A New Proof of God

A NEW PROOF OF GOD

  1. Because the set of all that is actualized must either eventually cease to be actualized or not cease to be actualized, then the set of all that is actualized must exist in either a state of eternality or a state of finality.

  2. A state of finality must consist of the set of all that is actualized ceasing to be actualized in a state of True Nothingness where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS ACTUALIZED, including a Void because a Void is actualized by being a place where something could be put.

  3. Because a state of True Nothingness must either exist or not exist, then a dichotomy with True Nothingness contains the two correct possible states of existence.

  4. True Everythingness is a state of ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS ACTUALIZED, which exhausts all possibilities for actualization.

  5. True Everythingness and True Nothingness are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaust all possibilities for the correct possible states of existence where existence means not requiring a cause to be real. Somethingness is not the exact opposite of nothingness, because Everything contains Something, but Something does not contain everything. Because the impossible by definition can never be actualized or be a true state of existence, the dichotomy does not have to account for the impossible and hence the impossible lies outside the dichotomy without the capacity to prove the dichotomy untrue.

  6. True Nothingness cannot be caused, because anything actualized that could cause True Nothingness would itself also have to be caused otherwise it would exist in a state of eternality that would not allow the state of finality necessary to cause True Nothingness.

  7. Because a state of finality must be caused, and because the only state of existence possible that could exist prior to a state of finality in order to cause it would be true nothingness, and because true nothingness is incapable of causing anything because nothing comes from nothing, then true nothingness cannot be caused.

:sunglasses: Because True Nothingness cannot be caused, and because a state of finality would cause True Nothingness, then the state of finality cannot be correct.

  1. Because the state of eternality must be correct because we are actualized, then True Everythingess is the correct state of existence.

  2. Because True Nothingness does not require a cause and True Nothingness forms a dichotomy with True Everythingness, then True Everythingness also does not require a cause, and hence, True Everythingness was not created and is in a state of eternality.

  3. Because neither True Everythingness nor True Nothingness can be caused, neither can be actualized.

  4. More than one True Everythingness cannot exists, because each such True Everythingness could not contain the others, and hence none of them would be a True Everythingness.

  5. More than one True Nothingness cannot be the correct state of existence, because then there would be something in the form of the existence of two or more True Nothingnesses and True Nothingness cannot contain something.

  6. Because we know in our reality that the possible can become actualized, then True Everythingness must contain both the possible and the actualized.

  7. A Constraint means power to limit or restrict what True Everythingness would otherwise actualize giving the Constraint the power to decide what is and what is not actualized by True Everythingness.

  8. A Constraint on True Everythingness is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, because True Everythingness must contain the possible and only a Constraint is capable of containing the possible in a state of True Everythingness.

  9. Because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS ACTUALIZED, then a Constraint on True Everythingness is actualized.

  10. Because a mind is capable of containing the possible in the form of thought, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that the Constraint contains a mind.

  11. Because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE is actualized, but there can be only one Constraint containing the possible, then the Constraint’s one container for the possible must be the container that comes closest
    to being LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

  12. Because a mind comes closest to being LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE is actualized, then the Constraint’s one container for the possible must be an actualized mind.

  13. Because the Constraint determines what is actualized and what is not actualized having power to control True Everythingness, then the mind of the Constraint containing the possible must be capable of exercising the power of the Constraint in order to decide what is actualized from what is possible.

  14. Because the mind is capable of a will, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the mind of the Constraint to be capable of will.

  15. Because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLLY POSSIBLE is actualized, then the will of the mind of the Constraint is actualized.

  16. Because the mind of the Constraint must be capable of exercising the power of the Constraint in order to decide what is actualized from what is possible, and because the will of the mind of the Constraint is actualized, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the mind of the Constraint to will the possible into actuality.

  17. Because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE is actualized, then the ability of the mind of the Constraint to will the possible into actuality Reality must be actualized.

