A New Proof of God.

I am sorry if this hurts your head or you do not understand the following Proof of God, which I developed after many arguments with atheists which they were not able to counter:
True nothingness and true everythingness is in a dichotomous relationship. True nothingness is the absence of anything, whether that be space, time, energy, matter, quantum field or foam, Void or even God. True everythingness is the exact opposite of true nothingness and contain ALL THAT IS POSSIBLE. As true nothingness and true everythingness comprise all possibilities, they are in a dichotomous relationship and are not a FALSE DILEMMA. As true nothingness does not in fact exist, true everythingness must exist.
As true everythingness contains all that is possible, it must contain a constraint on true everythingness, as said constraint is possible and thus must exist. That which constrains ALL cannot itself be created. Thus, the constraint cannot be created and hence must have always existed and is outside of time. As it is possible for the constraint to have free will or the capability to make arbitrary decisions, then the constraint must also have free will. As the constraint must constrain ALL of everythingness, then the constraint must also be omnipotent. This means the constraint shares the same characteristics of God, i.e. omnipotence, free will and not being created and outside of time.
There also can only be one constraint, because more than one constraint could eliminate each other with their omnipotence and the resulting absence of the constraint would violate everythingness. Thus, there can be only one God. However, as it is possible for that God to have three aspects, as that God can do so because those aspects are of the same one God and cannot eliminate each other without eliminated Himself. God cannot eliminate Himself, because the constraint must exist in true everythingness.
Although the constraint is omnipotent, the constraint cannot do that which is impossible. Thus, God cannot create another God, God cannot eliminate Himself or true everythingness, and God cannot create a rock which God cannot lift etc. However, as there is no power possible to do the impossible, God is still omnipotent because there is no absence of power. God is, however, still capable of all that is possible.
In conclusion, God’s existence is a necessary aspect of the existence of true everythingness, which itself must exist due to the dichotomy with true nothingness and as true nothingness does not exist in fact.

Overall I like the proof… however, to me there is a problem with this:

The constraint could just be the limits of matter and nothing more. For example, string theory mathematically explains the whys of matter, energy and forces and the constraint is nothing more that the limits of forms.

So, please help me with the possibility for the “constraint”:

  • having “free will”

  • making “arbitrary decisions”

Because true everythingness contains all that is possible, it must contain a constraint with free will, because such a constraint is possible. A constraint possessing free will must also constrain strings, as strings do not have free will to counter the free will of the prime constrainer aka God.

Most will say your “a constraint with free will” is impossible, including me. Constraints could be many things without free will, so you will need to add a step to prove why your free will constraint is possible. Just saying so is not sufficient. If you can’t then your proof falls apart.

You also did not address this request:

  • making “arbitrary decisions”

In a rational everything, to me arbitrary does not follow.

As you do not know the full extent of all that is possible, you cannot say that the free will of the constrainer is impossible. I, however, can appeal to the full extent of the possible, of which you are unaware. Obviously, as our Universe does not contain the full extent of true everythingness, because our Universe does not contain all possibilities, I offer this proof of the existence of possibilities beyond our Universe. That proof means that there are possibilities in existence of which you are unaware. For example, it could have been that 20 planets revolved around our Sun, but it is not the case. However, it is a possibility. Hence, there must exist possibilities of which you are unaware. As you are unaware of all possibilities, you cannot disprove the possible existence of free will in the constrainer but I get a strong presumption that free will exists because there is nothing preventing it from existing and therefore it should be possible (and hence exist).

So what you’re saying is that since something exists then everything that could ever possibly exist does? This is much like looking at a number and saying that a number cannot be both zero and one at the same time and since we know it’s not zero, it must be one, since they are dichotomous. Why can’t it be 0.5 or 0.7? Would you agree you cannot have both exactly 50% of possibilities exist and nothingness? If nothing exists, then that is not 50%, that is 0% of the possibilities. If you only have 50% of the possibilities exist then you have something, which is not nothing.

This “proof” reminds me of the perfect island proof that has been used. If I were to imagine the perfect island, it would not be perfect unless it actually existed, because a real island is more perfect than an imaginary island However, just because an island would be more perfect if it actually existed that does not mean that it actually exists. You could use the exact same idea for another thing. I have my idea of the perfect bridge, but the bridge must be in a certain location so I could use it, but that does not mean the bridge actually exists.

@without
Alternatively, I can argue that the fine-tuned universe theory is proof of God’s free will or capability to make arbitrary decisions about what a Universe would look like, leaving you the task of proving the existence of a multiverse containing ALL possibilities. As you cannot prove the existence of such a multiverse, you cannot prove that God’s free will is impossible. I, however, can object to you requiring me to prove the negative, i.e. that such a multiverse does not exist. Hence, you commit the negative proof fallacy.

