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.

[Jashwell]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. I've shown that without God, there is no meaning.

No you haven't, you've just claimed it again and again and again.


When you say meaningful, you clearly don't mean "having meaning to anyone".
Perhaps you are equating meaning with meaning to God.
As I recall, the definition you provided was not "meaningful: being important to God or having purpose provided by God".

[Hatuey]

You do not know what happened at the singularity as you claim. No physicist knows that.

Nope, I did not claim to know what happened at the singularity, the purpose of my post was to establish that fact.

Yes, that was my point. Nobody knows, including you. Since we don't know, we don't say that the universe "began," nor do we base philosophical arguments on that supposed "beginning" that nobody can prove happened.

But, the Big Bang sure looks like a beginning - tiny point expands into our universe.

Again, yes, that was my point. (Except you're leaving out the part about it continuing to expand as it is).

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 165 by Divine Insight]

What meaning is there in conscious awareness? It is simply a state of material existence, nothing more (at least where there is no God as you claim). You may be fond of your self-awareness, but that doesn't make it meaningful. It may make it pleasurable and emotional, but not meaningful. Can a human not fully function on pure emotion? What additional need is there of meaning? If there is no God as you claim, meaning would appear superfluous. So why do you insist on there being any separation whatsoever between emotion and meaning?

[Divine Insight]

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.

Exactly.

In fact, it's easy to shoot John's argument of meaning and purpose down with a simple question:

John J. Bannan, Please pay attention to the following scenario!

Imagine there is a God. Imagine that when we die we are resurrected to stand in judgment before this God.

Now imagine that this God says to you, "My reality is not how you were taught. I do not condemn for eternity, nor do I offer eternal life to anyone. However, I am willing to offer you a life in paradise for one thousand years. After which you must die because I simply have no desire to maintain you after that period of time. Are you interested in this one thousand years in paradise, or should I end your life now?"

How many people do you know John, who would reject the one thousand year life in paradise and chose instead to be killed instantly, simply because the one thousand year life in paradise is not eternal, and therefore according to you, has no meaning!

Would you personally reject the one thousand year life in paradise based on the reasoning that if it's not eternal it would have no meaning for you?

Surely not. Surely you would not reject the offer simply because it is not an offer of eternal life. What are you going to do? Give God the bird, and tell him to shove his temporary paradise up one of his many blackholes because it would have no meaning for you being only temporary?

Yet, according to your claims you must reject it, because according to you, it would be totally meaningless since it's not an eternal life. Why would you bother accepting one thousand years of paradise when it would have no meaning for you?

Surely you can see how this hypothetical argument blows your argument for meaning clean out of the water.

Surely any sane person who loves life would jump at the chance to live for a thousand years in paradise. In fact, it seems to me that anyone who would reject this would clearly already not value life at all.

So the meaning and value of life cannot depend upon life being eternal.

[Hatuey]

Of course, I understand that what you call "meaning" is to me nothing more than emotion.

That argument could by used by anyone at anytime to declare any of your positions meaningless to them. Are you seriously suggesting that anytime someone disagrees with you, they simply say to you, "I understand that what you call 'meaning' is to me nothing more than emotion" and thereby invalidate your argument from their viewpoint?

[Danmark]

[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 not only absurd, and completely arbitrary, it is demonstrably false.
1. Atheism takes no position on the Berlin Wall, neither atop it, astride it, nor on either side. To claim atheism declares a position on physical structures is a non sequitur.

2. Someone who is an atheist can also be a poet, a historian, a builder, an artist and may have other belief systems that have nothing to do with a belief in God.

3. Certainly you can define "meaning" in an iconoclastic way and even redefining it as "emotion." But to do so is to fail to communicate accurately because you have redefined a word in a unique way, a definition not agreed to by others. I suppose you could define 'white' as the 'absence of color,' or 'black' as 'all colors combined,' but that would only be true in a universe comprised of yourself and no one else.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 167 by Danmark]

If I were to guess, I would say our purpose to God is in sharing His attributes with us and creating us for this purpose to be like God. God shares His attributes with us. We can create. We can procreate. We are highly intelligent. We can know great things. We can do good or evil. We can have eternal life. We have great power. We can move about. We have freedom to choose.

[Hatuey]

What meaning is there in conscious awareness?

Whatever meaning that particular conscious awareness derives from its own observation of itself in its environment.

You may be fond of your self-awareness, but that doesn't make it meaningful. It may make it pleasurable and emotional, but not meaningful.

It's as meaningful as the self-awareness believes it to be. The conscious being is the one who assigns meaning. Even in the case of the believer, meaning is as the believer defines for himself since god is silent, invisible, and undetectable--leaving the believer to "have faith" and "believe" as he will.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 165 by Divine Insight]

What meaning is there in conscious awareness? It is simply a state of material existence, nothing more (at least where there is no God as you claim). You may be fond of your self-awareness, but that doesn't make it meaningful. It may make it pleasurable and emotional, but not meaningful. Can a human not fully function on pure emotion? What additional need is there of meaning? If there is no God as you claim, meaning would appear superfluous. So why do you insist on there being any separation whatsoever between emotion and meaning?

Ok, before we continue any further please describe in detail precisely what you mean by the term "Meaning".

You apparently need to provide everyone with an absolute iron-clad definition of what you accept as "meaning". And then let others decide whether they accept that semantics.

Because as far as I can see, you are doing nothing other than continually rejecting everything that is "meaningful" to humans.

~~~~~

Just as an observation, earlier in this thread you had defined "meaning" as an END RESULT or "goal achieved". Yet how ironic is that if you are going to claim that life can only have "meaning" if it never ends?

You can never have and END RESULT in an eternal life John.

In fact, if "Goals Achieved" give life meaning then you can give a temporary life quite a bit of meaning by simply achieving a lot of goals during that temporary life.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 165 by Divine Insight]

What meaning is there in conscious awareness? It is simply a state of material existence, nothing more (at least where there is no God as you claim). You may be fond of your self-awareness, but that doesn't make it meaningful. It may make it pleasurable and emotional, but not meaningful. Can a human not fully function on pure emotion? What additional need is there of meaning? If there is no God as you claim, meaning would appear superfluous. So why do you insist on there being any separation whatsoever between emotion and meaning?

It does make it meaningful, to him.
It is not an emotion, but it is a subjective concept.

If you were to say "happiness exists" that means that at least one person is happy.
Similarly, saying "that is meaningful" means at least one person finds meaning in that.
The existence of any one happy person means the existence of happiness.

A trivial example of meaning is the word mean. One's understanding of a word is one of the meanings they find in it. (or many, as many words have more than one meaning)