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.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:13 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 306 by Hatuey]

What do you define as "perfect"?

No, the question is to you. What do you define as "perfect?" If god had done anything other than what he has done, would it be perfect? Can god have a will that is good (ours?) yet choose not to do that perfect and good option? If god's will is perfect and good, why is there so much needless suffering? Why is god's perfect will so awful for so many people who only committed the "sin" of being born?

Is this god's perfect will, or isn't it? If it is, could god choose not to do it? Why does god make it appear as though consciousness ("mind") is only caused by the physical, chemical, electrical component of a brain? Why do you presume to know god's mind without any incontrovertible truth of his being?

You have no proof; you have fancifully constructed conjecture that fools no one but yourself with the vain idea that it is capable of withstanding critical scrutiny, but it fails, yet you soldier on under the flag of standard, boring ego.

Yes, by all means, what do you define as "perfect?"

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:14 am

Y[Replying to post 311 by Hatuey]

You are the one making the objection based on "perfection". Hence, it is clearly your burden to define what you mean by "perfect".

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:09 am

John J. Bannan wrote: Y[Replying to post 311 by Hatuey]

You are the one making the objection based on "perfection". Hence, it is clearly your burden to define what you mean by "perfect".

If you want to just dodge the issue, then it'll be recorded that you do NOT define your god as perfect and/or you are unwilling to show how god's quality of perfection cannot be deduced from the facts around us.

Which is it, John? Is your god not perfect or do you admit his perfection is unlikely given reality?

And remember scurrying away and ignoring the point means you forfeit it, as you have done so many times before (and now you've lost far more ground than you ever "gained" on this thread).

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:20 am

[Replying to post 313 by Hatuey]

How does one define "perfect" for God? One can define "perfect" for man. But, God? God is reality itself. Is reality less than "perfect"? What does one compare reality itself to in order to deem it less than perfect? And, one must know what is less than perfect in order to understand what is perfect. There is no reality outside of God. Hence, there is nothing to compare God to. Hence, the "perfection" of God is saying no more than that God is God.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:35 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 313 by Hatuey]

How does one define "perfect" for God? One can define "perfect" for man. But, God? God is reality itself. Is reality less than "perfect"? What does one compare reality itself to in order to deem it less than perfect? And, one must know what is less than perfect in order to understand what is perfect. There is no reality outside of God. Hence, there is nothing to compare God to. Hence, the "perfection" of God is saying no more than that God is God.

Fine. You admit, then, that god's quality of "perfection" cannot be deduced from reality. Nature does not imply a god who is perfect any more than one that is imperfect, since, AS YOU SAY, "there is no reality outside of God," and so his imperfection would look exactly like his perfection.

So too, a "first cause" cannot be deduced from reality any more than an infinite regression. The two realities would look identical--as far as we can tell from within it.

So too, "mind" cannot be logically shown to exist without matter, and you are at a loss to explain how an "impossible-to=prove-mind" should be logically deduced from anything we observe.

It's not so much that you can't prove your premises (you can't), as you don't even understand why their result is self-refuting.

You have unanswered questions about how your consciousness came about, and your ego doesn't want to consider it ever ending, and we all deal with those feelings. But those questions don't prove some conscious mind always existed and holds all other consciousnesses and everything within it and has feelings about you. Let your bubble of self-importance burst, and admit it to yourself, if to no one else.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:41 am

[Replying to post 315 by Hatuey]

One can deduce some of the nature of God from reality. But what God is like is a different question than whether God is perfect. A God who is the embodiment of the inherent nature of the universe to create would have a nature toward creating. A God who has nothing to fear would not be an evil God, because the root of evil is fear. A God who creates man to have similar qualities to God, i.e. power to create and intelligence, would indicate a loving God who wishes to create in His image.

A "first cause" has a definite advantage over infinite regression. Infinite regression cannot be real because no object could be where it is without there ultimately being an initial starting position which necessitates a first cause. Moreover, a "first cause" is logically unnecessary and uncaused, which is exactly what is needed to explain existence. So, you see, "first cause" is a better argument than "infinite regression". And I am simply pointing out that God must be real, because there must be a non-deterministic mechanism of choice to decide what becomes real and what does not become real among infinite possibilities.

