If you actually knew, would it matter?

[tokezu]

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and by some mysterious circumstance you suddenly know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not God actually exists. If that knowledge vindicates your prior position on the matter, that is of course a comfortable position and nothing really has to change. But what if your assumptions/beliefs about God have been proven wrong to you beyond a shadow of a doubt? So if you believed in God prior to this you wake up knowing he doesn't exist. Or vice versa you didn't believe in God, but now you know that he does exist. (Feel free to substitute 'God' with 'the law of karma' or any other metaphysical concept.)
Would this knowledge change how you conduct yourself in the world? If the definite knowledge of either "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" would change how you conduct yourself, wouldn't that cast a bad light onto you? Say you have always believed in God and because of that you were always nice to people, but now (as some fundamentalist christians would argue) that you realise there is no God you conclude there is no reason not to go out raping and murdering people, so you do just that. Obviously somebody like that has never actually been a good person, they only acted like one because they expected a reward/punishment for their behaviour. The other way around it's the same thing, if a person who is raping and murdering other people stops doing that only because now they know there is going to be a reward/punishment for their behaviour, can you really call that 'becoming a better person'? I don't think so. Of course I am painting a pretty extreme picture here to make the problem clear, but I think it would also apply to a smaller scale.

Obviously I don't know how I would react if woke up tomorrow and suddenly knew. But I certainly hope that either way it wouldn't change a thing about how I live my life, because I try (though I wouldn't claim I always succeed) to live in a way that I could defend regardless of what kind of 'authority' I might be confronted by after death and what their standard for 'good behaviour' might be.

So then, shouldn't it be totally irrelevant for the question of how to conduct yourself whether or not God actually exists? What are your thoughts?

 

[Vastness]

I don't think I would change my behaviour at all but to be honest I am struggling to understand the question fully. Which version of "God" are we talking about?

I know you said feel free to substitute "God" with any other metaphysical concepts, but there are a whole bunch of metaphysical concepts that could be substituted here so I am not sure which one is most appropriate.

Also, once we know God exists, what other stuff do we know? Is there a specific modern religious institution that is correct in it's interpretation of absolute, God-given morality? And if so, which one? Do we also have a complete understanding of what happens after we die, and what kind of actions we would need to take to change the fate of our immortal soul?

I don't mean to nitpick at your thought experiment here but there are just too many remaining uncertainties for me, if we know only that "God exists!" in a vacuum, if we are allowed to substitute a specific religious God for some faceless, nameless, but sentient and thinking entity that created the universe, but we still have no or very limited understanding of his/her/it's motives and plans for mankind, then it's hard to see how this would change anything for anyone.

That said, for the purposes of discussion, if we are talking about some version of the Judaeo-Christian deity of Abrahamic religions then I think I would still assume that such an entity clearly cannot be trusted, and go on living my life the exact same way... so yes in answer to your final question I think it should be totally irrelevant whether God exists or not, and yes, if the existence of a judging God is the only thing stopping someone from acting in an immoral way then it is a very poor reflection on that individual's moral character.

 

[Foreigner]

It depends on what the nature of God is revealed to be. If it's the Daoist or Buddhist version of divinity then my behavior would probably not change. If it were a Judeochristian version with all the written moral codes then I might change the way I conduct myself.

I don't see how anyone would not be affected by such a revelation. It would probably be the most important discovery in human history.

 

[AddictRecon]

It would probably be the most important discovery in human history.

Or maybe it already has..

In Christian theology, the personal revelation of Christ isnt what changes us, we dont have the ability to augment our own nature, which is at odds with God, its His Spirit that changes us and conforms us to the image of Christ, who is Holy, blameless, and without sin. Thats why Christ, who was sinless, is the only one who could pay for our sin, that we might have everlasting life. Most of Christendom doesnt even understand this, which is weird, and often makes me feel alienated among those who are quick to call me 'brother'..

1Co 2:9 But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

[tokezu]

Now that I think about it, maybe "any metaphysical concept" was a bit too broad. I was thinking of the idea of some kind of authority 'out there', though it wouldn't neccessarily be a personified one. I suppose that would exclude something like the Dao, though I'm not that knowledgable about that.

I don't think I would change my behaviour at all but to be honest I am struggling to understand the question fully. Which version of "God" are we talking about?