  18. Because the actualized comes from True Everythingness and not the Constraint which only controls True Everythingness, the actualized although brought on by the will of the mind of the Constraint is not itself simply a thought, but rather an actual creation of True Everythingness allowed to be actualized through the mind of the Constraint.

  19. Because a mind requires time in order to be actualized, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that the Constraint contains immaterial time.

  20. Because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE is actualized, then immaterial time is actualized.

  21. Due to the actualization of the CONSTRAINT, the CONSTRAINT then determines what is actualized and what is not actualized, except that CONSTRAINT cannot determine that the CONSTRAINT itself is not actualized, the Constraint cannot make more than one CONSTRAINT actualized, the CONSTRAINT cannot create anything that would be considered IMPOSSIBLE and outside the dichotomy itself, nor can the CONSTRAINT make true nothingness the correct state of existence, nor can the CONSTRAINT create true everythingness because true everythingness cannot be caused.

  22. Because time is a property of materiality actuality in the form of space-time, the Constraint also creates our material time.

  23. Because the Constraint creates our material time, the Constraint is not subject to our material time.

  24. Because the Constraint is not subject to our material time, then the mind of the Constraint is not subject to our material time.

  25. Because more than one Constraint could constrain each other’s work, then only a single Constraint is actualized, otherwise it is not a Constraint on all that is logically possible being actualized because it cannot constrain another Constraint.

  26. True everythingness cannot contain itself, because true everythingness first cannot be caused and second cannot contain more than one Constraint which would be impossible and outside the dichotomy.

  27. The actualization of two logically possible but contradictory states would also be impossible thus lying outside the dichotomy, because two logically possible but contradictory states both being actualized would deny the actualization of the Constraint, because true everythingness must contain both the actualized and the possible which can only be correct if the Constraint is actualized to contain the possible, and the actualization of two logically possible but contradictory states would mean there is no Constraint and no such thing as the possible.

  28. Because we know from the actualization of our own minds that knowledge is actualized, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the mind of the Constraint to have complete knowledge of True Everythingness.

  29. Because it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to have complete knowledge of True Everythingness, then the mind of the Constraint must have complete knowledge of True Everythingness.

  30. Because the mind of the Constraint must have complete knowledge of True Everythingness, then the mind of the Constraint must be Omniscient.

  31. Because the mind of the Constraint has power over true Everythingness in order to constrain True Everythingness, the mind of the Constraint must be Omnipotent.

  32. Because the mind of the Constraint must have complete presence in True Everythingness in order to constrain True Everythingness, the mind of the Constraint must be Omnipresent.

  33. The immaterial mind of the Constraint shares the characteristics of God the Father.

  34. The omnipresence of the mind of the Constraint in material reality shares the characteristics of God the Holy Spirt.

  35. The actualization of the mind of a man to perfectly reflect the immaterial mind of the Constraint to the fullest extent possible given the limited capacity of the human mind share the characteristics of God the Son.

  36. Omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence are the same characteristics of God.

  37. The evidence that Jesus was the Son of God goes like this: One can hear a great masterpiece of music and infer that a Master composer must have been actualized in order for the masterpiece of music to be actualized. The Words of Jesus contained in The Gospels are a masterpiece of supergenius, and from them one can infer that the Master supergenius, Jesus, must have been actualized. Such a supergenius is exactly what one should expect from the Son of God.

  38. Hence, a single being is actualized who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and we call this being God.

Before I address your arguments here, I have to ask you a question. Are you serious? I honestly can’t figure out your intention with this thread, is it meant to be a parody of theistic arguments and how they attempt to define God in existence or are you sincerely presenting your beliefs?

“I have these 46 dubious assertions that remove all possible doubt.”

I have to agree with Atheris on this one.

@Atheris.

I am dead serious.

@James S. Saint.

You will find as you work through the logic that the assertions are not dubious at all. Trust me. I’ve already heard every objection and successfully shot them down. However, the usual course is that upon reading my proof, you don’t understand it in the least, and I have to work with you until you start to get it. So, go ahead. First objection?