@Jerbear.
A state of 50% of all that is possible without a constraining God compared to true nothingness is a FALSE DILEMMA, and hence, not a dichotomy. It is a false dilemma, because there are other possibilities that are not excluded to just the 2, such as 75% of all that is possible or 10% of all that is possible. Hence, as a false dilemma, your proposition fails as a proof.

@without
Indeed, I don’t even need the fine-tuned theory. I can prove that our Universe does not contain all that is possible. That’s easy. Hence, I can prove that existence does not contain all possibilities. As the dichotomy requires that all possibilities must exist, given the fact that all possibilities don’t exist, then there must be a constrainer with free will inhibiting those possibilities.

It seems to me that by this logic I can also say…

“As true everythingness contains all that is possible, it must contain Santa Claus, as Santa Claus is possible and thus must exist.”

Also it seems to me a false dilemma is in play because there is another unaccounted for option. Either there is (1) True Nothingness where nothing exists, (2) True Existance, where everything that does actually exists exists, and (3) True Everythingness, where everything that CAN exist exists.

With how invested you appear to be in your own ‘proof’ that you came up with randomly, it’s not even worth debating you about it. I would like to hear your response back to my island/bridge example though.

@Rhubarb. The fact that Santa Claus does not exist is proof that a constrainer has willed that Santa Claus does not exist.

@Rhubard. It is not a false dilemma. True everythingness contains all that is possible. In other words, true everythingness contains ALL actual existence and potential existence. Hence, true everythingness contains all that is possible whether it actually exists or not. The fact that most of what is possible does not exist in fact is proof of God’s free will constraining its existence.

@Jerbear.
No, I am not saying that if something can exist it must exist. I am saying that true everythingness contains ALL that exists and ALL that can potentially exist. However, as ALL that can potentially exist does not in fact exist, then there must be a constrainer on potential existence. The fact that some things exist and others do not exist though possible is proof that the constrainer is exercising arbitrary decision-making or free will, and hence is proof of God.

I’ll try my best not to be overwhelmed. :wink:

As true nothingness does not in fact exist, true everythingness must exist.

As others have pointed out, just because two things are mutually exclusive doesn’t mean that either is bound to exist. If I flip a coin 10 times, the event of getting 10 heads and the event of getting 10 tails are mutually exclusive. This doesn’t imply that either event will occur.

Now if I said something like, “I will either get 10 heads or I won’t” then that is perfectly true. So you could say, “Either complete everythingness exists or it doesn’t”. But the negation of complete everythingness existing isn’t nothingness, but rather a world in which not all possibilities exist. “Not all” is not the same as “none”.

As true everythingness contains all that is possible, it must contain a constraint on true everythingness, as said constraint is possible and thus must exist.

Strictly speaking, it is misleading to treat the properties of a set as if they were members of the set. I can observe, for example, that the set of numbers containing all multiples of 2 will contain only even numbers. This does not imply that even-ness is part of the set.

It’s been noted by several philosophers (most famously Kant) that existence is an especially poor property to abuse in this way. Things exist, but existence doesn’t exist. “Existence” is not a thing, it is a way of affirming that an object is a member of a set. “This table exists” just means “this table is part of the observable universe”. So it’s helpful to think of existence as a state of membership. You wouldn’t infer that membership is a member of a basketball team because the team is composed of members, would you?

Thus, the constraint cannot be created and hence must have always existed and is outside of time.

This idea is a bit confusing. “Always” invokes the notion of time. So what does it mean to “always” exist if you are outside of time?

It seems to me that if something exists outside of time, then we can’t specify “when” it exists. It simply does. To say that it will exist, or did exist, or always existed invokes time.

As it is possible for the constraint to have free will or the capability to make arbitrary decisions, then the constraint must also have free will.

I would actually debate the possibility of free will. I am using the term in the modal sense; to have free will means that none of your actions are necessarily the case and none of them are necessarily not the case, i.e., they are all contingencies.

This means the constraint shares the same characteristics of God, i.e. omnipotence, free will and not being created and outside of time.

This is probably the weakest part of the argument. What does it mean to say that a constraint has free will? You’ve not even demonstrated that it is sentient or intelligent, much less free.

It seems to me your concept of true everythingness is two distinct concepts - “all that does exist” and “all that can possibly exist”. There is a conjuction right in the middle of your definition joining the two. This is most definitely a false dillema.

I thought of a similar proof years ago and i copyrighted it; so you can’t use this one!!. looool

Just kidding.

Would it not be more simpler to state the following…

1. Absolute Nothingness cannot exist, and something cannot be a product of nothing.

2. Therefore something eternally exists necessarily.

3. That which exists necessarily cannot have contingent parts or change in to something new, for all that is true of this necessary being exists absolutely and eternally at once precisely because everything that it is exists necessarily; otherwise their would be things about its nature that is not necessary.

