A NEW PROOF OF GOD

1) Because all that is Real must either cease to be Real or not cease to be Real, then all that is Real must exist in either a state of eternality or a state of finality.
2) A state of finality must consist of a state of True Nothingness where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS REAL, including a Void because a Void is something by being a place where something could be put.
3) Because a state of True Nothingness must either be Real or not be Real, then a dichotomy with True Nothingness must be Real.
4) True Everythingness is a state of ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS REAL, which exhausts all possibilities besides True Nothingness, including Something.
5) True Everythingness and True Nothingness are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaust all possibilities forming a dichotomy. Somethingness is not the exact opposite of nothingness, because Everything contains Something, but Something does not contain everything.
6) As True Nothingness is not Real because we are Real, then True Everythingness is Real.
7) Because True Nothingness does not require a cause and True Nothingness forms a dichotomy with True Everthingness, then True Everthingness also does not require a cause, and hence, True Everythingness was not created and is Real eternally.
8) More than one True Everythingness is not logically possible and hence cannot be Real, because each such True Everythingness could not contain the others, and hence none of them would be a True Everythingness.
9) More than one True Nothingness is not logically possible and hence cannot be Real, because then there would be something in the form of the existence of two or more True Nothingnesses and True Nothingness cannot contain something.
10) Because we know in our reality that the possible can become REAL, then True Everythingness must contain both the possible and the actualized.
11) A Constraint means power to limit or restrict True Everythingness.
12) A Constraint on True Everythingness is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE, because True Everythingness must contain the possible and only a Constraint is capable of producing the possible in a state of True Everythingness.
13) Because ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS REAL, then a Constraint on True Everythingness is Real.
14) Due to the reality of the CONSTRAINT, the CONSTRAINT then determines what is real and what is not real, except that CONSTRAINT cannot determine that the CONSTRAINT itself is not real, the Constraint cannot make more than one CONSTRAINT real, the CONSTRAINT cannot create anything that would be considered IMPOSSIBLE and outside the dichotomy itself, nor can the CONSTRAINT make true nothingness real.
15) Because more than one Constraint could constrain each other’s work, then only a single Constraint is Real, otherwise it is not a Constraint on all that is logically possible being Real because it cannot constrain another Constraint.
16) Because we know from the reality of our own minds that knowledge is REAL, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the Constraint to have complete knowledge of True Everythingness.
17) Because it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE to have complete knowledge of True Everythingness, then a Constraint must have complete knowledge of True Everythingness.
18) Because we know from our reality that all that is possible is not actualized, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for less than all that is possible from being actualized.
19) Because we know a Constraint must be Real, then it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the Constraint to create less than all that is possible from being actualized.
20) Because it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the Constraint to create less than all that is possible from being actualized, then the Constraint must possess a mind with free will.
21) Because the Constraint must possess a mind with free will and have complete knowledge of True Everythingness, the Constraint must be Omniscient.
22) This Constraint must have power over True Everythingness in order to constrain True Everythingness thus being Omnipotent.
23) Power over True Everythingness requires power beyond any power that can be created from the infinitely material.
24) Because power over True Everythingness is beyond any power that can be created from the infinitely material, then the Constraint must exist in an immaterial reality that exercises this power.
25) Because it is logically possible for immaterial reality to have time because we have time, then immaterial time must be Real.
26) Because immaterial time must be Real, then it is logically possible for the immaterial to contain a mind.
27) Because it is logically possible for an immaterial mind to be Real, then an immaterial mind is Real and contains the possible in form of thought.
28) Because the immaterial mind contains the possible in form of thought, then it is logically possible for the immaterial to contain both the actualized and the possible.
29) Because nothing comes from nothing, True Everythingness must have created the Constraint.
30) Because True Everythingness created the Constraint from the immaterial, then it must be possible for the immaterial to create.
31) Because it is possible for the immaterial to create, it is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE for the immaterial to create a mind, and so the immaterial mind of a single Constraint must be Real.
32) Because True Everythingness contains both the actualized and the possible, and as ABSOLUTELY ALL THAT IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE IS REAL, then the Constraint must be eternally REAL while also having been created by True Everythingness out of the possible.
33) This Constraint must have complete presence in True Everythingness in order to constrain True Everythingness thus being Omnipresent.
34) The immaterial mind of the Constraint shares the characteristics of God the Father.
35) The omnipresence of the Constraint in material reality shares the characteristics of God the Holy Spirt.
36) The creation of the mind of a man to perfectly reflect the immaterial mind of the Constraint share the characteristics of God the Son.
37) Omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence are the same characteristics of God.
38) Hence, a single being exists who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and we call this being God.

RomanCatholic1953


First off, if no proof of God was desirable for Catholic faith, then why make Aquinas a saint?  Why did Jesus bother to perform miracles, if not for proof?

However, I do agree that atheists and agnostics need to be preached to.  However, that class of 1/3 of the people who demand evidence and proof to accept a belief are not simply going to accept Catholicism on faith alone.

Nevertheless, true everythingness (TE) being a rational and provable theory of why we even exist in the first place where God is not necessary to prove TE should be quite palatable to the atheists and agnostics.  The biggest problem with TE is explaining and comprehending it.  But once you "get" TE, it is actually a quite simple and very powerful concept.

The beauty of TE for Catholicism is that once you accept TE as true, it begs the question of what is the full extent of the logically possible?  Because two contradictory but logically possible states must be actualized under TE, this forces the conclusion that a Constraint on TE must be actualized in order to ensure that two contradictory but logically possible states are not simultaneously actualized.  This begs the question of what is the nature of the Constraint?  The nature of the Constraint must contain the possible and also be capable of actualizing less than what is possible.  The best candidate for such a Constraint is the mind of God.  Hence, TE being palatable to the atheist/agnostic inevitable leads to the conclusion that God is real, or arguably at least an infinite multiverse is real except you can never prove an infinite multiverse is real.