Not a valid conclusion. The set of all edible things on my table must either eventually be eaten or not be eaten, that doesn’t make it eternal or final. In fact, it’s an argument against finality; that there is an “eventually” in there proves that.

Can you tell that a piece of music is a masterpiece? Can anyone? Is there an objective factor that can verify this? Why should anyone agree with your statement that Jesus’ words are a masterpiece of supergenius? It’s not a very convincing argument to anyone who isn’t already convinced.

I have a question regarding your choice of language:

Imagine there is a vacant spot of ground in the middle of your city. There are plans to build a church, a school, or a supermarket; all of them are viable plans, and all have backers and funding and the required materials and manpower available to build them. Only one will be chosen and built. Are all three buildings logically possible buildings? Are all three actualised?

@Only_Humean

I didn’t say we live in a state of finality. In fact, I said, “9) Because the state of eternality must be correct because we are actualized, then True Everythingess is the correct state of existence.” I am only using the state of finality as a hypothetical to show why true nothingness is a reality based possible state of existence.

Eating fruit is simply pointing out that matter can change form without ceasing to be. I already know this. Perhaps, you would better understand what I am saying if you consider the case of the lonely photon at the end of the universe. The lonely photon trillions of years from now finds itself all alone in the universe with no chance of ever meeting up with another photon. Does the photon then cease to exist? Or, does the photon continue on forever? The former is a state of finality. The latter is a state of eternality.

Of course, you can tell a masterpiece. Museums are full of masterpieces!

Your three building analogy is only an attempt at making an objection based on logically possible but contradictory states. The Constraint in my proof takes care of that objection. True Everythingness with a Constraint means that All THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS ACTUALIZED IF THE CONSTRAINT ALLOWS IT TO BE ACTUALIZED. Under my proof, the Constraint does not allow both logically possible but contradictory states to both become actualized. Allowing two logically possible but contradictory states to actualize would deny the existence of the Constraint, because it denies the existence of “the possible” which the Constraint creates and contains. Because the Constraint must be actualized under TE because the Constraint is logically possible, then the simultaneous actualization of two logically possible but contradictory states no longer happens due to the Constraint.

If I have to “trust you”, it isn’t a proof.

There are a couple of things to know about logical proofs;
1) It isn’t a proof until there are absolutely no logical alternatives to the conclusion, given the premises.
2) Every proof is relative to the reader. If the reader actually doubts any contingent part, it isn’t actually a proof to him.

I take that to be a combination of two premises;
a) Everything that exists is either eternal or not
b) “state of eternality” == eternal, “state of finality” == not eternal

And I will forgive the (always present) third option;
c) Combination of (a) and (b); neither, both, intermittent, the boundary, or…

And that assertion begs the question of precisely what is to be meant by “eternal” and what it is going to have to do with anything. But okay, given that everything that exists is either eternal or not…

“A state of finality must consist of the set of all that is actualized ceasing to be actualized in a state of True Nothingness where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS ACTUALIZED…”

That appears to be a false assertion.
1) The state of absolute nothingness is an impossibility, could never have been, nor can ever be.
2) The state of the universe can be (and is) a condition of portions of existence fading away while other portions are appearing. Thus the universe as a whole can be eternal even though each item within that set is coming and/or going.

There is only one possible state of existence. The “absolute void” is not an option.

Perhaps you are unaware that absolute nothingness and absolute everything(ness) are identical. An example being radio frequencies. If you combine all possible frequencies and their phases, the result is no signal at all.

And it might help in the future to realize that absolutely nothing is possible until something is impossible, conceptually something must be missing in order for anything to exist (a frequency must be missing for there to be a signal).

Already covered the error of the first part of that assertion. But, "Existence means not requiring a cause to be real"??? What did that come from? How did causality get into this? And it seems that you are saying that if something exists, it necessarily had no cause … ???

