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 the set of all possible all inclusive states of existence that can become real is infinite because one can imagine any given universe with the addition of just one more thing ad infinitum, then there cannot be a probability for any given universe because the set is infinite.

5) But because the universe is real, then there must be something real which determines what becomes real among the infinite set of all possible all inclusive states of existence where said determination is not based on probability or random chance.

6) 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 based on an order of preference.

7) 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 determine based on preference which possible all inclusive states of existence come into reality, then there must be a real eternal constraint that determines through will and intellect to allow any or all of these possible all inclusive states of existence to become real.

8) 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 and therefore must be infinite pure act without moving parts.

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

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

11) 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.

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

[Hatuey]

The only way my proof breaks down is if it is an undisputed fact that the Universe did not have a beginning. However, The Big Bang is such a beginning. Your speculation regarding an eternal universe are not fact. So, again, this is just a criticism based on speculation, not a hole in my proof.

No, your "proof" (term not applicable to this sort of debate), fails on many levels. The "beginning of the universe" is not a deal breaker or deal maker for your synopsis.

However, there is no proof of either a beginning or eternal universe. It seems that there was an infinitely hot, dense point of energy that expanded rapidly, but that doesn't indicate that the universe began at the point or whether or not that singularity was a progression from a previous state or whether or not that singularity always existed.

The big bang is not a beginning, it is an ongoing process of expansion that continues even now.

[Zzyzx]

.

In atheism, the Berlin Wall is meaningless.

By what authority do you speak for Atheism?

Kindly cite multiple Atheist sources that declare "the Berlin Wall is meaningless" or be honorable enough to admit that is just your personal opinion of what others think based upon your own emotionalism.

Was the Berlin Wall emotional?

The Berlin Wall was a physical object that evoked emotional results in some people.

Sure! Plenty of those people holding up those chips were very emotional in doing so. However, this is to again confuse motivation aka emotion with meaning. Two entirely different concepts.

Can worship of "gods" be shown to have meaning that is free of emotion? In fact, can belief in and worship of gods be shown to be anything OTHER than emotion?

Atheists live for emotion - not meaning.

Again you attempt to speak as though you know the mind of Atheists (millions of individuals who need have nothing in common other than the absence of belief in gods).

It is not uncommon for worshipers of gods to project their OPINION onto those who do not accept or share the belief that invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities affect human lives. That they cannot show evidence that they are right or that their gods are anything more than products of human imagination, many theists assume that Non-Believers are wrong.

I have my proof of God to back me up.

I opened another thread to allow you to attempt to substantiate that claim.

No one has yet popped a hole in it.

Present the "evidence" and stand back

So, I am safe in claiming my belief in God is not delusional.

We shall see

You, however, who claim no God nonetheless assert meaning in life where there is none without God. That is delusional.

Notice that many or most "Atheists" do NOT "claim no God" – but rightly contend that none of the thousands of proposed "gods" worshiped, feared, loved, and/or promoted by humans have been shown to be anything more than imagination.

It is not uncommon for Believers to come away from sermons thinking that Atheists are unified in "denying god" (or whatever preachers imagine). Most are not conscientious enough to learn anything more but parrot what they have been told before projecting such nonsense onto anyone who refuses to worship with them.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 153 by Danmark]

The only way my proof breaks down is if it is an undisputed fact that the Universe did not have a beginning. However, The Big Bang is such a beginning. Your speculation regarding an eternal universe are not fact. So, again, this is just a criticism based on speculation, not a hole in my proof.

Incorrect. Your proof relies on your:

3) Because our universe had a beginning and does not need to be real,....

Thus you claim the universe had a beginning and does not need to be 'real.'
These are just assumptions, they are not "undisputed facts."

You build your proof on speculations, yet you claim speculation is not sufficient to refute your 'proof.' How do you justify demanding "undisputed facts" while resting your case on speculations?

You suggest we should believe in God because of unproven speculation, yet dispute justified assumptions that fall short of absolutes. This methodology makes fertile ground for confirmation bias to thrive.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 154:

You need to look up "shattered" in the dictionary. Divine Insight did no such thing.

How 'bout while I'm a-lookin' up "shattered", you look up "delusional"?

I refer those interested to Divine Insight's Post 127, and compare it to John J. Bannan's repeated assertions that those who disagree are "delusional".

