A New Proof of God

[John J. Bannan]

A NEW PROOF OF GOD

1) Actualized means to come into being in a form that either exerts a force or can have a force exerted upon it.

2) True nothingness (“TN�) means a state of existence defined by the absence of anything and everything actualized, including but not limited to the complete absence of time, space, matter, energy, vacuum, quantum or Higgs fields, Voids, dimensions, God, man, thought, mind, and TE.

3) True Everythingness (“TE�) means a state of existence defined as the exact opposite of TN without TN.

4) A state of eternality means that existence must always contain something that is actualized.

5) A state of finality means that existence can come to a point where existence contains nothing that is actualized and enter into a state of TN.

6) Because existence must either be a state of eternality or a state of finality, then TN is a meaningful state of existence to discuss.

7) Because TN and TE are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaust all possible alternatives, TN and TE form a dichotomy.

8) Because TN is a meaningful state of existence to discuss, then a dichotomy between TN and TE is also a meaningful proposition to discuss.

9) A state of finality must be caused, because otherwise it would be a state of eternality which does not require a cause.

10) The only state of existence that could cause a state of finality is TN, because a state of eternality cannot cause and thereby become a state of finality.

11) Because TN cannot cause a state of finality because nothing comes from nothing, then TN cannot be caused by a state of finality.

12) Because there is no state of existence that can cause a state of finality, then existence cannot be a state of finality.

13) Because existence cannot be a state of finality, then existence must be a state of eternality.

14) Because neither a state of eternality nor a state of finality can cause TN, then TN cannot be caused.

15) Because TN cannot be caused, then TN is a possible state of existence because there is no state of existence which can make TN impossible.

16) Because TN is a possible state of existence, then the dichotomy between TE and TN contains all possible states of existence.

17) Because TN is not a true state of existence because we are real, then TE is the true state of existence.

18) Because TN does not require a cause, then TE does not require a cause because it shares a dichotomy with TN.

19) Because TE does not require a cause and because existence must be a state of eternality, then TE must be a state of eternality.

20) Because neither TN nor TE can be caused, then neither TN nor TE can be actualized.

21) Because TE cannot be caused, then TE cannot contain TE.

22) Because TE cannot contain TE, then there can be only one TE.

23) Because TN cannot be caused, then TN cannot contain TN.

24) Because TN cannot contain TN, then there can be only one TN.

25) Because in existence the possible can become actualized, then TE must contain both the actualized and the possible.

26) A Constraint on TE means an actualized state of existence having the power to limit or restrict TE thus giving the Constraint power to allow TE to actualize something instead of everything, but the Constraint does not have the power to determine that the Constraint itself is not actualized, to actualize another Constraint, to actualize the logically impossible, to actualize anything that would deny the existence of the Constraint such as two logically possible but contradictory states, or to actualize TE or TN because neither can be caused.

27) If everything were actualized, then nothing could remain possible.

28) Because TE must contain the possible, then TE must actualize the Constraint to avoid everything being actualized.

29) Because more than one Constraint could undo each other’s actualizations thus rendering neither a Constraint on TE, then TE can only actualize one Constraint.

30) Because TE can only actualize one Constraint, then the Constraint must either be the only Constraint logically possible or the Constraint containing the most complications in terms of the logically possible else TE would never have actualized the most complications in terms of the logically possible in the form of the Constraint which violates TE.

31) Because TE must actualize the Constraint, then the Constraint must likewise be in a state of eternality.

32) Because the Constraint must be in a state of eternality, then TE must be a timeless cause of the Constraint forming an eternal dualistic relationship between TE and the Constraint.

33) Because the dichotomy between TN and TE excludes the impossible, then TE must actualize all that is logically possible provided the Constraint allows it to be actualized.

34) Because TE must actualize the Constraint, the Constraint must be logically possible.

35) Because a mind is capable of containing the possible in the form of thought, then it is logically possible for TE to actualize a mind of the Constraint in order to contain the possible.

36) Because a mind of the Constraint is logically possible, then TE must actualize the mind of the Constraint.

37) Because the Constraint has the power to limit or restrict actualization by TE, then the mind of the Constraint must have the power to limit or restrict actualization by TE.

38) Because a mind is capable of will, then it is logically possible for the mind of the Constraint to be capable of will.

39) Because it is logically possible for the mind of the Constraint to be capable of will, then the mind of the Constraint with a will must be actualized.

40) Because the mind of the Constraint must have the power of the Constraint, then the mind of the Constraint must have the power to will the possible into actualization.

41) Because actualization comes from TE, then actualization brought on by the will of the mind of the Constraint is not simply a thought, but rather an actualization of TE allowed to be actualized through of the mind of the Constraint.

42) Because a mind requires time in order to function, then it is logically possible that the Constraint contains immaterial time.

43) Because immaterial time is logically possible, then immaterial time must be actualized by TE.

44) Because material time is a property of our space-time, then the mind of the Constraint actualizes our material time.

45) Because the mind of the Constraint actualized our material time, then the mind of the Constraint is not subject to our material time.

46) Because we know from our own minds that knowledge is logically possible, then it is logically possible for the mind of the Constraint to have complete knowledge of TE.

47) Because it is logically possible for the mind of the Constraint to have complete knowledge of TE, then TE must actualize a mind of the Constraint with complete knowledge of TE.

48) Because the mind of the Constraint has complete knowledge of TE, then the mind of the Constraint must be omniscient.

49) Because the mind of the Constraint must have power over the actualization of the possible, then the mind of the Constraint must be omnipotent.

50) Because the mind of the Constraint must have complete presence in its actualization of the possible in order to have power over its actualization, then the mind of the Constraint must be omniscient.

51) The immaterial mind of the Constraint shares the characteristics of God the Father, namely eternality, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

52) The omnipresence of the mind of the Constraint shares the characteristics of God the Holy Spirit.

53) The logical possibility of the actualization of the mind of a man to perfectly reflect the immaterial mind of the Constraint to the fullest extent possible given the limited capacity of the human mind shares the characteristics of God the Son.

54) The best evidence that Jesus was the Son of God goes like this: One can hear a great masterpiece of music and infer that a Master composer must have been actualized in order for the masterpiece of music to be actualized. The Words of Jesus contained in The Gospels are a masterpiece of supergenius, and from them one can infer that the Master supergenius, Jesus, must have been actualized. Such a supergenius is exactly what one should expect from the Son of God.

55) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and we call this being God.

[Divine Insight]

54) The best evidence that Jesus was the Son of God goes like this: One can hear a great masterpiece of music and infer that a Master composer must have been actualized in order for the masterpiece of music to be actualized. The Words of Jesus contained in The Gospels are a masterpiece of supergenius, and from them one can infer that the Master supergenius, Jesus, must have been actualized. Such a supergenius is exactly what one should expect from the Son of God.

I don't know about all the rest but #54 fails miserably. Jesus was anything but a masterpiece of supergenius. On the contrary the man was so utterly stupid he ended up getting himself nailed to a pole. And ironically the very reason that happened is because he failed to practice what he preached.

Moreover if there was a "Father God" associated with Jesus that Father God would necessarily had to have been a far greater idiot for sure. Certainly not a genius.

So I think your logic fails miserably when you try to apply it to Christian mythology. No all-wise supernatural mind could possibly be as stupid as the Bible demands that its God must be. So while you might have had something concerning a possible mystical mind, you totally blew it when you tried to carry that association over to Christian Mythology. You would be hard pressed to find a more unintelligent "God".

[otseng]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.