Is God dead?

[Bahman]

Unfortunately I have to provide a long post to open the discussion on a few critical concepts namely what is a true set, what is anomaly, what is infinite regression, how it could be resolve and at finally to question of God and creation.

Lets stick to words for sake of clarity. Lets assume that you are thinking of a subject matter which requires a framework for explanation. For example the idea of God and creation. Let assume that you build your framework which consist of set of sentences that you could comprehend. The set is defined to be true if each sentence and the words within are well defined. So we have one main column that a framework stands on, namely defineability.

We however sometimes cannot establish a framework which is true because of our perspectives is not correct, meaning that we cannot find a set of sentences which completely explain the subject matter meaning that there are observables in subject matter that cannot be explained by the framework so called anomaly… Anomaly from now on is an inexplicable observable withing a framework which is not definable within the framework, simply unsolvable problem.

The set could become complete if the anomalies within are resolvable by the process so called infinite regression regularization.

Lets go back to our problem of God and creation to understand what we mean. We can simply experience external world so called universe so without doubt we can say that it exist. One question that comes to mind is that where did our universe come from? The correctness of this question is subject to discussion but assume that it is correct which means that our universe had a beginning namely we have to cut the existence of all beings at a point namely beginning. One of the idea that could comes to our mind is to assume that an agent so called God created our universe at the time of beginning. God in this picture is an anomaly because it is undefinable yet needed to complete the picture.

Now lets see how infinite regression can resolve the problem. We first have to assume that God existed, namely there existed a state of existence that solely contained God. At the point of creation we have two state of existence namely God and God+creation. This seems to be correct but it is not since the the above mentioned state should exist prior to act creation to allow the act the creation possible. This means that another God lets say, God’ should first create creation’=(God and God+creation) at the first step in order to that God could create creation at the point creation. This however does not resolve the problem since we again are faced with two state of existence namely God’ and God’+creation’ which clearly leads to an infinite set of Gods so called infinite regression.

This problem can be resolved if one assumes that God=God’=God’’=… which means that anomalies are resolved. This however leave another problem open which is the problem of in and out namely, how God could be in an state of existence at the same create itself which is logical fallacy.

So the only solution to the problem is to assume that God=/=God’=/=God’=/’=… Moreover one need to assume that God<God’<God’’<… which is necessary condition since it is logically wrong that God could create itself but lesser. The sufficient condition for a perfect creation is that all Gods knowledge should have been left behind so the creation can function perfectly well, otherwise we need Gods intervention always which is contradictory to perfection of God hence God is dead.

 

[Razanir]

Now lets see how infinite regression can resolve the problem. We first have to assume that God existed, namely there existed a state of existence that solely contained God. At the point of creation we have two state of existence namely God and God+creation. This seems to be correct but it is not since the the above mentioned state should exist prior to act creation to allow the act the creation possible. This means that another God lets say, God’ should first create creation’=(God and God+creation) at the first step in order to that God could create creation at the point creation. This however does not resolve the problem since we again are faced with two state of existence namely God’ and God’+creation’ which clearly leads to an infinite set of Gods so called infinite regression.

This is where your argument falls apart. A state doesn’t need to exist prior to its creation. To me, at least, it sounds like you’re saying “Creation didn’t exist prior to its creation, so therefore it can’t have been created”. Which makes as much sense as the logic:

There was a time before the internet. During that time, there was no way for the internet to exist, so the internet can’t have been created. Therefore, either the internet has always existed, or someone first created a world with an internet, so that our world could become a world with an internet.

 

[Spritus1]

God *IS *existence. He is perfect, self sufficient, infinite and eternal. He is constant and unchangeable. He is outside of time and space. He is pure spirit. He is not subject to death. He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

God holds everything and everyone in existence. Without God there would simply be no existence.

God is very much alive. He is a *living *God.

The notion that God is somehow dead is preposterous on so many levels. How can God die? How could He lose His life? Who could take it from Him?

