Is God dead?

[Bahman]

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.

First lets see if we could agree on the definition of {creation,God}. This to my definition means a state of existence in which {creation} and {God} exist separately but they exist together as well. Now lets define a set S={null},{God},{creation},{null,God}]. Now assume there were initial state at which only a sub-set has existed namely {null},{God},{null,God}] hence we can define an operator >> such that {God}>>{null}->{creation} which the new element exist in the whole set so to operation is allowed. Now lets add another element to this set name namely {creation, God}. This state couldn’t exist in initial state as it consist of creation thus we need God>>{null}->{creation,God} which is logically impossible since God cannot cause his existence out of nothing so you either have to forget the existence {creation,God} or assume that there is a supreme God’ who could create {creation,God}. This hierarchy could be cut at this point if you don’t request the existence {creation,God’} as a extra element otherwise you end up with infinite regression.

 

[Razanir]

This to my definition means a state of existence in which {creation} and {God} exist separately but they exist together as well.

Except the existence of creation is contingent on the existence of God, so {creation} as the entire set of things that exist is a logical impossibility. It’s the same logic as why you typically can’t have a king be called the Second without a First. (Barring, of course, weird circumstances like the French Revolution which caused the monarchy to skip Louis XVII)

Now lets define a set S={null},{God},{creation},{null,God}]. Now assume there were initial state at which only a sub-set has existed namely {null},{God},{null,God}]

Well why are we talking about the power set? Also, if I understand your notation correctly, {God}={null,God}. Why do we need a spot for something to exist before it exists?

This state couldn’t exist in initial state as it consist of creation thus we need God>>{null}->{creation,God} which is logically impossible since God cannot cause his existence out of nothing

Here’s where your logic falls apart. This is where you seem to miss the point of the Argument from Causation. If everything in creation is contingent on something else for existence, then at some point nothing existed. However, if nothing existed and everything is contingent on something else, nothing can ever exist. Hence, for things to exist, we must have something that causes its own existence. God can cause his existence out of nothing. That’s what an uncaused causer is. We’re talking about having some sort of being that brings itself into existence, independent of anything else existing.

or assume that there is a supreme God’ who could create {creation,God}

So at this point, you step out of the Argument of Contingency. At this point, you’re saying our uncaused causer was NOT actually uncaused, and that, instead, we have a different uncaused causer, namely God’. Except by bringing in infinite regression, you say that none of these supposedly uncaused causers could have been uncaused. Instead, you posit the much more complex uncaused causer of an infinite chain of supreme causers. Which, by Occam’s Razor (so satisfying to use it to argue for religion) is a worse hypothesis to make than ours. Because, as many would agree, a single uncaused causer is simpler to assume than an infinite chain of them.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

…Because, as many would agree, a single uncaused causer is simpler to assume than an infinite chain of them.

Not to mention, an infinite backwards chain where each element is caused by the one before doesn’t actually say why any of the things in the chain exist, and so fails as a cause. It’s like saying 1=0 because 2=1 because 3=2 because 4=3 because … - the implications may work, but that doesn’t meant that any of the statements are true -1=0 DOES follow from 2=1, which does follow from 3=2, etc, it just so happens that none of those statements are true.

Which is why there is an uncaused cause in the first place - infinite regressions like this don’t prove (can’t be said to completely cause) anything. Further, saying things like the states {God} and {God, creation} must exist before God could make creation doesn’t make sense either, partially because talking about {God} is problematic all by itself (see dhspriory.org/thomas/Compendium.htm#12, where genus is somewhat similar to set), and partially because it misunderstands exactly what ex nihilo means - ex nihilo means there was God and nothing else - no creation, no possible state (as a thing itself) that included creation, nothing - and then God created creation.

So it may be true that the understanding of God and the act of creation presented in the OP is self defeating, but that’s not the common understanding.

 

[Bahman]

Except the existence of creation is contingent on the existence of God, so {creation} as the entire set of things that exist is a logical impossibility. It’s the same logic as why you typically can’t have a king be called the Second without a First. (Barring, of course, weird circumstances like the French Revolution which caused the monarchy to skip Louis XVII)

I agree.

Well why are we talking about the power set?

Because I think it is necessary.

Also, if I understand your notation correctly, {God}={null,God}. Why do we need a spot for something to exist before it exists?

No, otherwise you cannot define the act creation from nothing. So {null} is necessary.

