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** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:59 am

John J. Bannan wrote: [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.

No, I never claimed that. Please read more critically and precisely.

And if you desire to be honest and reasonable, here is how your statement should be worded: "The Bible in its very first line tells puts forth the unverified claim of who God is - the Creator of the universe. I am clearly discussing a God who is the creator of the universe, and hence, the God I believe in is also the God put forth by the bible, and believers of the bible must accept its claims on faith since their claims cannot be verified by any method of measurement whatsoever to demonstrate its claims as more relevant than fairy farts or unicorn sneezes"

____________________________________________

I said that even if a person accepts your "argument" for "first cause," you are no more closer to proving that that first cause is the god you believe in/biblical god than you are to proving it is unicorn farts or fairy hiccoughs.

You believing in fairy tale B (bible) is not evidence for your belief being reality just like another person believing in fairy tale K (Koran) is not evidence for their belief being reality.

Again, you don't seem to understand how logic or reasoning work. You just make statements that you believe and state that they are correct, and you make other statements that you don't believe and state that they are absurd. That's not logical or reasonable. You recognize how illogical and unreasonable such statements are if they come from a cult member whose views do not mirror your own, yet you fail to recognize how illogical and unreasonable they are when you do the same thing. It's an amazing hypocrisy to behold, I must say. It bring the concept of "POE" to mind. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:29 am

[Replying to post 463 by John J. Bannan]

Time is a dimension like any other. When you accept that, you accept that the future doesn't literally depend on the past, any more than the next element in a linear sequence depends on the previous. Cause and effect is a model; it describes classical, every day scenarios - and it depends on a progression of time.

But you don't even need to accept that. Just that you can't talk about cause and effect where there isn't a change in time. The Big Bang cannot be caused if it is the 'beginning' of time.

It would be nice if you stopped saying ORDER to mean whatever you'd like it to mean.
A geometric shape has no dependence whatsoever. The two tips of a diamond shape don't depend on the middle any more than the middle does on the tips.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:41 pm

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?

The "God" of the Bible is a fictional character in literature; to wit, the Bible.
The "God the Creator of the Universe" is that same fictional character according to the Bible.
The problem you've encountered in your effort to identify this literary character with an actual 'God' is analogous to trying to find the person in "real life" who is Superman as depicted in DC Comics.

You certainly haven't found it in this inaptly named thread which is neither a 'proof' nor does it demonstrate even a single dichotomy, let alone a 'double dichotomy.'

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:10 pm

[Replying to post 451 by John J. Bannan]

John I asked :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."

You have not answered this question.

I want to know why you need to believe that your god exists? Why your god versus the Muslim god? What about a god that created the universe from themselves and no longer exists? What a god that doesn't have an afterlife and could care less about humans?

Again, why do need to believe in your god? Is it because you are afraid of hell? Because you are afraid of dying and therefore you feel you need to believe in an afterlife? WHY?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:26 pm

[Replying to post 471 by Hatuey]

Your diatribe is unconvincing.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:30 pm

[Replying to post 472 by Jashwell]

Well, if the BB was the beginning of time and one need not speak of prior causes, then one need not be concerned about your higher dimensional triangle, because it can't possibly be real.

A triangle has spatial ORDER. I can tell the difference between the corner and the side. I could also be located nearer or farther from a corner.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:32 pm

[Replying to post 473 by Danmark]

God is found in the necessary attributes of the creator of the universe. Ask Aquinas. He got it.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:35 pm

[Replying to post 474 by Donray]

What philosopher does not ask the question, "why is there anything at all?" God is the best answer.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:09 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 471 by Hatuey]

Your diatribe is unconvincing.

Moderator Comment

One line comments such as this, which is a straight statement of disagreement without an argument, do not advance the conversation and are not useful.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:15 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [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.

Moderator Warning

This could be considered to be a one-line comment (even though there are two lines). You have made many such didactic comments and claims. While making claims is part of what this forum is for, support for those claims must consist of more than bald assertions. As well, use the quote function to reference the post to which you are responding. You don't have to quote the entire thing, but you do need to quote the pertinent part, the part to which your answer applies.

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.