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.

[John J. Bannan]

[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?

[John J. Bannan]

[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.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 127 by Divine Insight]

An eternal life presupposes a God. Only God can give purpose to your life. Only a higher thing which itself has purpose can give purpose to your life. Now, God offers eternal life. So, God wants to keep you around for some purpose, so your life does have eternal purpose but only through God.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 122 by Jashwell]
"Meaning" is defined as "the end, purpose, or significance of something".

There's no reason to think any of these need a God. (that's putting it lightly)

Without eternal life, then "the end" of life is death.

No. "End" as in "an intention or aim" not as in "ending".
While some people might aim for death, I currently don't.

Without eternal life, there is no "purpose" or "significance" to life.

Once again you claim this.
Once again you don't provide justification.

In fact, I can disprove what you've said right now.
I find my life significant, therefore there is significance in life. QED.

Similar for purpose.

[Replying to post 127 by Divine Insight]
An eternal life presupposes a God.

There is no reason to think that.

Once again, being generous and reserved, the more appropriate claim would be "no it clearly does not".

Only God can give purpose to your life.

Not true.

Only a higher thing which itself has purpose can give purpose to your life.

Why would that be the case?
Why would God have purpose?

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 134 by Jashwell]

If you find your life significant and are an atheist, you obviously do not understand the definition of "meaning".

So, you claim a self-defined "meaning" to your life? That's not what is meant by "meaning". That is no more than saying that an ice cube has meaning because it is an ice cube. You are clearly confusing the concept of "meaning" with the concept of existence itself. You can redefine terms, but that only highlights your cognitive dissonance.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 134 by Jashwell]

If you find your life significant and are an atheist, you obviously do not understand the definition of "meaning".

So, you claim a self-defined "meaning" to your life? That's not what is meant by "meaning". That is no more than saying that an ice cube has meaning because it is an ice cube. You are clearly confusing the concept of "meaning" with the concept of existence itself. You can redefine terms, but that only highlights your cognitive dissonance.

What made you think temporal meaning is not meaning? What made you think one cannot find meaning in an ice cube? What made you think we need to redefine meaning to self define meaning to our lives?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 134 by Jashwell]
If you find your life significant and are an atheist, you obviously do not understand the definition of "meaning".

I have yet to see reason to think this.

So, you claim a self-defined "meaning" to your life?

If by "meaning" you mean "the end, purpose, or significance of something", as your quote suggests, then my life has meaning.
My life is significant to me -> my life has significance -> my life has meaning.
Do you not believe that I find my life significant?

That's not what is meant by "meaning". That is no more than saying that an ice cube has meaning because it is an ice cube. You are clearly confusing the concept of "meaning" with the concept of existence itself. You can redefine terms, but that only highlights your cognitive dissonance.

I have yet to see an actual argument for your claims.

As for an ice cube, I sometimes create ice cubes with the purpose of cooling my drink... so your definition gives my ice cubes meaning.

I'm sorry for using the definitions you provided. Clearly this is redefining to highlight dissonance.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 130:

Equating your existence now with meaning is irrational and illogical.

I contend that what is irrational and illogical is the theist who declares only his life has meaning and "purpose".

"Meaning" requires purpose.

The "purpose" in my life is to live it to the fullest. To help others when I can. To love that pretty thing. To love them young'ns. To fish. To brew up the best batch I can.

All of those "purposes" provide meaning.

Without eternal life, you have no purpose. Purpose requires something higher than yourself.

I'm one of 'em that if I see a car stopped on the side of the road in distress, I'm stopping. Rain, sleet or snow. I hop out and see if I can get that car going, or at least offer a ride or phone call.

I contend that individual is, by my doing, "higher" than me. I make their problem my problem. I solve my problem by fixing theirs.

Without God, there is nothing higher at all.

Says you.

Your statement here is better a reflection of how "highly" you regard your God. I can dig that. I don't see any inherent problem with that.

However, your worship of a deity you can't show exists does not, and more importantly, should not allow you to so arrogantly dismiss the values others place on their lives in the here and now.

We can, with some certainty, show there's a here and now.

There can be no purpose. Sure, you may enjoy your purposeless life. But, claiming such a life has purpose is meaningless nonsense.

Mere assertion.

I propose that the use of the term "nonsense" is better a representation of your inability to comprehend or understand the issue. It's argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Without God, the universe has no purpose.

Says you.

The "purpose" of the universe is, if only to me, to provide beauty, awe, and wonders galore.

You're attempting to declare that only the "purpose" you find is reasonable. I reject that notion on the grounds of "who made you God".

How can we confirm God implanted some "purpose", when we can't even measure or detect this God?

How can we measure this "purpose"?


I contend that to declare others' life have "no meaning" or "no purpose" is better an example of the accuser's arrogance and ignorance.

Purpose, and meaning, are what we, collectively and individually declare it to be.

That's just delusional thinking from an atheistic viewpoint.

I propose that the use of the term "delusional" is better a representation of your inability to comprehend or understand the issue. It's argumentum ad ignorantiam.

We risk our own credibility when we declare the views of others "delusional", while providing clear and convincing evidence of our own delusional thinking.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 137 by Jashwell]

Without a God, you are just a meaningless brief chemical process clinging to the surface of a planet in a meaningless universe. You are deluding yourself if you think it is more than that under your atheistic viewpoint. You claim to derive meaning from your motivation in life, but that would really only be the chemical processes at work making you think you have meaning when you have none (under your view).

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 137 by Jashwell]

Without a God, you are just a meaningless brief chemical process clinging to the surface of a planet in a meaningless universe. You are deluding yourself if you think it is more than that under your atheistic viewpoint. You claim to derive meaning from your motivation in life, but that would really only be the chemical processes at work making you think you have meaning when you have none (under your view).

What made you think a brief chemical process clinging to the surface of a planet in a naturalistic universe is mutually exclusive with meaning? What made you think the meaning that chemical processes make one thinks one have, is not meaning?

Yours is a question begging fallacy that starts with a presupposition that "meaning must be eternal."