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.

[Bust Nak]

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

By me subjectively assigning more meaning to it, obviously. How else would a human have more meaning than pain chip?

See, I told you guys you were confusing emotion with meaning.

The wording you choose implies that I think emotion and meaning are interchangable. That's a false accusation.

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.

I suppose hand waving qualify as as answer.

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.

Alternatively you are not intellectually honest enough to admit it after we've poked holes into your argument. Your's just a modal version of the First Cause Argument.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 137 by Jashwell]
Without a God,

once again, the following is nothing to do with a God

you are just a meaningless brief chemical process clinging to the surface of a planet in a meaningless universe.

You do realise that restating your claim doesn't make it more true?

You are deluding yourself if you think it is more than that under your atheistic viewpoint.

Viewpoint implies there's more to it than just not believing in a God.
Once again, waiting for an argument.

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).

I never said I derived meaning from "motivation in life", just that I find my life meaningful/important.
The fact that my thoughts are electrochemical processes doesn't make them any less meaningful.


You can't keep restating your claims. Provide justification or retract them.

[Danmark]

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.
....

Certainly this proof breaks down at this point (if not before) with the claim the "universe had a beginning." There is no reason not to suppose the universe has always been. Even if one believes in the "Big Bang" one agrees only that time started at that point. There is no reason not to suppose there was existence prior to the singularity, even if was "before our time."

The proof then states the universe 'does not need to be real,' while claiming it must be real.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 150 by JoeyKnothead]

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

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 151 by Bust Nak]

God gives you more meaning than a paint chip.

And Jesus said, "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows." Matthew 10:30-31.

You don't seem to see the difference between poking a hole in a theory and criticizing that theory. Theories will always have their critics, but a hole makes the theory invalid unless modified to plug the hole. You have not poked a single hole in my proof.

[John J. Bannan]

If [Replying to post 152 by Jashwell]

You have no meaning without God. Without God, you are simply the progression of a chemical process aka DNA started long ago and run by the energy available to propagate it. You are no more than a tad of yeast growing in a humid pot. If you find meaning in this, then you are deluded.

[John J. Bannan]

[Replying to post 157 by Elijah John]

Ok. I take it back. I would simply say that Divine Insight has offered little insight.

[John J. Bannan]

[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.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 147 by JoeyKnothead]

Divine Insight is your hero? If I were you, I would pick someone else.

Moderator Warning


This post also contains multiple violations, as I stated earlier. Uncivil personal one-liner which adds nothing to the debate, and only criticizes the other posters in question. Not good.


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.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 151 by Bust Nak]

God gives you more meaning than a paint chip.

And Jesus said, "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows." Matthew 10:30-31.

Quoting the Bible isn't going to make your earlier claim that I have no meaning without God true, even if God can give me meaning. I don't need God to give me more meaning than a paint chip. I can do that myself.

You don't seem to see the difference between poking a hole in a theory and criticizing that theory. Theories will always have their critics, but a hole makes the theory invalid unless modified to plug the hole. You have not poked a single hole in my proof.

Alternatively, you don't seem to see that we've done more than merely criticized your "theory." Your particular rendering of the first cause argument, as with any variations of the first cause argument, has the hole that it is a question begging fallacy. The premises are as questionable as the conclusion it was supposed to demonstrate.