Here’s where your logic falls apart. This is where you seem to miss the point of the Argument from Causation. If everything in creation is contingent on something else for existence, then at some point nothing existed. However, if nothing existed and everything is contingent on something else, nothing can ever exist. Hence, for things to exist, we must have something that causes its own existence. God can cause his existence out of nothing. That’s what an uncaused causer is. We’re talking about having some sort of being that brings itself into existence, independent of anything else existing.

Are you sure about that? That means that {null}->{God} is necessity which means that God is the only being which comes out of nothingness. That is true because God should vanishes at the point of creation to allow {null}->{creation,God}.

So at this point, you step out of the Argument of Contingency. At this point, you’re saying our uncaused causer was NOT actually uncaused, and that, instead, we have a different uncaused causer, namely God’. Except by bringing in infinite regression, you say that none of these supposedly uncaused causers could have been uncaused. Instead, you posit the much more complex uncaused causer of an infinite chain of supreme causers. Which, by Occam’s Razor (so satisfying to use it to argue for religion) is a worse hypothesis to make than ours. Because, as many would agree, a single uncaused causer is simpler to assume than an infinite chain of them.

You don’t need infinite chain unless you want to have {creation,God}. So you could have only one chain that allows {creation, God} with the exception that {God’} cannot exist with creation otherwise you need another God.

 

[seagal]

God can cause his existence out of nothing. That’s what an uncaused causer is. We’re talking about having some sort of being that brings itself into existence, independent of anything else existing.

I have a very rudimentary understanding of sets but your explanations are very clear. I can follow your reasoning pretty well and I agree with you. However I have to take issue with this statement. If God did not exist, then he could not cause his own existence. This is similar to Stephen Hawking’s assertion that the universe caused itself to exist. To my understanding, an uncaused cause is something (or in this case, a being) that has alwaysexisted. In fact, that is our understanding of God – that he has always existed.

 

[Razanir]

I have a very rudimentary understanding of sets but your explanations are very clear. I can follow your reasoning pretty well and I agree with you. However I have to take issue with this statement. If God did not exist, then he could not cause his own existence. This is similar to Stephen Hawking’s assertion that the universe caused itself to exist. To my understanding, an uncaused cause is something (or in this case, a being) that has alwaysexisted. In fact, that is our understanding of God – that he has always existed.

Right. I just needed to word it that way to try to get the point across that we don’t need God’ to get to {God}.

 

[Bahman]

I have a very rudimentary understanding of sets but your explanations are very clear. I can follow your reasoning pretty well and I agree with you. However I have to take issue with this statement. If God did not exist, then he could not cause his own existence. This is similar to Stephen Hawking’s assertion that the universe caused itself to exist. To my understanding, an uncaused cause is something (or in this case, a being) that has alwaysexisted. In fact, that is our understanding of God – that he has always existed.

That means {null}->{God} has to be correct.

 

[Razanir]

That means {null}->{God} has to be correct.

Why can’t God have always existed? Why do we need to begin with {}? Why can’t we start with {God}? That’s the issue. If you start with {}, you’ll always have {}, because there’s nothing that can create. Even in your model of infinite regression, you begin with { {God, God’, God’’, … ad infinitum } } (That’s saying that the infinite set of creators you theorize exists)

 

[Bahman]

Why can’t God have always existed? Why do we need to begin with {}? Why can’t we start with {God}? That’s the issue. If you start with {}, you’ll always have {}, because there’s nothing that can create. Even in your model of infinite regression, you begin with { {God, God’, God’’, … ad infinitum } } (That’s saying that the infinite set of creators you theorize exists)

That resulted from {God}>>{null}->{creation,God} which means that God cause creation and die but it bounce back right away since {null} always exist and God comes out right away after Gods death.

 

[davidv]

That resulted from {God}>>{null}->{creation,God} which means that God cause creation and die but it bounce back right away since {null} always exist and God comes out right away after Gods death.

This makes no sense. If a being goes out of existance, by definition, this being cannot be a god.

 

[Bahman]

This makes no sense. If a being goes out of existance, by definition, this being cannot be a god.

We have two options: Either God can reincarnate itself to our universe or not.

{God}>>{null}->{creation} which means that God create creation out of nothing. God however lives in another universe since we don’t have {creation,God} which means that God doesn’t live with us. To have God with us God has to die but because only God and only God could come out of {null} without cause then God comes back of {null} right away, meaning that {null}->{God} has to be correct hence we could have God in our universe which is the meaning of reincarnation.

 

[Razanir]

We have two options: Either God can reincarnate itself to our universe or not.