That is enough for now. If the rest is contingent upon these (and I don’t know that they are), there is no hope for a proof out of this.

This part seems to be non-sequitor:

“Mind of the Constraint”? When did the Constrain acquire a mind? What made that logically possible?

@James S. Saint.

You are absolutely wrong in claiming that a state of true nothingness is impossible. The existence of anything, whether that be time, space, matter, void, and even a quantum field or Higgs field, begs the question as to why there couldn’t be a state where none of these things are actualized.

You are always presuming the actualization of the quantum field or Higgs field without considering the possibility of the non-existence of said fields. This is a typical false premise of scientism.

True Everythingness must not have a cause, because it shares a dichotomy with True Nothingness which certainly cannot have a cause. It is self-evident from the dichotomy itself that true everythingness does not have a cause, because it is the exact opposite of true nothingness and forms a dichotomy with TN.

The mind of the Constraint is created by TE as a necessary container for “the possible”.

James, i do not differ with the above, except with the point that the absolute void does have potential existence, maybe it is the eternal photon(s) at the end of space time coming into touch with an other eternal.

The idea is, that even beyond that, there may be potential, generated by totally unknown , and unspeakable …events, ideas, pure formalisms, totally unverifiable , never seen , experienced, not contingent within space time. This absolute potential, and zero actualized… MUST be the …behind the it.

But this IT, is as part of IT, as it is the absence of IT.

On these grounds, the Abolute Void must exist, IT has been actualized, if not, than there is no process of actualization, only an eternal manifestation.

Logic requires that “A is A”, else it isn’t “logic”. And that is why there is nothing “unspeakable” (“un-nameable”). When you give up on “A is A”, nothing is “speakable” because nothing can ever make any sense. Everything is everything that it isn’t.

So for thought and communication to exist at all, there can be nothing “un-nameable”.

But for the absolute nothingness to be the state of the universe, absolute infinity must be reached, and “absolute infinity” is an oxymoron, contradictory, illogical construct. “Absolute” refers to an end point that “infinity” refers to as not being there.

Absolute zero of a quality can only exist by the end result of absolute isolation from that quality. To exist means to have affect. For something to not exist, it must have absolutely zero quality of affect. That means that it has to be absolutely isolated from existence, only physically or mathematically achievable through infinite time and/or distance.

But both time and distance require existence. Time is the measure of change (affecting). And distance is a measure of directness of change (also affecting). Thus affecting must exist (time and/or distance) for absolute isolation, which is in turn necessary for absolute non-affecting (the lack of time and/or distance).

In short, for nothingness or non-existence to be the state, existence must be the state. And that is also why one must accept “A is A”. Either something is what it is or it doesn’t exist. Hence total non-existence is logically impossible to ever be the state.

And there is no “furthermost photon” alone out there. Not to mention that even photons eventually dissipate if given enough vacuum. The “Big Bang” theory is a “Bogus Bang” theory.

@James S. Saint

I get that you like the identity principle, but all the Math in the world is never going to explain why any of it has been actualized.

The existence of anything begs the question of why a state of true nothingness does not exist. It is not because as you posit that true nothingness is impossible. You only wish it impossible. Rather, because the question is begged, it is a reality based question to ask why true nothingness does not exist. The reason true nothingness does not exist is because it is in a dichotomy with true everythingness.

:astonished:

Can’t do that! The fabric of space and time will collapse, the entirety of existence will be negated and kittens and puppies will die :laughing:

JohnJBannan I can understand your claims, but it’s just word play and mental masturbation for the most part. There are some things that I found particularly interesting.

Rejecting this single premise renders your entire argument moot. The gap from the abstract deistic God, creator of the universe to the specific God of a theistic religion such as Yahweh or Allah is the gap many theologians attempted to bridge, so far, none of them succeeded.

