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** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:38 am

[Replying to post 366 by Hatuey]

The Big Bang is a data point. The Big Bang is evidence of the creation of the material. The creation of the material comes logically with certain God-like attributes of the creator. Hence, God is the best answer. Now, if you want to call God a fart or a unicorn, that's fine, because we are then only talking semantics over which letters of the alphabet to use to describe the creator with certain attributes. But, it's the logical necessity of the attributes which are important, and which you cannot escape the need for in a creation setting.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:42 am

[Replying to post 367 by Hatuey]

This is you simply rejecting logical proofs again. It is irrational to ignore logical proofs even without data points. A creator has certain God-like attributes. That is the logical proof of God. And the data point for there being a creator is the Big Bang.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:45 am

[Replying to post 368 by Jashwell]

Show me an infinitesimal in reality.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:51 am

[Replying to post 370 by Bust Nak]

The uncaused cause must be real for anything to be real. The uncaused cause albeit immaterial is a real thing. However, because I can't show you a picture of God the Father, I can only assert that God is real, but must use conceptual language to do so. Infinity, on the other hand, is not a real thing. Show me an infinitesimal. Surely, if all material reality is made of infinitesimals, you ought to be able to show me one. No. Instead, we get the Planck constant and the rejection of infinitesimals by physics. So, infinity without beginning is not reality, but only a concept.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:35 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 366 by Hatuey]

The Big Bang is a data point. The Big Bang is evidence of the creation of the material. The creation of the material comes logically with certain God-like attributes of the creator. Hence, God is the best answer. Now, if you want to call God a fart or a unicorn, that's fine, because we are then only talking semantics over which letters of the alphabet to use to describe the creator with certain attributes. But, it's the logical necessity of the attributes which are important, and which you cannot escape the need for in a creation setting.

'

Wrong.

The Big Bang proves the singularity expanded. It DOES NOT provide any evidence of any "creation of the material."

You have presented no evidence for god, and you have NOT shown how any answer is more logical than any other answer. There is zero data showing your god OR unicorns OR fairy farts are "logically necessary" for anything.

You're welcome to keep repeating that you've logically proven something for which you have offered zero evidence or "logic," but it doesn't fool anybody and frankly, it's mind-numbingly boring and the same thing any muslim or hindu might do with the same result.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:42 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 367 by Hatuey]

This is you simply rejecting logical proofs again. It is irrational to ignore logical proofs even without data points. A creator has certain God-like attributes. That is the logical proof of God. And the data point for there being a creator is the Big Bang.

You naming your ridiculous, nonsequitur ramblings as "proofs" doesn't mean that they are or that you understand what a "proof" is.

You can't show that an "uncaused, initial cause" is more viable an explanation than unicorn farts or fairy yawns or infinite regression, and so you have nothing other than your a priori assumptions with zero evidence.

If you do provide "proof" of anything, it's that if your god is real, he provides you, his ardent believer, with absolutely no reasoning whatsoever that he is anything other than invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant, and worth no more consideration than other invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant beings or things. So yes, your god, is indistinguishable from nothing.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:05 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 368 by Jashwell]

Show me an infinitesimal in reality.

You've dodged so many responses that I can't tell if you're being serious when you call any of this 'proof'.

Fortunately, I don't need to convince you that calculus works or that infinities are as real as numbers, negative fractions or irrationals. I don't need to convince you that there are things that could be described as actually infinite because there are so many problems with your argument that you haven't addressed that it's just a waste of time at this point.

Your arguments don't work. Various flaws in the different ones you've made have been pointed out. You don't need someone to be able to label something real infinite in order to escape your 'logical proof's. I suggest you either reform your arguments, or if you so desire reread the thread and address every distinct response if you hope for anyone to agree with your argument.

Even your attempts at trying to use quantum mechanics to argue against infinities is false. Energy may or may not be discrete, but among the few models that have a discrete spacetime, some of them (i.e. loop quantum gravity) allow for closed time like curves. In which case, the mythical 'causal chain' is recursive. Not infinite.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:06 am

[Replying to post 375 by Hatuey]

NONSENSE.

The convergence of all of time, space, energy and matter into a single point from which it expands is a data point evidencing the creation of matter.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:08 am

[Replying to post 376 by Hatuey]

MORE NONSENSE.

You just don't like logical proofs.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:10 am

[Replying to post 377 by Jashwell]

You can't convince me of real material infinities with no beginning, because you can't actually show me any.

A recursive causal chain cannot explain its own ORDER. Recursive causal chains are as impossible as infinite causal chains.