I know you said feel free to substitute "God" with any other metaphysical concepts, but there are a whole bunch of metaphysical concepts that could be substituted here so I am not sure which one is most appropriate.

Also, once we know God exists, what other stuff do we know? Is there a specific modern religious institution that is correct in it's interpretation of absolute, God-given morality? And if so, which one? Do we also have a complete understanding of what happens after we die, and what kind of actions we would need to take to change the fate of our immortal soul?

I don't mean to nitpick at your thought experiment here but there are just too many remaining uncertainties for me, if we know only that "God exists!" in a vacuum, if we are allowed to substitute a specific religious God for some faceless, nameless, but sentient and thinking entity that created the universe, but we still have no or very limited understanding of his/her/it's motives and plans for mankind, then it's hard to see how this would change anything for anyone.

That said, for the purposes of discussion, if we are talking about some version of the Judaeo-Christian deity of Abrahamic religions then I think I would still assume that such an entity clearly cannot be trusted, and go on living my life the exact same way... so yes in answer to your final question I think it should be totally irrelevant whether God exists or not, and yes, if the existence of a judging God is the only thing stopping someone from acting in an immoral way then it is a very poor reflection on that individual's moral character.

Ha, maybe you have put more thought into this than I have. :D I guess I meant that you would not only know of God's existence (or another metaphysical authority) but also of every implication of this, so for example you suddenly know that religion X has it completely right. Well maybe not completely... they are completely right about the facts, but what about their interpretation of the facts? If there is an allmighty being that wants us to do X, does that automatically mean we should obey? The point you bring up about trust is exactly what I'm talking about. I think we would still be under obligation to examine our own conscience and act on that, rather than to blindly follow authority.
The example I always think of is this: You are confronted by God after death and he really is as petty and smallminded as some people seem to believe he is and starts lecturing you about the fact that it was saturday not sunday on which you were not supposed to work or something trivial like that. Would you be under any obligation to take that serious? I think not, I think you'd be right to tell him that there are much more important things to concern yourself with. But a lot of religious people (or monotheists at least) seem to argue that might is right and the mere position that God is in a priori validates everything that he might command.

It depends on what the nature of God is revealed to be. If it's the Daoist or Buddhist version of divinity then my behavior would probably not change. If it were a Judeochristian version with all the written moral codes then I might change the way I conduct myself.

I don't see how anyone would not be affected by such a revelation. It would probably be the most important discovery in human history.

Can I assume that the difference between the Daoist/Buddhist vs. Judeo-Christian revelation correlates to the difference between your beliefs being validated vs. your beliefs being proven wrong in my example? I didn't really ask if you would change your conduct, I might do that as well (I mean there is that threat of being tortured for eternity in hell for example, you know...). But rather should we conduct ourselves differently because of that. It's a perfectly understandable position to say "I don't want to be a martyr!", but still from an ethical point of view, should we follow the written moral codes that we have always disagreed with, only because now we know that they are actually being enforced?

In Christian theology, the personal revelation of Christ isnt what changes us, we dont have the ability to augment our own nature, which is at odds with God, its His Spirit that changes us and conforms us to the image of Christ, who is Holy, blameless, and without sin.

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying it's not the intellectual knowledge of the fact that God wants us to do X that counts, but rather the intuitive understanding we sometimes have of how we should act, that is already there even before we can quite explain it by putting it into words? I guess you could call that the spirit of God, but I'd rather call it our conscience.

 

[Vastness]

^ Thanks for clarifying your meaning. Honestly though, I really think the question of whether or not there is a God, and the nature of this God, is really a far less important question than many people assume. I mean, say that the Christian God turned out to be real, in all his contradictory, nonsensical, Old/New Testament messiness, and Jesus-orientated glory. My immediate reaction would be, firstly, how in the hell did this bizarre and insane universe come to be? WHY is god like this? Or, in short, who or what created God?

I think many monotheists mistakenly oversimplify the complexity of the age-old question of "Why do we exist?" (or "What is the meaning of life?" or any possible variation of that question) by reducing the potential answers to either God exists, or there is no reason, nothing means anything, everything is pointless, life sucks and then we die. As I see it though, even if God does exist, this really isn't an answer or an explanation. If anything this is the more complicated answer because it introduces thousands more questions about why exactly a divine being would act in such an inscrutable way. I would say Occam's Razor dictates that the universe was not created by any of the gods of mankind - but if it was, then there is surely another reason behind this. This reason may be forever unknowable to us, but it still likely does not involve this God being the absolute highest power that there is.

