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** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:34 am

[Replying to post 456 by Hatuey]

First cause is mysterious. Infinite causality is impossible.

The Big Bang is evidence of a first cause. The entire universe springs from the mysterious. First cause has evidence, but it is strange and mysterious. I can accept that there are things about the universe I do not understand and perhaps can never understand.

Infinite causality without beginning, however, is impossible. A first spatial ORDER is required for there to be any ORDER. And what is more, I've got the Big Bang providing that first spatial ORDER. So, what need is there of believing in impossible infinite causality?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:37 am

[Replying to post 457 by Hatuey]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1. Now, how exactly is it that God the Creator of the Universe is not the God of the Bible?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:42 am

[Replying to post 458 by Jashwell]

Higher dimensional planes would also have ORDER, no? Moving one rung up the dimensional ladder does not avoid the problem of first ORDER in your hypothetical higher dimensional plane. Geometry is still ORDER, is it not?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:45 am

[Replying to post 459 by Danmark]

The inherent nature of the universe to create is not magic. It simply is the case, because pure nothingness is not the case. This inherent nature is necessary to supply creation with first cause and first ORDER. I would not call such a necessary inherent nature of reality "magic".

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 7:47 am

[Replying to post 460 by Danmark]

First cause is evidenced by the Big Bang.

The inherent nature of the universe to create must have God-like attributes, and hence, God is anything but spurious.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:51 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 456 by Hatuey]

First cause is mysterious. Infinite causality is impossible.

According to what logic?

Why is an infinite causality possible?

What makes a first cause less absurd than an infinite causality?

Your declaration is not logic.

John J. Bannan wrote: The Big Bang is evidence of a first cause. The entire universe springs from the mysterious. First cause has evidence, but it is strange and mysterious. I can accept that there are things about the universe I do not understand and perhaps can never understand.

No. You don't seem to understand how logic works.

The BB is not evidence of a first cause. The BB is evidence of a singularity inflating and expanding. There is not logical reasoning or material evidence to imply a first cause. The BB may just be one step on an infinite causal chain or the result of fairy farts or unicorn hiccoughs.

John J. Bannan wrote: Infinite causality without beginning, however, is impossible. A first spatial ORDER is required for there to be any ORDER. And what is more, I've got the Big Bang providing that first spatial ORDER. So, what need is there of believing in impossible infinite causality?

What need is there of believing in an impossible first cause?

You (and every person) have no idea if a infinite causality is possible or not.

You (and every person) have no idea if a "first spatial ORDER" is required for the to be "any ORDER."

YOU do NOT have the BB providing that "first spatial ORDER." The BB evidences a small, dense, hot point inflating and expanding into the energy and matter of our universe.

___________________________________

You keep saying you have proved points that you haven't. You just declare that you're right with ZERO logic. It's an extremely ineffective method of debate unless you're delivering your lines from a pulpit. I've seen preachers try these methods because they are so enamored with their own ideas and have no experience with their empty statements being questioned; they are so used to their every opinion being treated as gospel truth.

Until you show why a "first cause" is less absurd than infinite regression or unicorn farts or fairy winks, then I will consider them all equally absurd or valid as a "source" for the matter and energy in this universe. You have no reasoning or evidence that shows any mechanism more logical than any other...you may as well be arguing just as vehemently that all ideas other than leprechaun sneezes MUST be the reason for the universe and all other ideas are absurd.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 9:54 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 457 by Hatuey]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1. Now, how exactly is it that God the Creator of the Universe is not the God of the Bible?

Because quotes from fairy tales aren't evidence. You don't believe the Koran just like I don't believe the bible. If a muslim gave you a verse from the Koran as evidence would you accept it?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:36 am

[Replying to post 466 by Hatuey]

If the BB were all that you say it is, then the laws of physics wouldn't break down at the singularity. Enough said.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:38 am

[Replying to post 467 by Hatuey]

You claimed that my God was not the God of the Bible. The Bible in its very first line tells us who God is - the Creator of the universe. I am clearly proving a God who is the creator of the universe, and hence, my God is the God of the Bible.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:52 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 466 by Hatuey]

If the BB were all that you say it is, then the laws of physics wouldn't break down at the singularity. Enough said.

Nope. We do not know anything about the singularity before it began inflating because time does not exist/is irrelevant at that point. It's not an issue of the singularity being something else, it's an issue of not knowing if it ever was something else, came from another source, always existed, etc, etc, WIHOUT the consideration of time.

There's much more to the BB than I'm saying; there is NOTHING of the BB that implies any god including yours.