The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

[John J. Bannan]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[shart_attack]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

Beautiful.

Maybe a bit too technical. Too much like the wording of an undergraduate course in philosophy, with a dearth of hyperbole. But beautiful nonetheless.

Welcome to the board, friend.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

Lovely. Unfortunately, just about every statement you made is an assumption you have not bothered to support and your conclusion in no way follows. To accept your argument I must first believe your conclusion. So, for all practical purposes you could just have listed statement (10) and saved time.

 

[John J. Bannan]

PratchettFan

1) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore no states of existence is not real.
2) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore states of existence that cannot be real are not real.
3) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore a multiverse is possible because no states of existence is not real.
4) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore power to create must be real.
5) No assumption. Other possible universes have no inherent order. If you disagree, explain why you believe this.
6) No assumption. A power to create something with no inherent order demands the ability to pick and choose the order. If you have another specific mechanism in mind beside God, please explain.
7) No assumption. A power to create universes must have power over those universes.
8) No assumption. A power to create with the ability to pick and choose must be a mind with knowledge of all universes. If you have another specific mechanism besides God, please explain.
9) No assumption. A mind of God would have to be in all ours minds due to omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence.
10) No assumption. I've proved the characteristics of God.


So, you see your argument that my proof contains only assumptions and involves circular reasoning is wrong.

 

[Mr. H.]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are not qualities of a "being".

If there is/was "God", it can best be defined as an event occurring (at our best estimate) 11 billion years ago.

And what's with all the "metaphysical dichotomy" crap?

I think "antinomy" is the word you seek.

 

[hobelim]

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

Sound philosophical reasoning deducing that God must exist is one thing, but have you in your entire life personally ever heard a single word from the living God 'who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made? Any miracles, prophetic dreams, visions, divine revelations that could have only come from God? anything ever happen to you in reality that is verifiable even if it just hints at the existence of God??

Do you have anything aside from philosophical conjecture?

If not, and God is real, why not?

In other words why is it a fact that the vast majority of believers in God can not honestly claim to have ever heard a peep from Him in their entire lives as he is described interacting with ordinary people in scripture?

How do you resolve this?

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan

1) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore no states of existence is not real.
2) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore states of existence that cannot be real are not real.
3) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore a multiverse is possible because no states of existence is not real.
4) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore power to create must be real.
5) No assumption. Other possible universes have no inherent order. If you disagree, explain why you believe this.
6) No assumption. A power to create something with no inherent order demands the ability to pick and choose the order. If you have another specific mechanism in mind beside God, please explain.
7) No assumption. A power to create universes must have power over those universes.
8) No assumption. A power to create with the ability to pick and choose must be a mind with knowledge of all universes. If you have another specific mechanism besides God, please explain.
9) No assumption. A mind of God would have to be in all ours minds due to omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence.
10) No assumption. I've proved the characteristics of God.


So, you see your argument that my proof contains only assumptions and involves circular reasoning is wrong.

Saying it is not assumption does not mean it is not an assumption.
1) Support the claim no states of existence is not real.
2) Irrelevant, so let's move on.
3) Support the claim our universe had a beginning and then connect that to the concept of a multiverse.
4) Connect beginning to creation.
5) Support the claim other possible universes have no inherent order. You're asking me to provide an alternative is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.
6) Until you establish creation is necessary, this too is irrelevant. And again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
7) Support the claim the power to create universes provides power over universes. Exactly what power is required to create a universe and what is the extent of that power, and what do you base that on?
8) Support the claim the ability to do one thing automatically gives one the ability to do all things. And again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
9) Support the claim the mind of God would have to be in all our minds, that it would be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
10) Not even close.

And before you ask me to tell you how else something could have happened I will tell you my response. "I have no idea. Now support it." My inability to prove your assumptions false does not make them true. It's your claim, you have to support it.

 

[John J. Bannan]

PratchettFan

1) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore no states of existence is not real.
2) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore states of existence that cannot be real are not real.
3) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore a multiverse is possible because no states of existence is not real.
4) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore power to create must be real.
5) No assumption. Other possible universes have no inherent order. If you disagree, explain why you believe this.
6) No assumption. A power to create something with no inherent order demands the ability to pick and choose the order. If you have another specific mechanism in mind beside God, please explain.
7) No assumption. A power to create universes must have power over those universes.
8) No assumption. A power to create with the ability to pick and choose must be a mind with knowledge of all universes. If you have another specific mechanism besides God, please explain.
9) No assumption. A mind of God would have to be in all ours minds due to omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence.
10) No assumption. I've proved the characteristics of God.