Those of faith would surely say that I am mistaken in putting my own faith in human reason above faith in the will of the divine, and obviously I cannot objectively prove really that human reason is applicable to anything outside the universe that we can observe. But it just seems to me that human reason, when it comes down to it, is really all we have, and the only tool available to us to assess and interpret this strange world in which we exist... if we abandon our faith in reason then we are truly lost. I would really like to be able to justify this point with some kind of logical argument, but if we remove logic from the equation, then it's just impossible to justify or prove anything.

Anyway, so on that basis, even if the God of Christianity turned out to be real, and after death I was confronted with an angry, white bearded, and hateful old man, I would not abandon my faith in reason and would assume there had to be some other explanation for such an unlikely circumstance. I could list a whole bunch of possibilities that would probably come to mind but that would probably be a whole other topic entirely.

 

[AddictRecon]

^ Thanks for clarifying your meaning. Honestly though, I really think the question of whether or not there is a God, and the nature of this God, is really a far less important question than many people assume. I mean, say that the Christian God turned out to be real, in all his contradictory, nonsensical, Old/New Testament messiness, and Jesus-orientated glory. My immediate reaction would be, firstly, how in the hell did this bizarre and insane universe come to be? WHY is god like this? Or, in short, who or what created God?

I think many monotheists mistakenly oversimplify the complexity of the age-old question of "Why do we exist?" (or "What is the meaning of life?" or any possible variation of that question) by reducing the potential answers to either God exists, or there is no reason, nothing means anything, everything is pointless, life sucks and then we die. As I see it though, even if God does exist, this really isn't an answer or an explanation. If anything this is the more complicated answer because it introduces thousands more questions about why exactly a divine being would act in such an inscrutable way. I would say Occam's Razor dictates that the universe was not created by any of the gods of mankind - but if it was, then there is surely another reason behind this. This reason may be forever unknowable to us, but it still likely does not involve this God being the absolute highest power that there is.

Those of faith would surely say that I am mistaken in putting my own faith in human reason above faith in the will of the divine, and obviously I cannot objectively prove really that human reason is applicable to anything outside the universe that we can observe. But it just seems to me that human reason, when it comes down to it, is really all we have, and the only tool available to us to assess and interpret this strange world in which we exist... if we abandon our faith in reason then we are truly lost. I would really like to be able to justify this point with some kind of logical argument, but if we remove logic from the equation, then it's just impossible to justify or prove anything.

Anyway, so on that basis, even if the God of Christianity turned out to be real, and after death I was confronted with an angry, white bearded, and hateful old man, I would not abandon my faith in reason and would assume there had to be some other explanation for such an unlikely circumstance. I could list a whole bunch of possibilities that would probably come to mind but that would probably be a whole other topic entirely.

Would you consider yourself studied in the bible? What I mean is, have you put in the work to go through the bible in order to understand the context in each chapter and verse?

 

[AddictRecon]

I am not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying it's not the intellectual knowledge of the fact that God wants us to do X that counts, but rather the intuitive understanding we sometimes have of how we should act, that is already there even before we can quite explain it by putting it into words? I guess you could call that the spirit of God, but I'd rather call it our conscience.

What I am saying is that in our theology, we have the knowledge of right and wrong intrinsically, but are in a state where we value what is wrong over what is right, and will continue in this state until death without Gods help to overcome our inability to remain faithful to what is right. The way God empowers us to do what is right is through submission and acknowledgement of His will over our own. We forfeit our desires for the desires God has for us, leading to a more fulfilling life, He gives us those desires by imparting His Spirit to those who acknowledge Him.

Im sure youve seen or heard of Christians who berate non believers and pass judgement on them, but that is not Gods will for us, its why alot of Christians just make the rest of us look bad.

 

[Foreigner]

In Christian theology, the personal revelation of Christ isnt what changes us, we dont have the ability to augment our own nature, which is at odds with God, its His Spirit that changes us and conforms us to the image of Christ, who is Holy, blameless, and without sin. Thats why Christ, who was sinless, is the only one who could pay for our sin, that we might have everlasting life. Most of Christendom doesnt even understand this, which is weird, and often makes me feel alienated among those who are quick to call me 'brother'...

