The Double Dichotomy Proof of God

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 12:45 pm

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 · Post by **Bust Nak** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:06 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: 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.

Incorrect. That one is fond of something, find it pleasurable and emotional, does make it meaningful.

Can a human not fully function on pure emotion? What additional need is there of meaning?

The two are linked. You cannot have emotion without 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?

Don't look at us. It was you who insisted that they be seperate. You accused me of confusing them when I said they were linked, remember?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:08 pm

[Replying to post 174 by Divine Insight]

To share in the Creator's being is meaningful, even for only 1000 years. But, God is far more generous and loving than that - and offers eternal life.

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:15 pm

[Replying to post 175 by Hatuey]

I am only pointing out in a polite way that what you consider "meaning" is not in fact "meaning", but emotion.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:17 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [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.

Thank you, but I see nothing that is added to this equation by the addition of "God."
In other words,
"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." Nothing has changed save the claim of eternal life. And even eternal life does not require God, because since we have entered the realm of speculation without evidence, we can speculate on eternal life with or without God.

The only thing your 'purpose' adds is the 'sharing' aspect. Again I ask, what is the ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe? Even if we say 'sharing with God' or 'knowing God' I ask, 'What's next?' Our minds our restless. They want to know. They want to know some ultimate purpose beyond the artificial attempt of an answer that does nothing more than label ultimate reality and meaning as "God."

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:18 pm

[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.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:22 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [Replying to post 175 by Hatuey]

I am only pointing out in a polite way that what you consider "meaning" is not in fact "meaning", but emotion.

And I am only pointing out in a polite way that any person who disagrees with you on any point of meaning only need say it back to you.

Here, I'll show you:
What you, John J. Bannon, thinks of as "meaning" is not in fact, meaning, but emotion.

See?

Or is that an argument that only you're allowed to use on others, but others can't use it on you?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:23 pm

[Replying to post 184 by Danmark]

What's next? You will share in the being of the Creator in eternity. What more do you want?

John J. Bannan · Post by **John J. Bannan** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:25 pm

[Replying to post 186 by Hatuey]

Well, one of us is right - and it ain't you. We could arm wrestle?

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:29 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: [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.

That is not what he said. Here's the post:

Bust Nak wrote:
John J. Bannan wrote: 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.
Incorrect. That one is fond of something, find it pleasurable and emotional, does make it meaningful.

Can a human not fully function on pure emotion? What additional need is there of meaning?
The two are linked. You cannot have emotion without 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?
Don't look at us. It was you who insisted that they be separate. You accused me of confusing them when I said they were linked, remember?

Bust Nak did NOT say 'meaning' and 'emotion' are the same thing. He said they were 'linked,' and that meaning inspires emotion.

One can experience emotion without tracing it to some ultimate meaning.
One can assess that his life has meaning, or that there is 'meaning' in the universe on a purely intellectual level. BTW, I think equivocation is at play here. Ultimate meaning and purpose is different from experiencing sadness or happiness because of some event [or more precisely, because of our thoughts about some event]. One of the purposes I have chosen for myself is to learn. I experience no emotion in recognizing that. I may experience happiness or satisfaction upon realizing I've learned something new, but certainly does not mean emotion and meaning are the same thing.

Hatuey · Post by **Hatuey** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:30 pm

John J. Bannan wrote: Well, one of us is right - and it ain't you. We could arm wrestle?

So now you're just posting comments that anybody could use to "refute" any argument at all, including yours? That game is boring.

Are you ever going to post a response that isn't just emotional outcry?