The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

[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 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.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 189 by Danmark]

Shall we let him speak for himself?

Moderator Warning

They don't have telephones in hell. You'll just be screwed for eternity. 199
Shall we let him speak for himself? 197
Boredom in sharing the being of the Creator of all? I doubt it. 196
That's a tad short-sighted. 194
Well, one of us is right - and it ain't you. We could arm wrestle? 188

These are all unproductive one line responses that do not address the points raised in the posts to which they are replies. Indeed, you don't include any quotes from those posts. They read like one line snipes, one after the other...they don't advance the conversation and they don't add to the discussion.

When replying to a post, address the points made in the post, expand your thoughts so that there is something for others to respond to in turn. As well, at least two of the above statements are personal and negative comments. Please refrain from doing that.



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 204 by FarWanderer]

Pure nothingness is the absence of states of existence. Think about existence itself not existing. Think about the absence of even a Void. Ask yourself, "why should there be anything at all?" "Why not nothing instead?" "Nothing is certainly simpler and seemingly preferable to the ridiculous complication of existence itself". I know this is very counter-intuitive thinking and you probably would tend to rebel against the very notion of pure nothingness. However, there is absolutely nothing illogical about pure nothingness. It may seem like a crazy notion, but that's only because you are heavily prejudiced in favor of existence because 1) you like to exist and you like things and people that exist and 2) you only know existence. But, again, there is nothing illogical about pure nothingness, just your own prejudice against and unfamiliarity with the concept.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 208 by Hatuey]

How does any particular universe among those infinite number of possibilities get chosen for reality, then?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 209 by Donray]

Jesus speaks for Heaven. Not me. Anything I would say about Heaven that Jesus has not already said would be dangerous speculation by me. I will not speculate about it, as I have no basis for doing so besides interpreting what Jesus said. Sorry if all your questions about Heaven do not have answers. But, I'm not going to guess just to give you an answer.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 209 by Donray]

Jesus speaks for Heaven. Not me. Anything I would say about Heaven that Jesus has not already said would be dangerous speculation by me. I will not speculate about it, as I have no basis for doing so besides interpreting what Jesus said. Sorry if all your questions about Heaven do not have answers. But, I'm not going to guess just to give you an answer.

I know why you cannot speculate what heaven is like. because anything you come up with would make no sense.

There is nothing in the bible that says you cannot speculate what you think heaven will be like.

You need to explain why it would be dangerous.

Again, you will not guess because the answers you give yourself you would not like.

Tell me why then do people speculate about in church all the time? They seem to think that you will know your family there. Nothing in the bible says you will even know any family members in heaven.

You come up with illogical proofs trying to prove God is real and yet have no idea what heaven would be like.

So, no Christian for fear of punishment will discuss heaven? Is that correct? Is that one sin that will guarantee hell?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 204 by FarWanderer]

Pure nothingness is the absence of states of existence. Think about existence itself not existing. Think about the absence of even a Void. Ask yourself, "why should there be anything at all?" "Why not nothing instead?" "Nothing is certainly simpler and seemingly preferable to the ridiculous complication of existence itself". I know this is very counter-intuitive thinking and you probably would tend to rebel against the very notion of pure nothingness. However, there is absolutely nothing illogical about pure nothingness. It may seem like a crazy notion, but that's only because you are heavily prejudiced in favor of existence because 1) you like to exist and you like things and people that exist and 2) you only know existence. But, again, there is nothing illogical about pure nothingness, just your own prejudice against and unfamiliarity with the concept.

I disagree on both points.

First, I see nothing difficult about the idea of pure nothingness. It seems both logical and easy to imagine as a concept. The only problem with the idea is evidence. Each of us is conscious. We think, therefore something beyond "pure nothingness" or pure "non existence" exists. This has nothing to do with whether we "like to exist" or "we only know existence."

Again, as a concept "pure nothingness" is a simple conception and easy to contemplate. It is only the evidence of existence that makes it impossible to accept as a current reality.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 208 by Hatuey]

How does any particular universe among those infinite number of possibilities get chosen for reality, then?

There does not have to be a "choosing." There may theoretically be an infinite number of possibilities. From the objective realist's point of view, each moment one possibility actually exists, the other possibilities for that moment disappear; gone forever. The next moment may also contain infinite possibilities, all but one of which are extinguished. One need not posit some overall 'chooser.' What is, is.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 215 by Donray]

No. Quite to the contrary. Jesus Himself says I am not to speculate.

Jesus said, "But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers." Matthew 23:8.

If Jesus is the One Teacher, than I am not to teach myself through speculation about Heaven.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 216 by Danmark]

Oh, good. You understand it then. Many people have a hard time even understanding the concept of pure nothingness. My comment wasn't addressed to you, though. It was addressed to FarWanderer, who apparently is struggling with the concept.

Nonetheless, I am not AT ALL suggesting pure nothingness is the case. Pure nothingness is OBVIOUSLY not the case. Rather, I am using the CONCEPT of pure nothingness as a viable metaphysical option to explain that what is the case is "all possible all inclusive states of existence" which demands a constraint aka God.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 217 by Danmark]

Well, the problem with that is determinism. It is not the case that the next moment is just one choice among an infinite number of choices. Rather, the next moment is pre-determined by the previous moment. There is no possibility among infinite choices for the next moment. There is only one possibility for the next moment. The big flaw in this atheistic deterministic thinking is that the order of one moment to the next results in an infinite regression of causation, where there is no way to explain why the order is what it is because there is no starting point which sets the whole pre-determined chain. You need God to choose which chain shall be started.