As for my ego, it has nothing to do with it. I understand atheist arguments just as well as atheists. I am quite capable of blocking God out of the equation. Rather, it is that the argument for God is better than the atheist's best arguments.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:07 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 315 by Hatuey]

One can deduce some of the nature of God from reality. But what God is like is a different question than whether God is perfect. A God who is the embodiment of the inherent nature of the universe to create would have a nature toward creating. A God who has nothing to fear would not be an evil God, because the root of evil is fear. A God who creates man to have similar qualities to God, i.e. power to create and intelligence, would indicate a loving God who wishes to create in His image.

That is ALL conjecture, since you have no proof of god; you simply employ mental methods that satisfy YOUR predispositions. (For instance, it does not logically follow that a being who does not fear must necessarily be good--that's just what you believe about your idea of god).

Conjecture only demonstrates conjecture. Sorry.

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 315 by Hatuey]
A "first cause" has a definite advantage over infinite regression. Infinite regression cannot be real because no object could be where it is without there ultimately being an initial starting position which necessitates a first cause. Moreover, a "first cause" is logically unnecessary and uncaused, which is exactly what is needed to explain existence. So, you see, "first cause" is a better argument than "infinite regression". And I am simply pointing out that God must be real, because there must be a non-deterministic mechanism of choice to decide what becomes real and what does not become real among infinite possibilities.

No. First cause is no more logical than infinite regression. Neither can be deduced from nature. You stating "must bes" and "becauses" do no one good but yourself because they show where YOU have stopped applying reason and simply decide on one option over others where there is no logical reason to do so.

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 315 by Hatuey]
As for my ego, it has nothing to do with it. I understand atheist arguments just as well as atheists. I am quite capable of blocking God out of the equation. Rather, it is that the argument for God is better than the atheist's best arguments.

Your ego IS your first cause because you equate your own arbitrary settling point to "the fact of all existence"--god.

The atheist doesn't need an argument since the atheist is not trying to prove an invisible, undetectable thing/being exists; the atheist needs no argument just like the person who believes there is no squad of invisible space ships over the white house needs no evidence.

Your arguments are not arguments. Your arguments are simply where you have decided to leave off reasoning and employ faith to believe what is most comfortable for you. Your psychological need to believe in some being more powerful than yourself that cares about little ole you is not proof; but it gets you through the day. Fine. But don't pretend it's rational or that your perspective with zero proof is somehow better than some one else's perspective with zero proof. That's ego. It's you.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:12 am

[Replying to post 317 by Hatuey]

I am being quite rational. Explain how any object can have a discrete location without reference to an initial starting point?

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:37 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 317 by Hatuey]

I am being quite rational. Explain how any object can have a discrete location without reference to an initial starting point?

I'm sure you believe you're being rational, but standing behind an unfounded presumption isn't being rational, it's being committed. Don't conflate the two.

It is not incumbent upon me to explain how "an object" can have a "discrete location without reference to an initial starting point." Having no beliefs one way or the other disencumbers me from needing to explain YOUR desire to have an answer with or without any logic or proof. I find such questions mildly intriguing, but I don't need to pretend to know; I can simply admit that I don't know. Since you are postulating your god, then YOU have the burden of demonstrating the tenability of your position.

Other than simply saying so, what proof do you have that an "initial cause" is more likely than "no initial cause" or some other mechanism neither of us have considered? Again, you stating "must be," and "I have proven," and "because that's the way it happened" are simply proof your ability to structure a sentence--nothing else.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:06 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 317 by Hatuey]

I am being quite rational. Explain how any object can have a discrete location without reference to an initial starting point?

Why don't you explain what this question has to do with the your god?

Also, I asked when or if you have publish your complete proof to a scientific journal for evaluation? If not, why not? Why don't at least point to where the complete write up on your proof my be found versus a few sound bits? I would hope you have at least a 40 page write up.

You brought up the word perfect so why don't you give your definition that applies to your god? I take it you will not since you will use the excuse that you don't understand your god and no one can understand god.

Also, is your all knowing? Does it know any future events? If your god does know the future then how are there any prophesies in the bible? So, is your all knowing? where "all knowing" implies knowing everything including all past, present and future events.

And to answer your question, yes all reference systems are biased on a known reference point. So, again since this true what is the reference point for your god and then what measurement or reference system uses your god as the reference point. Give several examples of the god reference system