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.

[Divine Insight]

And remember, if you do make it down, you'll have no trouble getting back into heaven. No waiting list."

That's the beauty of hell, there's no waiting list to get out of it.

[Hatuey]

As with most theist "arguments," the original poster has finally arrived at the same place they all wind up: "My position is right because it's mine, and what I say is correct is correct because it's MY meaning of "meaning" we're using and MY viewpoint of god we're using, and MY ideas that are true, because.....because....because....well because I SAY SO!!"

There's really no place else to go when your idea of "godhood" is "I AM THAT I AM, and my rules are the ONLY rules and you do what I say or be tortured for all eternity." If that's your idea of perfect reasoning, then why attempt any other format?

And so they all wind up right here.

[Elijah John]

{re[Replying to post 192 by Danmark]

Perhaps you prefer the excitement of hell, then?

Moderator Warning


This is pure theological opinion, and judgemental and uncivil at that. It is also a one liner and adds nothing but antagonism to the debate. Lines like this have no place on a debating site. I would advise you tread more carefully, and with more thought and consideration.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 125 by FarWanderer]

I am not leaving "542" out without good reason. I only asked you to explain what "542" being the case would entail? If you come up with a good answer, then I am forced to seriously consider your suggestion. So, what does "542" being the case entail?

Before I can answer that on the same page as you, I'll need you to tell me what "nothingness" being the case would entail by your thinking.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 125 by FarWanderer]

I am not leaving "542" out without good reason. I only asked you to explain what "542" being the case would entail? If you come up with a good answer, then I am forced to seriously consider your suggestion. So, what does "542" being the case entail?

Before I can answer that on the same page as you, I'll need you to tell me what "nothingness" being the case would entail by your thinking.

I see that "542" has raised its ugly face again. This issue, I confess, is totally incomprehensible for me.

The number 542 in itself is metaphysical in that the number 542 is a concept. However, my dichotomy is proven through reference to reality itself. We have no idea whatsoever of "542" being the case. However, we can grasp what pure nothingness would be if it were the case, because we could imagine the absence of all things and even the absence of space and Void itself. I cannot imagine "542" being the case, so I reject it out of hand. Consequently, there is no good reason to offer "542" as a true metaphysical option, but there is good reason to offer pure nothingness as a true metaphysical option. If you would like to explain what "542" being the case would entail, please be my guest. Perhaps, you are more imaginative than I am.

Can anyone explain this to me? It seems to be nothing more than gibberish. What does "We have no idea whatsoever of "542" being the case" mean? What does "I cannot imagine "542" being the case, so I reject it out of hand" mean?

Far Wanderer, you have responded to the great "542" issue that John B. has proposed. Do you make any sense of it? What if it were "543?" Would that make any difference? Could we just subtract 542 from 542 and start over? I'd like a clean slate.

[Bust Nak]

Well, at least you're honest in admitting that to you "meaning" and "emotion" are the same thing.

I explicitly stated that they are not the same thing but related. You have both misrepreseted my views, and implied that anyone who disagee with you is dishonest. Two fallacies in one sentence. Ironic thing for you to do, given your earlier boast of intellectual honesty.

But, you can have "meaning" without "emotion" through God.

That is irrelevant to the debate on whether one can have meaning without God. Even if God can give you meaning, that doesn't mean that you can't have meaning without God. A red herring fallacy.

You can share in God's being, which give meaning without emotion. God as the Creator is the source of all meaning.

False by counter example. I am the source of some meaning.

To share in God's being is to have meaning - and there is no requirement that you must be emotional to share in God's being.

Incorrect. I don't need God to have meaning. There is no requirement to share anything with God to have meaning.

[FarWanderer]

Far Wanderer, you have responded to the great "542" issue that John B. has proposed. Do you make any sense of it?

Maaaaaybe.

What if it were "543?"

Well, then it'd be one more.

Would that make any difference?

*shakes a magic 8-ball and checks the answer*

It is certain.

Could we just subtract 542 from 542 and start over? I'd like a clean slate.

Well, it's metaphysically possible, but unfortunately it cannot be the case.

Sorry.

[Hatuey]

THE DOUBLE DICHOTOMY PROOF OF GOD

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.

I reject this axiom. Numbers are "infinite" for the same reason provided above, yet we use many of them every day. Even if the number of universes possible is infinite, a universe within that infinite set could still exist for the same reason that we use numbers for practical reasons while admitting they come from an infinite set.

[Donray]

[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.

Like I said, no Christian is capable of saying what they think heaven would be like. You failed to describe heaven except to say no sex for eternity. From this I guess you would also say that they would be no need to have males and females and just have some type of none sexual bodies. No need for genitals or breasts.

You misunderstood what I asked about a fetus. I was asking for all the fetus that your God allows to be aborted (a God performed abortion) what type of knowledge and memories does your God provide? You failed to address what the housing is like in heaven, if you will have a job, what type of entertainment, etc. Again you believe in something you cannot even think of what it would be. Because if started thinking about your heaven would be like it would sound like hell. The most important thing for a Christian and they cannot even logically discuss what they think heaven would be like.

Why do you expect responses from others and yet you either don’t response or more likely have no logical response.

I asked you before what scientific journal you have published your theory for peer review or which one you are hoping to be published in? I would guess that you do have some proof that your theory is correct. That is, you have some physical proof that can be examined that your God is real and not imaginary. It requires a little more proof then some metaphysical theory that has no REAL proof.

By the way, I thought that a lot of people shoot down your theory here when you presented it. http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... &p=2505757

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 181 by Bust Nak]

Well, at least you're honest in admitting that to you "meaning" and "emotion" are the same thing. But, you can have "meaning" without "emotion" through God. You can share in God's being, which give meaning without emotion. God as the Creator is the source of all meaning. To share in God's being is to have meaning - and there is no requirement that you must be emotional to share in God's being.

Moderator Comment

Please be careful with personal comments such as "at least you are honest..." address the points of the post, not the personal characteristics of the writer.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.