He is God after all, the author, creator and sustainer of *All *life.

 

[janisgayle]

So, reaching way back to my days of learning the Baltimore Catechism, I vividly remember being introduced to the concept of infinity and the “mystery of faith.” Does this apply here?

 

[RosaryMama]

Well said Spritus 1!God was leading you in your correct perfect answer!God Bless you!

 

[EasterBeagle]

One question that comes to mind is that where did our universe come from?

"The Bible is the only book that explains how everything in the Universe came into being from nothing. The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01) (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

 

[Jim_Baur]

Did Hawkins really do that?

Do other writers in the Big Bang do that?

THANKS!!!

 

[JackieO123]

God isn’t dead. Nietzsche on the other hand…

 

[Iron_Donkey]

…

Now lets see how infinite regression can resolve the problem. We first have to assume that God existed, namely there existed a state of existence that solely contained God. At the point of creation we have two state of existence namely God and God+creation. This seems to be correct but it is not since the the above mentioned state should exist prior to act creation to allow the act the creation possible. …

I think you misunderstand both what it means to create, and the nature of God. From what I understand, the God that you are referring to appears to be on (more or less) the same level of creation. That is, you say that we see a bunch of things, we don’t know why they are there, and we hypothesize that there is this thing called God who made them. Further, your version of “create” appears to be more along the lines of “realize” - that is, you seem to be saying that God creating creation is simply moving from one state of “God” to another state that already exists as a possible state of “God + creation”, and that these two states need explanation.

The first is simply wrong, and the second may be wrong and at the very least has to be handled carefully. If I may make a (bad, but possibly helpful) analogy: you mention sets. Sets are interesting in that there are “things” that we would like to call sets, but simply aren’t. Russel’s paradox is an example - if there is a set of all sets that do not contain themselves, would that set (call it X) contain itself? Either answer leads to a contradiction, so that means that for any useful definition of “set” there is no such set X. But nevertheless “is a set that does not contain itself” is a fine property, and one that we can use and talk about as we wish: {4} does not contain {4}, for example, since 4 and {4} are distinct entities. This isn’t to say that there is nothing like X - in some mathematical systems, such objects are referred to as (proper) classes and can be used in various ways (unfortunately I am not terribly familiar with that branch of mathematics yet), but these proper classes aren’t sets, and if you try to use them as though they are then contradictions happen and stuff generally falls apart.

Something similar happens when you try to talk about God as though He were a thing like the created things we see in the universe. He simply isn’t. Talking about {God} and {God, creation} is, for this reason, problematic. God can’t be put in a set with anything at all, He’s simply not that kind of entity. Rather, there is God, who just is, and then there is {} and {creation}. And so, given God who just Is, the two states are {} and {creation}, and God is the explanation for both.

For a better explanation, I recommend St. Thomas Aquinas. (God is in fact self explanatory - again, Aquinas.)

 

[empther]

Knowing comes before believing.

Restated…
…we believe what we know.

We know the universe could not have started itself out of nothing.
Therefore, we believe God created it.
That sums it all up.

Now, let’s talk about art, or fishing, or something.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m still here.
I am not bringing myself into existence.
So, my vote is “no”.

 

[Bahman]

This is where your argument falls apart. A state doesn’t need to exist prior to its creation. To me, at least, it sounds like you’re saying “Creation didn’t exist prior to its creation, so therefore it can’t have been created”. Which makes as much sense as the logic:

I didn’t say so. I meant the states of God and God+creation should exist prior to allow that God create creation.

 

[Bahman]

So, reaching way back to my days of learning the Baltimore Catechism, I vividly remember being introduced to the concept of infinity and the “mystery of faith.” Does this apply here?

I don’t know.