4. Physical reality changes and has contingent parts, therefore this necessary being is not physical. Hence the cause of the universe is not physical.

5. Because this being is necessarily real, it can be greater than the universe, but it cannot produce that which is greater than itself.

6. Self-consciousness knows existence which involves more than simply an object existing with no self knowledge. Lack of consciousness is a lack of knowledge. Beings with knowledge exist. Because “necessary existence” cannot produce that which is greater than itself, then we must presume that necessary existence has knowledge of itself and the universe. This follows true from the principle of proportionate-causality which in itself follows necessarily from the principle that out of nothing comes nothing.

**Conclusion: **Therefore a transcendent, non-physical, intelligent, necessary being and creator exists. This is what Christians generally mean by God.

This of course does not prove that Christians are the recipients of Gods word, although this necessary being does bare an uncanny resemblance to the God of the 3 Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

Just a respectful critique here: there are a number of passages here that I find difficult to justify.

However, before I begin, what exactly do you mean by “constraint”? Is it roughly the same as a “condition of possibility” (as in Kant)?

Anyway I have a difficulty, first of all, with the first major premise:

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that there are plenty of possible things that don’t exist (dragons, centaurs, elves, for example). Therefore, we live in a world in which only some of the possible things exist. Merely possible beings are non-beings.

(In tongue and cheek, it would be nice to be able to pay the rent with the $4000 I don’t have, but could have, but unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way… :).)

Moreover, some possible things are incompatible with other possibilities. The M&M candy can be red, yellow, or blue, but it can’t be all three at once (at least, not on the same part of the shell). I could be young or old, but not both.

In any case, that means that there must be, in fact, a tertium quid: neither pure nothingness, nor pure everythingness, but (for lack of a better word) “somethingness.” And in fact, the last is the situation of the world we live in.

As true nothingness does not in fact exist, true everythingness must exist.

I am in agreement with the first part. There is no need to prove that the world exists. That much is evident. It is the leap from “non-nothingness” to “everythingness” that I find difficult.

As true everythingness contains all that is possible, it must contain a constraint on true everythingness, as said constraint is possible and thus must exist.

This is the step that I find most problematic. From the mere possibility that something exists, how do you deduce that it does, in fact, exist?

That which constrains ALL cannot itself be created. Thus, the constraint cannot be created and hence must have always existed and is outside of time. As it is possible for the constraint to have free will or the capability to make arbitrary decisions, then the constraint must also have free will. As the constraint must constrain ALL of everythingness, then the constraint must also be omnipotent.

Just a question: does the constraint also constrain itself? That could be problematic. We don’t want to make the mistake of making God “just another being” among beings. In reality, He is the source of the being of His creatures.

This means the constraint shares the same characteristics of God, i.e. omnipotence, free will and not being created and outside of time.
There also can only be one constraint, because more than one constraint could eliminate each other with their omnipotence and the resulting absence of the constraint would violate everythingness. Thus, there can be only one God.

I think simpler proof of the unicity of God is that two “gods” could not be omnipotent, because neither one would have power over the other.

However, as it is possible for that God to have three aspects, as that God can do so because those aspects are of the same one God and cannot eliminate each other without eliminated Himself. God cannot eliminate Himself, because the constraint must exist in true everythingness.
Although the constraint is omnipotent, the constraint cannot do that which is impossible. Thus, God cannot create another God, God cannot eliminate Himself or true everythingness, and God cannot create a rock which God cannot lift etc. However, as there is no power possible to do the impossible, God is still omnipotent because there is no absence of power. God is, however, still capable of all that is possible.
In conclusion, God’s existence is a necessary aspect of the existence of true everythingness, which itself must exist due to the dichotomy with true nothingness and as true nothingness does not exist in fact.

Once we get here, I think the argument works. It is the first few links in the chain that I find problematic. I think a good proof for the existence of God always has to start with some real being; it is a mistake to get caught up in mere possibilities, in my opinion.

@without
A constraint with free will is not impossible. In order to prove that a constraint with free will is impossible, you would either have to prove: 1) that a constraint itself is not possible or 2) that the free will of a constraint is impossible. To prove that a constraint is itself not possible, you would have to prove the existence of a multiverse where all possibilities actually exist. For example, you would have to prove there are in actual existence an infinite number of copies of you in the multiverse crossing a street in an infinite number of ways. You can never prove this. The other option is to prove that the free will of the constraint is impossible. However, you would have to prove why a constraint without free will is incapable of creating let’s say a thousand copies of you tilting your head while watching t.v. this morning at infinitely slight angles. Again, you can never prove this. Hence, as there is only evidence of one of you, the free will of the constraint is proven for all intents and purposes.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.