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** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:20 pm

[Replying to post 303 by Donray]

My proof of God answers the question, "Is God real?" The answer is "yes", and that proof does not depend on whether or not God would kill babies. So, regardless of whether God is a baby killer, God is real.

Now, the nature of God as the constraint on creation means God has the ability to choose what is made and what is not made, thus God must have free will to make such a choice. Because you cannot explain why something becomes real and something does not become real out the infinite choice of possibilities, then a mechanism of choice having free will must be the case. Determinism, infinite causal chains, and randomness don't work.

Now, as for Hitler, God makes us with the capacity to be like God. However, the price to be paid for such freedom is being subjected to evil, like Hitler, as well as natural disaster. Indeed, we could not be the material beings we are if we were not subject to material hazards.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:16 pm

From Post 304:

John J. Bannan wrote: My proof of God answers the question, "Is God real?" The answer is "yes", and that proof does not depend on whether or not God would kill babies. So, regardless of whether God is a baby killer, God is real.

Only don't it beat all, you and your argument refuse to address my counter - that of the mind / consciousness being a product of the physical brain.

I propose your continued refusal to address this damning rebuttal of your entirely speculative argument is indicative of one who doesn't let fact get in the way of religious belief.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:04 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 303 by Donray]

My proof of God answers the question, "Is God real?" The answer is "yes", and that proof does not depend on whether or not God would kill babies. So, regardless of whether God is a baby killer, God is real.

No, your proof does not answer that question; your proof is a list of nonsequiturs that do not even hold together philosophically, much less "prove" any statement about god's existence or being.

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 303 by Donray]
Now, the nature of God as the constraint on creation means God has the ability to choose what is made and what is not made, thus God must have free will to make such a choice. Because you cannot explain why something becomes real and something does not become real out the infinite choice of possibilities, then a mechanism of choice having free will must be the case. Determinism, infinite causal chains, and randomness don't work.

No, if god is perfect, then he has no choice EVER because he must always do only that which is perfect. If he his omniscient, then he can only do that which he has always known is perfect and that he would do. Therefore, he has no choice whatsoever at any time and never did.

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 303 by Donray]
Now, as for Hitler, God makes us with the capacity to be like God. However, the price to be paid for such freedom is being subjected to evil, like Hitler, as well as natural disaster. Indeed, we could not be the material beings we are if we were not subject to material hazards.

If that paragraph actually makes sense to you as a logical deduction, then you have much learning to do before attempting to "prove" anything about god through language / debate. Your statements carry no more weight than that of a muslim or a Jehovah's witness claiming whatever they want to claim with zero evidence.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:08 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 301 by Danmark]

My proof of God tells us a lot about God. God is eternal, singular, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and not made. Now, if you were this God, and your power was to create, chances are you would create, no? So, we can safely assume God likes to create. Now, if you were God, what would you have to fear? Nothing, right? Evil is caused by deep rooted fear. God has no fear. So, God would not be evil. Indeed, by creating us, it is clear that God is quite loving. Indeed, it appears God want us to be like God, so God gives us the ability to think, to create material things and to have children, and to have spiritual awareness of Him. So, the Christian God is a fairly good guess at least as to the nature of God, even if you were not to believe Jesus.

On the contrary, your alleged and failed 'proof' of God tells us nothing about God.
It tells us only your opinion about this 'god' you think exists. It is an opinion that after 300 some posts has gotten us not on infinitesimal fraction of an inch closer to understanding this made up concept, nor does it provide evidence there is any 'god' of any kind.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:11 pm

[Replying to post 306 by Hatuey]

What do you define as "perfect"?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 5:14 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 303 by Donray]

My proof of God answers the question, "Is God real?" The answer is "yes"....

No. Your 'proof' of 'god' is no proof at all. It answers no questions. Your arguments and self satisfying claim about having 'proved' something is unfounded and frankly, silly.
Your claim is the equivalent of the Black Knight, armless, legless, and stripped of weaponry calling out his challenge and proclaiming himself victorious.

Donray · Post by **Donray** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 6:22 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 306 by Hatuey]

What do you define as "perfect"?

Do you even know how to use a dictionary??????

Why do you think certain words have many meanings? You actually did not know the meaning of perfect and yet are trying to prove something using words you apparently don't know the meaning of.

perfect adjective
: having no mistakes or flaws
: completely correct or accurate

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Fri Dec 12, 2014 11:13 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 306 by Hatuey]

What do you define as "perfect"?

No, the question is to you. What do you define as "perfect?" If god had done anything other than what he has done, would it be perfect? Can god have a will that is good (ours?) yet choose not to do that perfect and good option? If god's will is perfect and good, why is there so much needless suffering? Why is god's perfect will so awful for so many people who only committed the "sin" of being born?

Is this god's perfect will, or isn't it? If it is, could god choose not to do it? Why does god make it appear as though consciousness ("mind") is only caused by the physical, chemical, electrical component of a brain? Why do you presume to know god's mind without any incontrovertible truth of his being?

You have no proof; you have fancifully constructed conjecture that fools no one but yourself with the vain idea that it is capable of withstanding critical scrutiny, but it fails, yet you soldier on under the flag of standard, boring ego.

Yes, by all means, what do you define as "perfect?"

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:14 am

Y[Replying to post 311 by Hatuey]

You are the one making the objection based on "perfection". Hence, it is clearly your burden to define what you mean by "perfect".

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:09 am

John J. Bannan wrote: Y[Replying to post 311 by Hatuey]

You are the one making the objection based on "perfection". Hence, it is clearly your burden to define what you mean by "perfect".

If you want to just dodge the issue, then it'll be recorded that you do NOT define your god as perfect and/or you are unwilling to show how god's quality of perfection cannot be deduced from the facts around us.

Which is it, John? Is your god not perfect or do you admit his perfection is unlikely given reality?

And remember scurrying away and ignoring the point means you forfeit it, as you have done so many times before (and now you've lost far more ground than you ever "gained" on this thread).