So, you see your argument that my proof contains only assumptions and involves circular reasoning is wrong.

Saying it is not assumption does not mean it is not an assumption.
1) Support the claim no states of existence is not real.
2) Irrelevant, so let's move on.
3) Support the claim our universe had a beginning and then connect that to the concept of a multiverse.
4) Connect beginning to creation.
5) Support the claim other possible universes have no inherent order. You're asking me to provide an alternative is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.
6) Until you establish creation is necessary, this too is irrelevant. And again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
7) Support the claim the power to create universes provides power over universes. Exactly what power is required to create a universe and what is the extent of that power, and what do you base that on?
8) Support the claim the ability to do one thing automatically gives one the ability to do all things. And again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
9) Support the claim the mind of God would have to be in all our minds, that it would be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
10) Not even close.

And before you ask me to tell you how else something could have happened I will tell you my response. "I have no idea. Now support it." My inability to prove your assumptions false does not make them true. It's your claim, you have to support it.

1) No states of existence cannot be real, because no states of existence would be uncaused. Because the universe is real, then the universe cannot create no states of existence. Likewise, no states of existence could not create our universe.
2) Not irrelevant. States of existence with two logically possible but contradictory states cannot be real.
3) The Big Bang proves our universe was created.
4) The Big Bang proves a power to create our universe.
5) Wrong. I use Reductio ad absurdum to show that an unordered multiverse defies the ability to pick and choose an order which is clearly implied by the fact that various optional universes are contained within a set.
6) Not irrelevant and proven by Reductio ad absurdum.
7) The power to create a universe is self explanatory.
8) Again, I use Reductio ad absurdum. It is absurd to say one can have power to create a universe and not have the power to uncreate any portion of that universe. Hence, such power must have knowledge of all parts of the universe.
9) Reductio ad absurdum allows me to say that as God must have knowledge and power of all parts of the universe, and as your mind is part of that universe, then God must also be in your mind.
10) More than close. It's a proof.

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan

1) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore no states of existence is not real.
2) No assumption. Our universe is real, therefore states of existence that cannot be real are not real.
3) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore a multiverse is possible because no states of existence is not real.
4) No assumption. Our universe had a beginning, therefore power to create must be real.
5) No assumption. Other possible universes have no inherent order. If you disagree, explain why you believe this.
6) No assumption. A power to create something with no inherent order demands the ability to pick and choose the order. If you have another specific mechanism in mind beside God, please explain.
7) No assumption. A power to create universes must have power over those universes.
8) No assumption. A power to create with the ability to pick and choose must be a mind with knowledge of all universes. If you have another specific mechanism besides God, please explain.
9) No assumption. A mind of God would have to be in all ours minds due to omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence.
10) No assumption. I've proved the characteristics of God.


So, you see your argument that my proof contains only assumptions and involves circular reasoning is wrong.

Saying it is not assumption does not mean it is not an assumption.
1) Support the claim no states of existence is not real.
2) Irrelevant, so let's move on.
3) Support the claim our universe had a beginning and then connect that to the concept of a multiverse.
4) Connect beginning to creation.
5) Support the claim other possible universes have no inherent order. You're asking me to provide an alternative is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove you right.
6) Until you establish creation is necessary, this too is irrelevant. And again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
7) Support the claim the power to create universes provides power over universes. Exactly what power is required to create a universe and what is the extent of that power, and what do you base that on?
8) Support the claim the ability to do one thing automatically gives one the ability to do all things. And again, argumentum ad ignorantiam.
9) Support the claim the mind of God would have to be in all our minds, that it would be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.
10) Not even close.

And before you ask me to tell you how else something could have happened I will tell you my response. "I have no idea. Now support it." My inability to prove your assumptions false does not make them true. It's your claim, you have to support it.

1) No states of existence cannot be real, because no states of existence would be uncaused. Because the universe is real, then the universe cannot create no states of existence. Likewise, no states of existence could not create our universe.
2) Not irrelevant. States of existence with two logically possible but contradictory states cannot be real.
3) The Big Bang proves our universe was created.
4) The Big Bang proves a power to create our universe.
5) Wrong. I use Reductio ad absurdum to show that an unordered multiverse defies the ability to pick and choose an order which is clearly implied by the fact that various optional universes are contained within a set.
6) Not irrelevant and proven by Reductio ad absurdum.
7) The power to create a universe is self explanatory.
8) Again, I use Reductio ad absurdum. It is absurd to say one can have power to create a universe and not have the power to uncreate any portion of that universe. Hence, such power must have knowledge of all parts of the universe.
9) Reductio ad absurdum allows me to say that as God must have knowledge and power of all parts of the universe, and as your mind is part of that universe, then God must also be in your mind.
10) More than close. It's a proof.