 

[Bahman]

"The Bible is the only book that explains how everything in the Universe came into being from nothing. The “Big Bang” theory based on 14 creation references in the Bible was first proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among scientists for 87 years, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists such as Steven Hawking basing entire books touting Lemaitre’s mathematical redshift models (without ever mentioning Lemaitre’s name). His motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. “A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon” to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the “Big Bang” model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (4). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; “The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond” (5). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01) (ArguingWithAtheists.com/Pages/Bible_References.htm).

I don’t think so. We are either cognitively open to question of creation or not. The whole knowledge about creation to the best of my knowledge cannot be put into a simple book because the the number of creation is infinite each has its own unique features, otherwise the creation in not complete.

 

[Bahman]

I think you misunderstand both what it means to create, and the nature of God. From what I understand, the God that you are referring to appears to be on (more or less) the same level of creation.

Yes, when they come to very core concept of existence. Of course they have different qualities.

That is, you say that we see a bunch of things, we don’t know why they are there, and we hypothesize that there is this thing called God who made them. Further, your version of “create” appears to be more along the lines of “realize” - that is, you seem to be saying that God creating creation is simply moving from one state of “God” to another state that already exists as a possible state of “God + creation”, and that these two states need explanation.

Actually I like your notation very much.

God is accept a stand alone concept. So {God} should have existed as sole element. Many system of believes accept that God and creation exist separately unless you argue that God is creation which I don’t think you agree upon hence minimally {God, creation} exist. So we have two different elements of existence namely {God} and {God, creation}. These two elements has to exist at the point of creation, meaning that one in advance should created these two elements at the point of creation. We can redefine {creation’}={God,creation} and can define what cause creation as {God’}. Hence now we have two another elements namely {God’} and {God’, creation’} and the story follows.

 

[Bahman]

I’m still here.
I am not bringing myself into existence.
So, my vote is “no”.

What did you vote to?

 

[Razanir]

I didn’t say so. I meant the states of God and God+creation should exist prior to allow that God create creation.

I don’t see how that’s any different. You’re saying that God can only create creation if the state of God+creation already exists. Or in set notation, if the set {God,creation} is possible. Which it only is if {creation} is already a subset of the universal set, i.e. creation exists.

So {God} should have existed as sole element.
…
So we have two different elements of existence namely {God} and {God, creation}.

Except God doesn’t exist in the same way as creation. Creation is created, and is brought into being by God. Whereas God is existence. While theologically incorrect (God is not created, even by himself), this Doctor Who quote sums it up fairly well. “I create myself.”

I point out Aquinas’ Third Way. The Argument of Contingency. Pretty much, the existence of everything depends on the existence of something else. But if everything is contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed. But if nothing existed and everything is contingent, then there would still be nothing. Hence, there must be something which exists because of itself.

So let’s define a set C of “things that exist” like you are. x is in C iff its existence is contingent only on other elements of C. So there are three such possible sets in the universe of discourse {God, creation}.

{}- Empty set. Nothing exists, not even God.
{God}- A universe with only God.
{God, creation}- The universe as we know it.

What you’re positing, the existence of God-prime, is more comparable to Greek mythology. Man are contingent on the Olympians, which are contingent on the Titans, which are contingent upon Uranus, who was contingent on Gaia, who was contingent on Light and Day, who was contingent on Love. So the minimal set there, still, was {Erebus, Night, Love}.

But you’re saying that ALL divinities are yet contingent upon another. So, somewhat ironically, Occam’s Razor applies here. I’d say it’s a simpler explanation to have a single necessary being, rather than a necessary infinite chain of creators.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t see how that’s any different. You’re saying that God can only create creation if the state of God+creation already exists. Or in set notation, if the set {God,creation} is possible. Which it only is if {creation} is already a subset of the universal set, i.e. creation exists.

What I am saying is very simple namely one need another supreme {God’} to have {}->{God,creation} in which {God,creation} can interact with each other.

Except God doesn’t exist in the same way as creation. Creation is created, and is brought into being by God. Whereas God is existence. While theologically incorrect (God is not created, even by himself), this Doctor Who quote sums it up fairly well. “I create myself.”