I don't believe that the spiritual fate of humanity rested in one man, nor can I believe that humans are in a state of imperfection vs. Christ. Those are the main reasons why I can never subscribe to Christianity.

Can I assume that the difference between the Daoist/Buddhist vs. Judeo-Christian revelation correlates to the difference between your beliefs being validated vs. your beliefs being proven wrong in my example? I didn't really ask if you would change your conduct, I might do that as well (I mean there is that threat of being tortured for eternity in hell for example, you know...). But rather should we conduct ourselves differently because of that. It's a perfectly understandable position to say "I don't want to be a martyr!", but still from an ethical point of view, should we follow the written moral codes that we have always disagreed with, only because now we know that they are actually being enforced?

It's not about my validation. In the Daoist/Buddhist diaspora, the concept of anything Divine is a force of nature which we are part of. All that is required of us as individuals is to realize our true nature, live from it, and then we are in accordance with The Way. Buddhism is a precusor to this as it requires one to still their mind of extraneous ego in order to witness the true core nature.

If it were a Christian God then we would be subject to more good vs. evil proscriptions in a universalist way which has much less wiggle room for individuation -- at least, in how it's stated now. Maybe it was different before.

What people "should" or "shouldn't" do is up to them since we apparently have free will, according to the Bible. So all I can do is answer for myself, which is what I've done.

 

[AddictRecon]

I don't believe that the spiritual fate of humanity rested in one man, nor can I believe that humans are in a state of imperfection vs. Christ. Those are the main reasons why I can never subscribe to Christianity.

I believe you dont believe that, I dont see how you could, you dont have an absolute moral foundation to compare humans with to determine whether we are perfect or not.

What people "should" or "shouldn't" do is up to them since we apparently have free will, according to the Bible. So all I can do is answer for myself, which is what I've done.

Would you say you are a perfect person in the deterministic sense?

 

[Foreigner]

I believe you dont believe that, I dont see how you could, you dont have an absolute moral foundation to compare humans with to determine whether we are perfect or not.

Telling me what I believe.... do you have some kind of chip on your shoulder?

Would you say you are a perfect person in the deterministic sense?

We are individuated pieces of the Divine, as human level personas. One being, many masks. The Divine resides in you, as you. In that sense, we are already perfect.

 

[AddictRecon]

We are individuated pieces of the Divine, as human level personas. One being, many masks. The Divine resides in you, as you. In that sense, we are already perfect.

So people who do evil are just part of the divine, and are already perfect? Are you a determinist? And how do you validate your beliefs epistemologically speaking?

I dont have a chip on my shoulder, I like thought provoking conversation and asking questions that cut to core of how we reason, truth is binary, something is either true, or it isnt. We live in a post truth age where people put personal preference over truth, which I find to be nonsensical.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Since the conversation has drifted into the matter of truth and divinity in the same breath I want to interject with my own insight on the matter. If God is truth, and truth is binary, then God is falsifiable. Hmm, how can the totality of all creation be falsified? In fact, there are certain paradoxes in logic that mirror this

Russels paradox: Everything I say is a lie

The fiction of separation from God allows us to flip truth states seemingly at will. This is dualistic thinking.

 

[drug_mentor]

Since the conversation has drifted into the matter of truth and divinity in the same breath I want to interject with my own insight on the matter. If God is truth, and truth is binary, then God is falsifiable. Hmm, how can the totality of all creation be falsified? In fact, there are certain paradoxes in logic that mirror this

Russels paradox: Everything I say is a lie

Doesn't your syllogism require that the 'is' refers to the 'is' of identity, rather than the 'is' of predication? Is it plausible to suppose that God is identical with truth? I don't think so, if so then when evaluating the truth value of some set of propositions A then to say V(A) = T(rue) would be a substitution instance of V(A) = God - to me, this is highly implausible. Moreover, it doesn't seem like we could make the notion of a proposition having the property of being true intelligible - would the property then have the property of being God? It seems quite clear to me that a proposition cannot be identical with a divine being.

Russell's paradox asks you to consider the set (call it R) of all sets which are not members of themselves. The idea is that, by definition, R ∈ R --> R ∉ R & R ∉ R --> R ∈ R.

