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.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 230 by Hatuey]

Is that your favorite atheistic argument? That there is no scientific proof of God?

There are limits to science. The major limit is that science cannot explain why science exists. So, it seems pretty absurd to be requesting scientific proof for the thing that creates science itself.

[Hatuey]

Is that your favorite atheistic argument? That there is no scientific proof of God?

There are limits to science. The major limit is the science cannot explain why science exists. So, it seems pretty absurd to be requesting scientific proof for the thing that creates science itself.

No, there are much better arguments than that there is no scientific proof of god, but I'm glad that you agree that god is completely undetectable and outside the realm of science. It seems pretty absurd to be suggesting that you can prove a god without free will just by posting a list of philosophical nonsequiturs. But you don't seem to have anything else in your arsenal (as evidenced by your two closing sentences above!) LOL!!

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 223 by Danmark]

In fact, most atheists I've spoken to do not find the concept of pure nothingness simple in the least bit, and most never get it - confusing it with Void or empty space.

I bring it up for one very good and simple reason. Determinism states that the universe is necessary. However, the universe must have had a first starting point which cannot have been necessary, because anything necessary is only made necessary due to its cause. The uncaused cannot be necessary. Hence, the explanation of existence must be an unnecessary uncaused thing. But, in order for something to be unnecessary, there must be at least 2 possibilities - one of which is the case. Hence, the need to discuss pure nothingness as that 2nd option, which allows existence itself to be unnecessary. Knowing that the 2nd option is pure nothingness also allows one to know the nature of existence as the mutually exclusive jointly exhaustive opposite of pure nothingness, i.e. all possible all inclusive states of existence. Pure nothingness is the key to explaining existence itself, and accordingly, pure nothingness is an incredibly important concept.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 231 by John J. Bannan]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

But absurd claims aside, your issues with determinism are not only moot but would be destructive of your own position, and you continue to assume the conclusion with regards to possibilities.

Even if science weren't a world class epistemology that has literally revolutionised the world time and time over, the fact that you're trying to twist "there's no scientific proof for God" into an argument for the existence of a God is telling in and of itself.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 232 by Hatuey]

Then, what is your best atheistic argument?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 234 by Jashwell]

Be more specific. You are being very unclear with your statements.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 232 by Hatuey]

Then, what is your best atheistic argument?

There is no "best," there is only the best for a particular case.

Have you now given up proving god through your list of nonsequitur "philosophical" assertions?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 236 by John J. Bannan]

1) The answers to "why science exists" are the results of scientific study

2) "Everything has a cause" & "There is a first cause" are incompatible

3) "Everything but X has a cause" is special pleading

4) Claiming a first cause must be God is special pleading

5) Claiming that determinists require a first cause is false

6) Claiming that other possibilities exist beyond being perceived to exist, therefore there are multiple possibilities is begging the question

7) Claiming there is a choice therefore someone must choose is begging the question

8) The idea that "there are limits to science" is considered to be a meaningful response to "there's no scientific evidence for God" illustrates how unnecessarily complex or meaninglessly defined the idea of a God is

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 233 by John J. Bannan]

Congratulations! You've just rephrased the prime mover argument for the nth time, and no more successfully or creatively than the the other failed efforts.
A. In one form or another, the universe has always been. Tho' the concept of 'pure nothingness is easy to imagine, it has never been.
B. There is no reason to substitute 'God' for the word universe and claim it is 'God' that has always been. We know the universe exists because we observe it. We do not observe God so there is no reason to substitute an imaginary eternal being for something observable.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 234 by Jashwell]

Be more specific. You are being very unclear with your statements.

Wrong! Jashwell's statement was quite clear:

But absurd claims aside, your issues with determinism are not only moot but would be destructive of your own position, and you continue to assume the conclusion with regards to possibilities.

Even if science weren't a world class epistemology that has literally revolutionised the world time and time over, the fact that you're trying to twist "there's no scientific proof for God" into an argument for the existence of a God is telling in and of itself.

I had no trouble understanding him. Instead of just hitting 'reply' you actually quoted what you refer to, the haze you claim would clear and both you and the reader would know what you are talking about.