Uh huh. Well I'm sure that some people who want you to be right will think you are. You're grasp of the term "proof" is less than accurate, but if this makes you feel good then have at it.

 

[hobelim]

Uh huh. Well I'm sure that some people who want you to be right will think you are. You're grasp of the term "proof" is less than accurate, but if this makes you feel good then have at it.

My first suspicion was that this rookie post was another boss thread in disguise. He seems to be trying too hard to stick with the material he learned in night school so his charming personality doesn't leak out and give him away.... I'll know for sure if he ever gets around to responding to my post.........especially if he doesn't ..

 

[John J. Bannan]

Uh huh. Well I'm sure that some people who want you to be right will think you are. You're grasp of the term "proof" is less than accurate, but if this makes you feel good then have at it.

My first suspicion was that this rookie post was another boss thread in disguise. He seems to be trying too hard to stick with the material he learned in night school so his charming personality doesn't leak out and give him away.... I'll know for sure if he ever gets around to responding to my post.........especially if he doesn't ..

The universe itself is verifiable. Hence, my proof is verifiable.

As for people experiencing God - many will attest to that very thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Uh huh. Well I'm sure that some people who want you to be right will think you are. You're grasp of the term "proof" is less than accurate, but if this makes you feel good then have at it.

My first suspicion was that this rookie post was another boss thread in disguise. He seems to be trying too hard to stick with the material he learned in night school so his charming personality doesn't leak out and give him away.... I'll know for sure if he ever gets around to responding to my post.........especially if he doesn't ..

The universe itself is verifiable. Hence, my proof is verifiable.

As for people experiencing God - many will attest to that very thing.

The existence of the universe is proof of the existence of the universe. As to the rest, just unsupported assumption. If it is not accepted on faith, it falls apart.

 

[sealybobo]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

This is Philosophy not Science.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
So well before people started lying and saying god talked to them, we've been debating this philosophically. And we probably will for another 200,000 years if we don't kill ourselves first.

Just please stop waging wars over it, telling us we'll go to hell and tell ISIS to stop it too. All for something that isn't even real??? WTF! Allah Akbar. LOL.

 

[John J. Bannan]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

This is Philosophy not Science.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
So well before people started lying and saying god talked to them, we've been debating this philosophically. And we probably will for another 200,000 years if we don't kill ourselves first.

Just please stop waging wars over it, telling us we'll go to hell and tell ISIS to stop it too. All for something that isn't even real??? WTF! Allah Akbar. LOL.

And this is the philosophy subforum. And, do you really expect science to explain existence? I don't. Philosophy will have to play a role in explaining existence. And I use the verifiable universe to do just that.

 

[amrchaos]

You know, if we are talking about a simple definition of what a God is, the need fr an argument would not be necessary.

For instance, If you define God as "the entity/entities that created you" , then my Gods exist and observable. My (biological) parents created me. I could possibly include all my ancestors as well since they are necessary for my creation.

But, for some reason, there are theologians that wish to add more to their definition of God.

For instance, God is everlasting---I don't know of anything that fit this description except nothiingness. Is God therefore the Void? Empty Space? Can you give an example of something that is everlasting because the Universe or things it do not seem t fit the bill.

Another--God created the Universe. Here is what the op seem to try to prove. I like to take a quicker, yet a somewhat illogical approach.

Let us assume that what ever created the Universe is God. So it seems what is left to do is prove that the Universe had a beginning. And then claiming whatever initiated that beginning is therefore god.

Most people assume that Universe was created in/by the Big Bang. Let assume that and we are finished---The Big Bang is God!

However, praying to an event just does not sit right with most Theologians.

In the end, it does not seem like there are any of the Christian Theologians that like to use the Abrahamic definition. I mean, this is the basic premise they are proposing and wish to prove. And if there is proof of one of this God's characteristics, what proof do they offer for the other characteristics? Why would they try to argue that the God they proved to exist under one Characteristic is equal to the God they have described? That is a logical fallacy of Equivocation. You may have falsely described your god but were one of two characteristic of someone else God!

In short, trying to prove that the Universe was created/intiated/started is not enough!! you have a whole list of things to prove in order to demonstrate the Abrahamic God exists!! And I think some of it would be virtually impossible.


See. If they kept it simple, you would not have all these problems. You probably would not have atheists or agnostics as well because it would have been so obvious.....Like knowing you have parents!!

 

[PratchettFan]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

This is Philosophy not Science.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.
So well before people started lying and saying god talked to them, we've been debating this philosophically. And we probably will for another 200,000 years if we don't kill ourselves first.