:ehh: Why does he need to? You’re now positing that the chain of events is:

NOTHING exists. {}
God creates himself. {God}
God creates everything, destroying himself in the process. {creation}
God pops back into existence, because he creates himself. {God,creation}

This makes no sense for three reasons.

1. If you start with nothing, you’ll always have nothing. There’s nothing to cause anything else to exist.
2. An uncaused cause does NOT mean God can just pop himself into existence. It means that he doesn’t need anything else to exist before he can.
3. You can’t have {creation}. The existence of creation is contingent on the existence of God.

Our version:

God exists, because he is the very act of Being. {God}
God creates the universe ex nihilo. Out of nothing. Out of the null which you include, but I don’t feel the need to. {God,creation}

Another way of putting it. Anything that comes into existence must have a preexisting cause. So God can cause creation to come out of nothing, because he already exists. But God cannot cause himself to come out of nothing, because he would not yet exist. If nothing exists, nothing can ever exist. Hence, you need to start your set of things that exist with something in it, such that anything else can be made at all.

 

[davidv]

We have two options: Either God can reincarnate itself to our universe or not.

These are not options. Why? Because it is a fact that God was incarnated into this universe. Therefore it cannot be true that God did not become incarnate.

{God}>>{null}->{creation}

This is a strawman of the Church teaching on creation. God is eternal, i.e. He has not beginning nor end.

which means that God create creation out of nothing.

With the clarification that “from nothing” means from no existing material.

God however lives in another universe

Really? What universe would this be? If God is eternal and pure spirit, He needs no universe in which to exist.

since we don’t have {creation,God}

Unproven assertion.

which means that God doesn’t live with us.

Based on false assumption.

To have God with us God has to die but because only God and only God could come out of {null} without cause then God comes back of {null} right away, meaning that {null}->{God} has to be correct hence we could have God in our universe which is the meaning of reincarnation.

From nothing come nothing. If this were ever truely the condition {null}, we could not be here.

 

[Bahman]

1. If you start with nothing, you’ll always have nothing. There’s nothing to cause anything else to exist.

No, if you accept my assumption that {null}->God if there is no God.

1. An uncaused cause does NOT mean God can just pop himself into existence. It means that he doesn’t need anything else to exist before he can.

How God could create itself without dying?

1. You can’t have {creation}. The existence of creation is contingent on the existence of God.

Why not, as God is the only being who have access to nothingness hence {God}>>{null}->{creation} is a possibility and a must.

God exists, because he is the very act of Being. {God}
God creates the universe ex nihilo. Out of nothing. Out of the null which you include, but I don’t feel the need to. {God,creation}

So how God could incarnate itself into our universe? Are you Christian?

Another way of putting it. Anything that comes into existence must have a preexisting cause. So God can cause creation to come out of nothing, because he already exists. But God cannot cause himself to come out of nothing, because he would not yet exist. If nothing exists, nothing can ever exist. Hence, you need to start your set of things that exist with something in it, such that anything else can be made at all.

Because you are living in old paradigm and don’t like to accept {null}->{God} as a possibility. Accept it and the problem is solved.

 

[Razanir]

How God could create itself without dying?

I… I don’t know how to respond to that. I think the burden’s on you, here. Why does God creating himself (if that even makes sense) require him to die?

Why not, as God is the only being who have access to nothingness hence {God}>>{null}->{creation} is a possibility and a must.

I think your insistence on writing null is part of the problem. We aren’t talking about God turning nothing into creation. We’re talking about God creating everything when nothing else (besides God) exists.

So how God could incarnate itself into our universe?

You still seem to be speaking as if God exists in some other universe. You currently seem to be saying:

At first, there were two universes. One containing God, one containing nothing. { {}, {God} }
God incarnates himself into the empty universe. { {God}, {God} }
God creates everything in one, removing himself in the process. { {creation}, {God} }
God reincarnates himself into the universe without him. { {God, creation}, {God} }

Are you Christian?

Obviously. ← Link to a Youtube clip of Alan Rickman saying it.

Because you are living in old paradigm and don’t like to accept {null}->{God} as a possibility. Accept it and the problem is solved.

No, it doesn’t solve the problem. For two reasons.

1. You’ve yet to explain how anything can come out of absolute nothingness? This is different from creatio ex nihilo. Because you’re saying that God can spontaneously generate himself out of nothing. We’re only saying that God can create the physical world out of nothing.
2. You’re starting with the assumption that we must begin with {}. And that’s what leads to infinite regression. You have creation requiring God, requiring God’, requiring God’’… I could say similar of you. Why don’t you want to consider that existence might not have started with complete nothingness?