They doesn’t exist in the same way but they exist hence these states {God}, {creation}, {God,creation} are different.

I point out Aquinas’ Third Way. The Argument of Contingency. Pretty much, the existence of everything depends on the existence of something else.

Assuming that causality is absolutely true even in the case {}->{being}, where “being” could be anything. Why causality should hold for {}? Why we give such a importance to causality? Just because our world at surface behaves causally?

But if everything is contingent, there must have been a time when nothing existed.

That is not correct because the universe could be without beginning.

But if nothing existed and everything is contingent, then there would still be nothing.

So you are saying that {}->{being} is logically impossible considering the fact that the causality could be wrong?

Hence, there must be something which exists because of itself.

And that thing is God which is uncaused cause. What differentiate {}->{being} from {God}>>{}->{being} where >> means causation? In reality we could just experience our being unless {God’}>>{}->{God, being} since {God}>>{}->{God, being} is logically impossibly.

So let’s define a set C of “things that exist” like you are. x is in C iff its existence is contingent only on other elements of C. So there are three such possible sets in the universe of discourse {God, creation}.

{}- Empty set. Nothing exists, not even God.
{God}- A universe with only God.
{God, creation}- The universe as we know it.

What you’re positing, the existence of God-prime, is more comparable to Greek mythology. Man are contingent on the Olympians, which are contingent on the Titans, which are contingent upon Uranus, who was contingent on Gaia, who was contingent on Light and Day, who was contingent on Love. So the minimal set there, still, was {Erebus, Night, Love}.

But you’re saying that ALL divinities are yet contingent upon another. So, somewhat ironically, Occam’s Razor applies here. I’d say it’s a simpler explanation to have a single necessary being, rather than a necessary infinite chain of creators.

But this is logically impossible {God}>>{}->{God, being} unless you accept {God}>>{}->{ being} accepting that {} exist per se and God is in different universe so God cannot casually interact with creation once creation is performed. You could of course have {God’}>>{}->{God, being} meaning that God’ differs from God and that leads to infinite regression from both side.

 

[Aloysium]

What did you vote to?

The title asks the question, “Is God dead?”
Since I exist and do not bring myself into existence, there is some other cause. Since I am a person,and that Cause must be greater than I, it has to be personal. That is God. So God cannot be dead.

 

[Razanir]

And that thing is God which is uncaused cause. What differentiate {}->{being} from {God}>>{}->{being} where >> means causation? In reality we could just experience our being unless {God’}>>{}->{God, being} since {God}>>{}->{God, being} is logically impossibly.

Okay, suppose we have a poset describing existence. Two things are related if the first is requisite for the second to exist.

For those who don’t know, a poset or partially ordered set is a relation that’s transitive, reflexive, and antisymmetic. So if a is required for b, and b is required for c, then a is required for c. Something is always required to exist for itself to exist. And two things can not be required for each other to exist.

We’re going to define subsets of creation which can exist. In other words, if A is in the set, then everything required for A to exist is also in the set. If we’re only discussing the set {God,creation} as our universe of discourse, there are three such possible subsets.

{}, {God}, {God, creation}

So how creation happened, in terms of these sets.

At first, there was God. {God}
God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). {God, creation}

So we have God causing creation to be added to this set.

What we don’t need to discuss, though, is how God was added to the set. There was never a time at which the set was {}. It began with containing God. This is the whole point of the argument of contingency. If God’ was required for our uncaused causer to be added to the set, then our uncaused causer was not actually uncaused. God is his own cause for being in our set of things that exist.

In your model, we have an infinite chain of omnipotent causers, each of which causes the next, and the last of which causes creation. However, by Occam’s Razor, that’s a worse hypothesis. Why decided that the uncaused causer is an infinite chain of omnipotent causers, when we can much more simply assume the uncaused causer is a single divine being.