Just please stop waging wars over it, telling us we'll go to hell and tell ISIS to stop it too. All for something that isn't even real??? WTF! Allah Akbar. LOL.

And this is the philosophy subforum. And, do you really expect science to explain existence? I don't. Philosophy will have to play a role in explaining existence. And I use the verifiable universe to do just that.

The thing about philosophy is that it is a prostitute. Pay it enough words and it will get into bed with anyone.

 

[hobelim]

The universe itself is verifiable. Hence, my proof is verifiable.

As for people experiencing God - many will attest to that very thing.

I didn't ask you for verifiable evidence for the universe or what many people attest to about experiencing God. Some people find lost keys and thing that's proof that God is looking after them. Some people are delusional and think that salvation depends on whether or not you have what it takes to disassociate from your own rational mind and worship and eat a lifeless matzo for spiritual life..


My question to you was.

"have you in your entire life personally ever heard a single word from the living God 'who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made? Any miracles, prophetic dreams, visions, divine revelations that could have only come from God? anything ever happen to you in reality that is verifiable even if it just hints at the existence of God?"

If not, and if God is a real living being, why not?

 

[John J. Bannan]

You know, if we are talking about a simple definition of what a God is, the need fr an argument would not be necessary.

For instance, If you define God as "the entity/entities that created you" , then my Gods exist and observable. My (biological) parents created me. I could possibly include all my ancestors as well since they are necessary for my creation.

But, for some reason, there are theologians that wish to add more to their definition of God.

For instance, God is everlasting---I don't know of anything that fit this description except nothiingness. Is God therefore the Void? Empty Space? Can you give an example of something that is everlasting because the Universe or things it do not seem t fit the bill.

Another--God created the Universe. Here is what the op seem to try to prove. I like to take a quicker, yet a somewhat illogical approach.

Let us assume that what ever created the Universe is God. So it seems what is left to do is prove that the Universe had a beginning. And then claiming whatever initiated that beginning is therefore god.

Most people assume that Universe was created in/by the Big Bang. Let assume that and we are finished---The Big Bang is God!

However, praying to an event just does not sit right with most Theologians.

In the end, it does not seem like there are any of the Christian Theologians that like to use the Abrahamic definition. I mean, this is the basic premise they are proposing and wish to prove. And if there is proof of one of this God's characteristics, what proof do they offer for the other characteristics? Why would they try to argue that the God they proved to exist under one Characteristic is equal to the God they have described? That is a logical fallacy of Equivocation. You may have falsely described your god but were one of two characteristic of someone else God!

In short, trying to prove that the Universe was created/intiated/started is not enough!! you have a whole list of things to prove in order to demonstrate the Abrahamic God exists!! And I think some of it would be virtually impossible.


See. If they kept it simple, you would not have all these problems. You probably would not have atheists or agnostics as well because it would have been so obvious.....Like knowing you have parents!!

There are actually two things that are eternal. You are correct that nothingness is one of them. Notice I use nothingness in my first dichotomy for that very reason - because it is uncaused. The second is the other side of the dichotomy with nothingness, which must be eternal because it shares the dichotomy with an uncaused other side and the dichotomy must jointly exhaust all possibilities. If the other side of the dichotomy were caused, then it would not include the cause itself, and hence would not jointly exhaust all possibilities.

The other side of the dichotomy is all possible all inclusive states of existence, which is also eternal. However, as proven by the second dichotomy that only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are real, then only all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real are eternal.

But, because there is no inherent order to all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real, the only real thing that is eternal is the constraint on those possible states having the ability to create them at will.

Hence, there are two - not one - things that are eternal, i.e. nothingness and the constraint aka God. And because these two are mutually exclusive, and because nothingness is not real, then God must be real.

 

[shart_attack]

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 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, and as there is a power to determine what is real, then there must be a power to pick and choose what becomes real.

5) 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 pick and choose the order in which any or all of those possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality like one can pick and choose which apple to pull out of a basket first, then there must be a real eternal constraint that chooses to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real because said constraint is also a possible state of existence that can become real and so said constraint must become real.

6) 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.

7) Said constraint must have power over all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omnipotent and omnipresent.

8) Said constraint must have knowledge of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real being omniscient.

9) 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.

10) Hence, a single being exists who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is not made and we call this being God.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are not qualities of a "being".

If there is/was "God", it can best be defined as an event occurring (at our best estimate) 11 billion years ago.

And what's with all the "metaphysical dichotomy" crap?

I think "antinomy" is the word you seek.

And you're on the record here in more than one thread, calling me an asshole???

Give the guy some slack: it's his first frick'n thread here — asshole.