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.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:11 pm

.[Replying to post 319 by Hatuey]

In order for an object to have a discrete location, there must be an initial starting point for the causal chain which determined the object's location. That's proof enough that "first cause" is a better argument than "no first cause".

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:19 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: .[Replying to post 319 by Hatuey]
In order for an object to have a discrete location

What do you mean by 'discrete location'?

there must be an initial starting point for the causal chain which determined the object's location.

More unsupported claims.

That's proof enough that "first cause" is a better argument than "no first cause".

You may as well have said "Objects must have a first cause". Question begging won't get you anywhere. Support your assertions.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:26 pm

[Replying to post 321 by John J. Bannan]

Im convinced John. Your double prism fruit-stripe dichotomy has me convinced there's a first cause we call ''god.''

The problem now is that the word is already in use. By billions of people across the ages. So tell me now, since you compelled me with your double dip chocolate dichotomy, which of these ''gods'' I'm to follow.

What's the score, John J? What's next?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:28 pm

[Replying to post 322 by Jashwell]

The can of soda sitting on my desk next to my computer is in what most people would describe as a "discrete location".

Now, there is a causal chain that determined that my soda would be in this discrete location at this particular time. However, all the events giving rise to the current location of my can of soda must all be determined by prior events in order for my can of soda to be where it is. Now, an infinite causal chain could never have placed my soda can in its discrete location, because my can requires an initial starting position of the causal chain for it to end up where it is. It's inherent in determinism that all things be determined. An infinite causal chain has no determinism without an initial starting point. Hence, infinite causal chains are impossible.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:31 pm

[Replying to post 324 by John J. Bannan]

Uh oh, John.

What IS the initial starting point of your can of soda, hm?

Tell me about the can's history, the constituent matter/energy that comprises it, and where it came from, initially, to start things off.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:37 pm

[Replying to post 325 by Inigo Montoya]

The initial starting point of my can of soda was the creation of our particular universe by God.

Inigo Montoya · Post by **Inigo Montoya** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:40 pm

[Replying to post 326 by John J. Bannan]

Which further confirms my disbelief that this garbage has gone on for 32 pages.

I won't add to its lifespan after this. Assert what you want, John. You've shot yourself in the foot a dozen times already.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:58 pm

[Replying to post 327 by Inigo Montoya]

Belief in infinite causal chains without starting points is believing in the impossible.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:32 pm

John why don't you respond to my posts?

Is it because you really don't understand your god like you have said?

I guess really have no answers.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:47 pm

John, since you seem to have a lot of words that apply to your god that have no meaning (like perfect) could list all these words?