[Divine Insight]

Really? How does a human have more meaning than a paint chip?

A paint chip has no sentience. It doesn't know it exists. It has no experience, thoughts, or even dreams.

Human life is meaningful to a human precisely because humans are having an experience of life.

Not a single one of you has popped a hole in my proof of God. You have your criticisms, but I've answered all of them. There has been no hole produced by any of you and I am intellectually honest enough to admit if I had to go back to the drawing board. None of you have made me go back to the drawing board.

You haven't proven anything. All you've done is refuse to recognize the fact that others have already shown the errors in your arguments.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 119 by Zzyzx]

But you do suffer from cognitive dissonance. You hold two contradictory beliefs. You believe life has meaning. You do not believe in an afterlife. And as I pointed out to you, life can have no meaning without an afterlife. You will be as dead as a door nail with no recollection whatsoever of any good thing or evil thing you ever did, and you will stay in your dead state for perhaps eternity. You have no choice but to accept the absolute fact that life is meaningless without eternal life.

Your use of "cognitive dissonance" is inapposite. 'Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
You are in no position to determine whether a poster suffers from stress based on what you claim are contradictory beliefs.
Furthermore, you fail to demonstrate that a person can believe in no afterlife and still find meaning in life. In fact, I suggest the opposite is frequently true; that people who need a belief in the 'afterlife' to give their lives meaning are the ones who find no meaning in this life.

Many people who believe consciousness dies when the brain decays still find great meaning in life. While it may seem a shame to lose all of one's learning and memories upon death, that makes this life all the more precious and meaningful. I submit that we make our own 'meaning' in our lives by appreciating the glory of nature, the beauty of art, the love and development of friends and family, the joy of learning, and more.

Death holds no power over me. I am alive! Death only conquers me to the extent I let it. As you point out, when I am dead, I won't be around to regret anything, or to destroy the meaning I get out of life right now.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 123 by JoeyKnothead]

Equating your existence now with meaning is irrational and illogical. "Meaning" requires purpose. Without eternal life, you have no purpose. Purpose requires something higher than yourself. Without God, there is nothing higher at all. There can be no purpose. Sure, you may enjoy your purposeless life. But, claiming such a life has purpose is meaningless nonsense. Without God, the universe has no purpose. For you to claim that you have purpose, despite the fact that in an atheistic view the universe cannot have a purpose, is to aggrandize yourself over the universe. That's just delusional thinking from an atheistic viewpoint.

You are correct, the universe has no purpose. It just is. Life 'just is.' Where you go wrong is in your assumption that because the universe has no purpose, we individuals do not have purpose and cannot fashion our own meaning.

We do not need to slap an artificial label on the universe, call it "God" and then declare that therefore the universe has meaning and purpose.

Let's posit the existence of this "God" for the sake of argument. What then is the purpose of the universe, of "God?" It is insufficient to say, for example, 'God's purpose was to make us' or 'our purpose lies in God.' That merely suggests an infinite regression. It does not answer any ultimate question, it merely pastes the label "God" over the question.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 161 by Hatuey]

You do not know what happened at the singularity as you claim. No physicist knows that. But, the Big Bang sure looks like a beginning - tiny point expands into our universe.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 162 by Zzyzx]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. I've shown that without God, there is no meaning. Hence, atheism posits no meaning to the Berlin Wall. Of course, I understand that what you call "meaning" is to me nothing more than emotion. This is another point of contention with you.

God gives us meaning through His will for us and giving us eternal life. God's will for us is not emotional, nor is eternal life itself. When did Jesus ever say you need to "feel" a certain way?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 126 by Donray]

There is no sex in the afterlife. There are no fetuses in the afterlife. I know this, because Jesus said there is no marriage in the afterlife. Obviously, if there was sex but no marriage in the afterlife, that would be adultery, which obviously would not be permitted in Heaven.

Jesus said, ""For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. " Matthew 22:30.

So, the afterlife is like being an angel in heaven.

You don't know any of this. Tho' I don't believe in it, there's no reason not to speculate on an afterlife that is no more fantastic than the one you refer to via Biblical reference. When we die there could be some mystical transformation whereby our minds generate new bodies to contain those minds. For all we know these new bodies may be able to have even better sex than we experienced in our first bodies.

It might help you to review the 'Guidelines for Christianity and Apologetics.' In part:

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741