'Everything I say is a lie' is a variation of the Liar paradox, which is most commonly formulated as follows: 'This sentence is false'.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Perhaps, now you're talking a bit beyond my own depth. I believe the jist of what I am saying can be mapped to any number of statements.

For example.

God exists, existance is binary, then God's existence can be negated

I assumed God exists, which given the audience this was directed to makes a lot of sense. Whether you chose to take that as a premise is entirely up to you. I'm just pointing out there are some interesting links to the modern understanding of what God is, nondualistic reality and to logic. If you've discredited my claim, I fail to see it.

 

[FnX]

Perhaps, now you're talking a bit beyond my own depth. I believe the jist of what I am saying can be mapped to any number of statements.

For example.

God exists, existance is binary, then God's existence can be negated

I assumed God exists, which given the audience this was directed to makes a lot of sense. Whether you chose to take that as a premise is entirely up to you. I'm just pointing out there are some interesting links to the modern understanding of what God is, nondualistic reality and to logic. If you've discredited my claim, I fail to see it.

I recommend Gödel's incompleteness theorem(s), even if only to contemplate their underlying message.

And the topic of the thread is interesting in the sense that, perhaps the vast majority of things we attribute to knowledge is actually a matter of faith, depending on our definition of these words. Where ever you find a religion, you find faith. Feel free to define religion a bit more loosely than usually perhaps. If one day I found myself knowing things, without shadow of a doubt, I might consider myself a god in a sense, at the very least something not quite human. As they say, errare humanum est?

Even if we speak strictly in the sense of a christian god, using heaven and hell as our framework, I don't think the way we conduct ourselves should depend on our knowledge or faith in the existence of god, because how would that change the fact that through our actions we can, nevertheless make our reality here and now either heaven or hell? Which are kind of subjective issues too, considering the fact that there are people who use the phrase "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" or something along those lines.

Which reminds me of this movie where a scientist managed to somehow prove to that there is in fact, an afterlife. This discovery triggered a massive wave of suicides, people attempting to get 'there', even when they weren't sure what it meant. I suppose one way to think about it would be, if you knew that tomorrow existed, would it make today meaningless? If it did, how would you feel tomorrow then if not the same?

 

[Jabberwocky]

Thanks FnX, I have a working knowledge of the theorem, though a deeper knowledge, well, an undergraduate degree in math is not enough preparation for it. I tried to follow the proof, even in a dumbed down way, and it was a bit beyond my pay grade. Powerful stuff though. I'm fascinated with Godel's brilliance. That theorem alone, if properly understood, can end so many pointless debates about what the truth is.

Even if we speak strictly in the sense of a christian god, using heaven and hell as our framework, I don't think the way we conduct ourselves should depend on our knowledge or faith in the existence of god, because how would that change the fact that through our actions we can, nevertheless make our reality here and now either heaven or hell? Which are kind of subjective issues too, considering the fact that there are people who use the phrase "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven" or something along those lines.

Yeah, I respect your freedom to hold your own views, but I'm personally interested in ascension towards God. I declare everyday my intention to serve God. I've walked both paths: service to others vs service to self and service to others has been far more rewarding for me personally.

 

[FnX]

Yeah, I respect your freedom to hold your own views, but I'm personally interested in ascension towards God. I declare everyday my intention to serve God. I've walked both paths: service to others vs service to self and service to others has been far more rewarding for me personally.

For me, service to others is service to self. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is something I live by to the best of my ability. I just know there are people who believe it to be foolishness, and who am I to judge them? I believe that fundamentally your and mine views are quite similar, even if we talk about them in different ways. I too strive for everyone to reach ascension towards something greater than 'themself'. I try to think about spiritual matters in rather abstract terms, so that I may have a meaningful conversation accompanied with mutual understanding with all kinds of people, as I believe that these things are quite universal, even if we have different names and terms for them. So it's important for me to understand the terminology of others and translate my own beliefs in that particular language/belief system. If I were to say I wanted to serve the universe, would you consider it that different from serving God? Words can be difficult though, because my beliefs are abstract to such degree it's sometimes hard to find a fitting description for them.