Humean already pointed out the issue with 45. I remember being told by my parents that the bible is the most complex text ever written. They were wondering why I laughed like a maniac. I read them some Hegel. They understood (why I was laughing, not Hegel).

If you think the Bible is the ultimate artistic masterpiece, either you and I have VERY different tastes or you haven’t experienced that much art.

Yeah, it kind of scared me to say that. I waited somewhat insecurely to listen for lightening or thunder.

But by the grace of God …

:wink:

:laughing:

 The unspeakable may still be some 'thing' Logic may not be expressable, or thought, or language, within which all the above mentioned concepts subsist in.

 However, an unmentionable may still have an unexpressed being, and that may correspond to the Being, within which logical certainty may differ, at least binary logic.  

A silent language may yet be an omnipresent, omnipotent absolute potentiality.  I dare not call it a nothingness, since we covered that ground, and that very nothingness, which is a conceptual construction, 

may mean a nothing or something, in a universe of variable and varied nothingnesses. Any expression of a world, such as ours, may be just that, a certain kind of actualized world.

Merely give it a name (“A”), and there it is. Even the “unknown” has a name, “the unknown”.

@James S. Saint.

You are absolutely wrong in claiming that a state of true nothingness is impossible. The existence of anything, whether that be time, space, matter, void, and even a quantum field or Higgs field, begs the question as to why there couldn’t be a state where none of these things are actualized.

You are always presuming the actualization of the quantum field or Higgs field without considering the possibility of the non-existence of said fields. This is a typical false premise of scientism.

True Everythingness must not have a cause, because it shares a dichotomy with True Nothingness which certainly cannot have a cause. It is self-evident from the dichotomy itself that true everythingness does not have a cause, because it is the exact opposite of true nothingness and forms a dichotomy with TN.

The mind of the Constraint is created by TE as a necessary container for “the possible”.

OK; are you talking about the set as conceptual entity, or the contents of the set - and if so, every one of the contents, or the existence of content?

Just as a picky side-point - surely true nothingness is a possible state of non-existence? :slight_smile:

That doesn’t answer my question, unless your verification procedure for “work of genius” is “is it in a museum”? Are Jesus’ words greater masterpieces than those of Muhammed, or Buddha, or those in the Dao De Jing or Mahabharat? So far, you’ve only provided an assertion - I’m asking why you think other people should agree with you.

It’s not an objection, it’s a request for clarification - you seem to have had experiences with people not understanding your argument in the past, and language is a notorious stumbling block for clear philosophy. As I now understand it:

  • there is a set of everything actualisable, which is everything logically possible - far greater than the universe as is, which contains only everything actualised
  • one member of this set is a constraint (which is by definition logically possible)
  • this constraint defines which members of the set of everything actualisable are in the subset of everything actualised

is this a fair summation?

If so, for clarity, the three buildings in my example are actualisable/logically possible, but the constraint dictates which one is actualised?

@Only_Humean.

I am talking about the existence of all the contents, and I am not talking about change in form. My lonely photon example should give you a clear understanding of what I am talking about.

True nothingness could have been true. That’s my point. TN is not impossible.

The Gospels are the greatest selling work of all time. Many highly intelligent thinkers throughout the ages would agree that Jesus was a supergenius. While it is my opinion, it is nonetheless an opinion shared by billions throughout the last 2000 years.

With regard to which of the three buildings is erected, you need to first agree on the nature of the Constraint. I proved that the mind of the Constraint is God. So, you’re going to have to ask God which building He wanted or wants built.

By the way, that was a very good summation. :astonished:

If Jesus was a super genius that alone would negate him as any kind of God. Mozart was also a super genius and one I prefer to Jesus. There is simply much more of the Divine in Mozart’s oeuvre not to mention that he was also its direct Creator. As for the Gospels being the greatest selling work! Well great “stories” always sell well and this one got a head start by a millennium and a half.

BTW, if Jesus was a super genius who produced not a thing directly himself couldn’t the same be said for Socrates?