can even derive the nature of God as loving. God has nothing to fear, hence God has no reason not to be loving. God shares His attributes with us, which is again loving. God is in the business of creation, which is again a loving act.

God has made us to be like God, giving us attributes like intelligence and the power to create, e.g. children. God's will that we be like God can be deduced from God giving us attributes like God. ("God created man in His own image"). God's punishment can be deduced by God's will, if God has a will for us it is reasonable to deduce that God has a punishment in store for those who oppose God's will.

Lastly, Jesus taught to be like God. And told us that God offers us eternality in heaven, which is again another attribute of God that God is sharing.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:31 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 471 by Hatuey]

Your diatribe is unconvincing.

I'm sure...from your perspective, but then again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your ineffective witness void of any logical reasoning is just fine with me, an atheist. For every Christian with zero logic, my confidence rises. Your arguments are worse than unconvincing, they're not even arguments.

You have yet to show how an infinite regress is more absurd than a first cause or unicorn farts as a reason for the universe's existence. Unicorn farts, first causes, and infinite regression are undetectable, and therefore irrelevant, equally absurd, and equally logical for any answer, in any case, at any time, for any purpose.

That you cannot answer the questions I put to you, but merely label the totality according to your own opinion is enough of an answer for me. You have nothing in favor of your opinion except that it happens to be yours. It's enough if you're a pastor with dumb sheep, I guess. What more than your own opinion do you need in such a scenario?

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 4:33 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 481 by Donray]

Well, actually I do have proof it is the same God.

One can derive certain attributes of a God-like creator, such as singularity, not being made, eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. This describes the God of the Bible quite nicely.

The God of the Bible is One God (singularity).
The God of the Bible is not made. (I AM WHO I AM).
The God of the Bible is eternal. ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.")
The God of the Bible is omnipresent. ("I am with you always, to the very end of the age . . . .").
The God of the Bible is omnipotent. ("with God all things are possible . . .").
The God of the Bible is omniscient. ("all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him")

Applying labels according to idiotic fairy tales with zero evidence is not proof, it's begging the question. Christians rarely have anything else, though, so it's the best fall-back position since it's the only one available.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:45 pm

[Replying to post 482 by John J. Bannan]

None of your replies answer my question. Tell me, would you believe in your god if it did not tell you could have an afterlife? If, so, why believe?

I don't understand why you cannot tell me why you believe?

Non of your responses answer that question.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:32 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 472 by Jashwell]
Well, if the BB was the beginning of time and one need not speak of prior causes, then one need not be concerned about your higher dimensional triangle, because it can't possibly be real.

I don't see what you're even trying to say.
If the BB was the beginning of time and there aren't prior causes, the cosmological argument doesn't work.

I don't see how a "higher dimensional triangle" (?) has anything to do with that.

A triangle has spatial ORDER. I can tell the difference between the corner and the side. I could also be located nearer or farther from a corner.

This has nothing to do whatsoever with anything I've said, nor to do with what you previously called order.

You can't just act like using the word 'order' in full capitals solves all possible counterarguments, especially when you use it to mean different things.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:15 pm

[Replying to post 485 by Donray]

Of course, I would believe in God even without an afterlife. God is an inescapable logical deduction from first cause, first ORDER and the impossibility of infinity creating irregular discreteness, as well as the inherent nature of the universe to create.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Thu Jan 01, 2015 1:51 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: God is an inescapable logical deduction from first cause, first ORDER and the impossibility of infinity creating irregular discreteness, as well as the inherent nature of the universe to create.

However, you have yet to demonstrate that any of those axioms are plausible, possible, or more logical, or more absurd than unicorn farts or fairy hiccoughs.

John J. Bannan's conclusions with zero evidence =/= sound, logical reasoning. (This is your biggest problem to overcome because until you grok that principle, you will continue to post your own sans-evidence-or-logic-conclusions AS "inescapable logic" which convinces nobody at all).

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Jan 02, 2015 2:30 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 448 by McCulloch]

The conservation of energy only applies to the evolution of the Big Bang, not the cause of the Big Bang. Because the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity, there is no law of conversation of energy preventing the creation of energy/matter.

Yes, and the principle of causality and the passage of time also break down.

John J. Bannan wrote:Materiality reality cannot cause itself.

Asserted, without any support whatsoever. You say that material reality cannot cause itself, yet this unevidenced unknown immaterial reality can somehow cause itself. That seems like special pleading to me. Wouldn't it be more prudent to assert that the only reality that we know anything about is the only reality that is and that it has always been?

FarWanderer · Post by **FarWanderer** » Sat Jan 03, 2015 5:55 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 443 by FarWanderer]

That which caused the Big Bang.

Even granting for the sake of argument that the Big Bang was caused at all, you are just assuming that the Big Bang's cause is itself uncaused when that is the very question being disputed.

It's a perfect example of begging the question.