"The fiction of separation from God allows us to flip truth states seemingly at will." - kind of reminds me of Schröedinger too. Maybe the whole point is that while we live, we can't open the box to see if the cat (God) exists. If we were to somehow observe, what if it affected the outcome? If I were to know, without doubt, that all around us has just been a dream (who is the dreamer?), I think I would still live by the golden rule.

My output feels a little lacking as I'm getting pretty tired I'm afraid though, so I must bid you farewell and good night.

 

[drug_mentor]

God exists, existance is binary, then God's existence can be negated

I assumed God exists, which given the audience this was directed to makes a lot of sense. Whether you chose to take that as a premise is entirely up to you. I'm just pointing out there are some interesting links to the modern understanding of what God is, nondualistic reality and to logic. If you've discredited my claim, I fail to see it.

What do you mean by existence is binary? If all you mean is I1: that something either exists or it doesn't - then it seems to me this is trivially true. If you mean something more along the lines of I2: everything exists and doesn't exist - then I am not sure I find that intelligible. Also, it isn't really clear to me what you mean by negated. If you mean that the negation of God's existence can be asserted then I don't see why you should need any argument to show this. Best I can tell, what you are trying to do is show that you can take the assumption 'God exists' and use it to logically deduce that 'it is not the case that God exists', but I don't think your argument actually shows this.

Consider I1:
1. God exists (Assumption)
2. Everything either exists or it doesn't exist (Assumption)
Therefore
C. God doesn't exist

This isn't a valid argument. The only thing which it seems you could immediately deduce from 1 and 2 is that 'it is not the case that God doesn't exist', which is logically equivalent to 1.

Now consider I2:
1. God exists (Assumption)
2. If something exists then it doesn't exist & if something doesn't exist then it does exist (Assumption)
3. If something exists then it doesn't exist (from 2 by & elimination)
Therefore
C. God doesn't exist (from 1 and 3 by modus ponens)

This is a valid argument, but it seems to me that the assumption on line 2 is so implausible that the argument can't possibly be sound. Moreover, 2 is so strong that one doesn't need to consider a deity in order to arrive at a paradox, asserting the existence of anything whatsoever would be sufficient.

Perhaps there is an interpretation of your argument which I have failed to consider, but I am really struggling to see how it could show what I think you are trying to show. Perhaps I have somehow misinterpreted you, if that is the case some clarification would be appreciated.

 

[Jabberwocky]

@FnK

For me, service to others is service to self. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is something I live by to the best of my ability. I just know there are people who believe it to be foolishness, and who am I to judge them? I believe that fundamentally your and mine views are quite similar, even if we talk about them in different ways.

You're right. That's often the case with words. People can mean the same thing but say it with different words and then think they are disagreeing. The concept of service to self vs service to others is from the law of one (http://www.lawofone.info/). The RA material is a series of five books channeled between 1981 and 1984 from the Family Entity of RA (one of the original founder races). It's part of the dynamic of ascension. In a sense you are right that service to self is service to others; that's exactly what I thought when I first heard the concept. When you really stop and think about it and what these books are saying it starts to become clear: there are two fundamental paths that determine the dynamics of how unity or group consciousness evolves (or seemingly separates). I should have mentioned that in my post that this is part of my belief system.

Questioner: What is the greatest service that our population on this planet could perform individually?
Ra: I am Ra. There is but one service. The Law is One. The offering of self to Creator is the greatest service, the unity, the fountainhead. The entity who seeks the One Creator is with infinite intelligence. From this seeking, from this offering, a great multiplicity of opportunities will evolve depending upon the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions with regard to the various illusory aspects or energy centers of the various complexes of your illusion.

Thus, some become healers, some workers, some teachers, and so forth.

@Drug Mentor

The way you wrote it totally removes the meaning I was aiming for. I don't claim to have made my point correctly using formal logic. It'd be awesome if I did, but I don't think I've pulled that off.

By binary I mean a statement that can be negated. True/False, Exists/Doesn't Exist

God exists is a valid statement, and if existence has two states (Exists/Doesn't Exist) then it is perfectly valid to write the statement God doesn't exist. Well, here's what I'm poking at. God doesn't exist is not a valid statement. Sure you can write it down, but it is a paradox. Kinda like the statement: I don't exist. Well, if I don't exist, then who's the I that is claiming non-existence. I see this mirror the same pattern in Russels paradox. If you disagree I'm interested in your reply.