A NEW PROOF OF GOD: GOD IS REAL, AS TRUE NOTHINGNESS IS NOT REAL.
1) Why true nothingness (aka philosophical nothingness) is not real can only be answered through a dichotomy with true everythingness (aka similar to Plato’s Plenitude).
2) True everythingness is the exact opposite of true nothingness. Somethingness is not the exact opposite of nothingness, because Everything contains something, but something does not contain everything.
3) True everythingness posits that ALL IS REAL.
4) In the special case where ALL IS REAL, then it is also true that ALL IS POSSIBLE. As a logical syllogism therefrom one can state that ALL THAT IS POSSIBLE MUST BE REAL.
5) As a CONSTRAINT on a state of true everythingness is also POSSIBLE, then the CONSTRAINT must also be REAL and must have always been REAL because true everythingness must have always been REAL.
6) That which CONSTRAINS ALL cannot itself be created.
7) 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, nor can the CONSTRAINT make true nothingness real.
8) There can be only One CONSTRAINT, otherwise the CONSTRAINT would not be a CONSTRAINT on true everythingness because the CONSTRAINT could not constrain another CONSTRAINT.
9) As a CONSTRAINT with free will is POSSIBLE, then a CONSTRAINT with free will must be real.
10) The only way to constrain the infinitely possible is to know of and have power over the infinitely possible. Said self-awareness of the CONSTRAINT with free will is a unique state of Being beyond material infinity.
11) A CONSTRAINT with free will shares the same characteristics of God, as the CONSTRAINT having the ability to choose what is real and not real must be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent having knowledge of and power over all infinite possibilities for reality and cannot itself be created and must have always been REAL.
12) A CONSTRAINT with free will must be a unique reality where knowledge of and power over all infinite possibilities is POSSIBLE.
13) A CONSTRAINT without free will must create as real ALL that is POSSIBLE under the CONSTRAINT.
14) A CONSTRAINT without free will necessarily requires at least the reality of an infinite multiverse.
15) There is no proof of an infinite multiverse, nor shall there ever be such proof, as the data necessary to obtain such proof resides only outside our own Universe and as we cannot leave our Universe, such proof is impossible to obtain.
16) As even an infinite multiverse must itself be constrained by the laws of physics or forms, then there must be a Constraint on the infinite material possibilities. As the laws of physics and forms are infinite as Math is infinite, then there must be a Constraint on the infinite laws of physics and forms in order for creation to be real at all and as such a Constraint on the infinite material possibilities is possible by knowing and having control over all the infinite material possibilities and hence must be real as ALL THAT IS POSSIBLE MUST BE REAL. Hence, even assuming the reality of an infinite multiverse, then there must still be a God to account for creation. As it is possible to have both knowledge of and power over what is POSSIBLE, then God must be REAL as ALL THAT IS POSSIBE MUST BE REAL.
17) There is proof of a CONSTRAINT with free will, however, as ALL THAT IS POSSIBLE under the infinite laws of physics and forms is not REAL in our particular Universe. Hence, the reality of our particular Universe scientifically proves the reality of a CONSTRAINT with free will that has chosen to limit what is REAL under ALL THAT IS POSSIBLE.
18) As it is also POSSIBLE for a single CONSTRAINT with free will to divide itself into aspects as those aspects still constitute a single CONSTRAINT, then a Trinity of God is also POSSIBLE.
19) As it is also POSSIBLE for a CONSTRAINT with free will to share its knowledge and power with lesser beings due to the unique reality of the CONSTRAINT itself, then God is capable of creating and sharing some of His knowledge and power with lesser beings such as Satan and Angels.
20) As it is also POSSIBLE for a CONSTRAINT with free will to enter and manipulate our particular Universe anytime He desires due to the unique reality of the CONSTRAINT itself, it is also POSSIBLE for God to share his Being with us and perform miracles here on Earth.
21) Thus, GOD is REAL, as true nothingness is NOT REAL.

Rather than try to figure out what that all means,

take the easier way, and pray to love the Truth, know the Truth and beg God to have the grace to act on the Truth till the end.  

No. I certainly did have this same idea, when I was an atheist. I was trying to figure out ultimate reality and ended up with the opposite conclusion of what I had expected, which was what you demonstrate here, that it is impossible to have reality without a will. I remember where I was when I realized this. I was working in a wire and cable factory on night shift and I was loading large spools of wire into a water tank for a test. This was boring work and so I was thinking about things, like ultimate reality.I reached this conclusion and was startled by it. “That's GOD, I exclaimed.”

This – and other things, because we are complicated creatures –  undermined my atheism and was a turning point.  

Of course, I wasn't able to articulate it and draw it up as you have here. I think you have done an excellent job. Perhaps we should translate this into Latin.    

Nearly eight centuries and no one has ever improved upon St. Thomas' Quinque Viae.
 

@Brennus.

Oh, so you like my theory?  That's great!  However, when you say you didn't articulate it, that makes me think you did not understand it all.  

Are you saying that you understood the concept of dichotomy?  Are you saying that you understood that the proper dichotomy was between true everythingness and true nothingness?

And if you say "yes", then I am going to ask you another question which you should be able to answer if you truly understood the entire theory.

By the way, I am not trying to badger you,  but I am very very curious as to why I could not find any reference to my theory on the internet and I had never learned the theory from anyone, despite my extensive post-graduate education.  It has really set me for a loss as to why I didn't know this theory before.  Thanks for your reply.

You've all lost me......... :idea:

@Ladislaus.

I am not going to bother putting it into syllogisms yet, because if Claudel's assertion that some great philosopher has already thought my proof up, then the syllogism work should have already been done.  I don't want to re-invent the wheel if I don't have to.  So, until Claudel answers or fesses up that my proof has not in fact been thought of before, I reserve the right to come up with a list of syllogisms at a later point in this Thread.

I am not going to bother putting it into syllogisms yet, because if Claudel's assertion that some great philosopher has already thought my proof up, then the syllogism work should have already been done. I don't want to re-invent the wheel if I don't have to. So, until Claudel answers or fesses up that my proof has not in fact been thought of before, I reserve the right to come up with a list of syllogisms at a later point in this Thread.

Your skin is quite as thin as your reasoning, Mr. Bannan. I was having a harmless giggle at what I deemed your combination of grandiosity and assertiveness, both hallmarks of youth and callowness and, all too frequently, of juvenility, too. In the hope that I can arrest your pouting before it runs to a dozen comments, however, I shall give you an answer of a sort, though it shan't be one you'll like.

The plain fact is that your series of logical inferences betray a lack of training in formal logic. For example, statement 1) is a textbook example of petitio principii—in plain English, an instance of begging the question—in that what you postulate therein you treat, without warrant, as already proved (the only thing missing is QED at its end), whereas it is a statement so sweeping in its implication that it needs to be explicated in detail. Discussing your "deductions" from this unproved premise may amuse you no end, but what remains of my own life is far too short to make such a waste of its precious moments justifiable.

I wish you good luck in your thinking and your writing. The only advice I offer you is to forgo further sneering at the pre-Christian Greek (and Roman) thinkers who have held a place of esteem in orthodox Catholic thought since the epoch of the Fathers of the Church and the great Western and Eastern doctors. Better men than you and I have spent their life's entirety in studying them.