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.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Wed Dec 24, 2014 6:37 pm

John wrote "An answer is needed because most of us (perhaps not you for some strange reason) want an answer."

An answer to what? You are most referring to the question of why you exist. Is that correct?

If so, I do know the answer.

If you want to know Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything then read the books by Douglas Adams. The answer is 42.

Adams books make as much sense as your theory, Both are fiction.

Why do you need to believe in your god? You have not answered yet. I think you need to figure that out before trying to prove a god exists.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:29 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: As for convincing you atheists, well, I am sure some of what I have said has made you less sure of yourselves. And that's reason enough to argue with you.

No. You've just convinced us that what you are "sure" of isn't so. What you've done is remind people of the absurdities, illogic, and utter nonsense some will proffer to support the unsupportable.

I have respect for those who say "Ultimately I do not know, but I have faith, and on this rock I stand." But obstinately clinging to ridiculous claims and arguments only demeans one's faith and further convinces those who have rejected such beliefs that they are correct in their rejection.

Merry Xmas!

FarWanderer · Post by **FarWanderer** » Thu Dec 25, 2014 12:04 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 434 by Jashwell]

Show me an infinitesimal.

Show me an infinite number of apples.

Then, I would agree with you. LOL!

Show a causally effective immaterial entity first, please.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 1:10 am

Moderator Action
It is not appropriate to simply quote a long passage from another forum, with no argument. It may be considered 'spam' or a 'one-liner', or off topic.
Therefore, Donray's post of a quote from another forum was:
Moved to Random Ramblings. Please review the Rules and Tips on starting a debate topic.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 11:48 am

[EDIT: Moved to Random Ramblings for the 3d time]

John has been posting on another site and has changed and expanded his theory for the proof of god. His new theory should clearer since it is much longer.

Following is John's latest revision from http://forums.spam.com/threads/a-new-pr ... 69-21.html

Here's an attempted revision:

A NEW PROOF OF GOD

1) Actualized means ....
54) Hence, a single being ....

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Sat Dec 27, 2014 12:01 pm

Donray wrote: John has been posting on another site and has changed and expanded his theory for the proof of god. His new theory should clearer since it is much longer.

Following is John's latest revision from http://forums.spam.com/threads/a-new-pr ... 69-21.html

Here's an attempted revision:

A NEW PROOF...

1) Actualized means ....
....
54) Hence, a single being is ....

Moderator Warning

This post is spam, off-topic, has been moved to Random Ramblings twice before, by two different moderators and you were specifically told it was not appropriate on this thread. For those reasons and the fact you are challenging moderator action, warning.

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.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sun Dec 28, 2014 12:55 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 425 by Bust Nak]

1) Reality implies the option of absence of reality aka pure nothingness.
2) Because pure nothingness cannot cause reality, then reality must be uncaused by process of elimination because there is nothing else available to cause reality.
3) Because all material reality requires a cause and because nothing can cause itself, and because reality is ultimately uncaused, one can conclude that there must be more to reality than just material reality.
4) Hence, one can conclude there is an uncaused immaterial reality with God-like attributes.

Ha, this thread is still going on with nothing more than Bannan saying he must be right because he believes he is convinced according to his own reasoning. Funny stuff.

1. No, reality does not imply "pure nothingness;" nobody has any idea if "pure nothingness" can exist or ever has existed.
2. Not knowing anything about "pure nothingness," nobody has any idea if it can or can't cause anything. And as I've pointed out before to you, your IDEA of "first cause" has no more evidence for it than infinite regress or unicorn farts or fairy blinks causing the universe. ZERO data for any of these purely speculative causes of the universe.
3. None of those statements have any evidence and so any of them might be wrong as much as any of them might be right.
4. As nonsequitur as one can get. Nothing follows from the prior assumptions both because of the nature of your speculation and the nonsyllogistic nature of your "argument's" construction.

You should probably call in reinforcements, now, John. You're floundering. .

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:39 am

John J. Bannan wrote:3) Because all material reality requires a cause and because nothing can cause itself, and because reality is ultimately uncaused, one can conclude that there must be more to reality than just material reality.

If nothing can cause itself, then that rules out any uncaused entities at all, including God.
Material reality is made up of matter and energy, two things which have been shown to be impossible to create or destroy. I don't know about you, but to me that which cannot be created nor destroyed is by definition uncaused. There needs not be any reality other that material reality.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 6:46 pm

[Replying to post 448 by McCulloch]

The conservation of energy only applies to the evolution of the Big Bang, not the cause of the Big Bang. Because the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity, there is no law of conversation of energy preventing the creation of energy/matter.

Materiality reality cannot cause itself. However, the uncaused immaterial reality responsible for causing material reality is uncaused.

There is very much a need for uncaused immaterial reality, because it is necessary for the first cause and first ORDER of the material reality of our universe.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:09 pm

[Replying to post 440 by Zzyzx]

So ex-Catholic, what is the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas? You are the one that claimed that the RCC has no reasoning behind its faith. So, this question ought not be new to you.