 

[Bahman]

I… I don’t know how to respond to that. I think the burden’s on you, here. Why does God creating himself (if that even makes sense) require him to die?

I think all burden is on shoulder of Christian as they should know how God could incarnate itself in a being.

From my side the thing is clear, God needs to forget itself but the one to die. So God incarnate itself among us and the one take the position of God.

I think your insistence on writing null is part of the problem. We aren’t talking about God turning nothing into creation. We’re talking about God creating everything when nothing else (besides God) exists.

Nothing else exits means {null} which is necessary because it cannot be killed and it is necessary for creation.

You still seem to be speaking as if God exists in some other universe. You currently seem to be saying:

Yeah, where is heaven? The place that God lives.

At first, there were two universes. One containing God, one containing nothing. { {}, {God} }
God incarnates himself into the empty universe. { {God}, {God} }
God creates everything in one, removing himself in the process. { {creation}, {God} }
God reincarnates himself into the universe without him. { {God, creation}, {God} }

You have to define the incarnation based on two main principle namely death and birth. Remember that birth and death of anything is at the same instant.

No, it doesn’t solve the problem. For two reasons.

1. You’ve yet to explain how anything can come out of absolute nothingness? This is different from creatio ex nihilo. Because you’re saying that God can spontaneously generate himself out of nothing. We’re only saying that God can create the physical world out of nothing.

God dies with forgetting itself yet it come to existence as the result of {null}->{God} when there is absence of God. Forget yourself to remember yourself.

1. You’re starting with the assumption that we must begin with {}. And that’s what leads to infinite regression. You have creation requiring God, requiring God’, requiring God’’… I could say similar of you. Why don’t you want to consider that existence might not have started with complete nothingness?

There is indeed no infinite regression. {null}->{God} by definition when there is no God. God then can create universe {God}>>{null}->{creation}. The only thing which is left is that how God could reincarnate itself into creation. Which I leave it for further discussion but it is partially explained. It is very late here.

 

[Razanir]

Yeah, where is heaven? The place that God lives.

Ah. my sets for discussing existence have been about just that. Existence. I’ve been lumping Heaven and Earth together. Or, to use your system, I would seed both sets with God.

The only thing which is left is that how God could reincarnate itself into creation.

But again, this problem presupposes that God needs to destroy himself to create everything. If you can logically prove that point, then I’ll agree this is an important question to discuss. But you’ve yet to prove your assumption.

 

[Bahman]

Ah. my sets for discussing existence have been about just that. Existence. I’ve been lumping Heaven and Earth together. Or, to use your system, I would seed both sets with God.

I understand your set now but that is problematic since its main problem is that it requires two same Gods to coexist one always in heaven and another one always in either {null} or {creation}. Moreover, the idea where God knowledge and power comes from is still subject of discussion. On top of that the state {},{God}] is eternal meaning that there is no beginning for this state. This state {God},{God}] is also eternal yet you need a changes in state of God being which is logically wrong since God is changeless.

But again, this problem presupposes that God needs to destroy himself to create everything. If you can logically prove that point, then I’ll agree this is an important question to discuss. But you’ve yet to prove your assumption.

My suggestion however doesn’t have the old issues except the fact I assume that God is omniscience and omnipotence. Namely, {God}>>{null}->{null,creation} then {God}>>{God}->{null,creation} and then immediately {null,creation}->{God,creation} since {null}->{God} when there is not God so there is only and only one God always since the death and birth of God is at one instant.

 

[Razanir]

My suggestion however doesn’t have the old issues except the fact I assume that God is omniscience and omnipotence. Namely, {God}>>{null}->{null,creation} then {God}>>{God}->{null,creation} and then immediately {null,creation}->{God,creation} since {null}->{God} when there is not God so there is only and only one God always since the death and birth of God is at one instant.

But you haven’t answered an important question. Why does God need to destroy himself? Why are we talking about the death and birth of God? More importantly, why are we talking about the birth of God (the Father, to distinguish it from the Nativity)? If there was complete nothingness before there was God, how do you posit God came into being? There would have been nothing to cause him, not even himself.

 

[Bahman]

But you haven’t answered an important question. Why does God need to destroy himself? Why are we talking about the death and birth of God? More importantly, why are we talking about the birth of God (the Father, to distinguish it from the Nativity)? If there was complete nothingness before there was God, how do you posit God came into being? There would have been nothing to cause him, not even himself.

Because there can only exist on unchangeable God otherwise you have to assume that God is changeable because it has to have two or more existences. That was one of my main objection to your picture.