Logical arguments for the death of God.

[DemergentDeist]

I would like to present some arguments for the death of God as a logical construct. I am not concerned with certainty, only with plausibility, and I would welcome your suggestions for improvement.

Here are the arguments:

1

1 The universe began a finite time ago.

2 Only a divine act could spark its beginning.

3 Creation from nothing is impossible, as ex nihilo nihil fit holds—God, too, can’t defy reason to shape something from nothing.

4 The universe arises from God’s substance, a self-existent reality holding the full scope of being.

5 God’s absolute simplicity—structureless and timeless—marks Him as the universe’s sole source.

6 With no parts, His seamless unity requires His complete transformation into creation.

7 God became the universe entirely, leaving no trace of His transcendence.


Comments:

(1) A respectable cosmological position, supported by arguments in the New Kalam style.

(3) I do not mean the strange conception of creation in the sense of Thomas Aquinas, as it is presented below:

“St. Thomas-stressing the crucial role of contingent beings' dependence on God in existence claims that this fact is of the utmost importance for our understanding of what creation is. We read in De potentia, q. 3, a. 3, corp., that ‘creation is really nothing but a relation of the creature to the Creator together with beginning of existence. ’ Formulated thus, the primary act of creation appears to be—to some extent —subordinate to the relation of the created being's dependence on God.” (Evolution and Creation— A Response to Michael Chaberek's Critique of Theistic Evolution - MARIUSZ TABACZEK)

God literally creating out of Himself is highly plausible because of the following four arguments combined:

a) “The Supreme does not create out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit—out of nothing nothing comes. He produces from His Own eternal nature and eternal wisdom, wherein all things dwell in a latent condition, all contrasts exist in a hidden or non-manifest state.” (W. P. SWAINSON – JACOB BOEHME. THE TEUTONIC PHILOSOPHER)

b) “Classical theists hold that God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing. This phrase carries a privative, not a positive, sense: it means not out of something as opposed to out of something called ‘nothing.’ This much is crystal clear. Less clear is how creation ex nihilo (CEN), comports, if it does comport, with the following hallowed principle:

ENN: Ex nihilo nihit fit. Nothing comes from nothing.

My present problem is this: If (ENN) is true, how can (CEN) be true? How can God create out of nothing if nothing can come from nothing? It would seem that our two principles form an inconsistent dyad. How solve it?

It would be unavailing to say that God, being omnipotent, can do anything, including making something come out of nothing. For omnipotence, rightly understood, does not imply that God can do anything, but that God can do anything that it is possible to do.

God does not create out of pre-given matter, essences, or mere possibilia. But if God creates out of nothing distinct from himself, this formulation allows that, in some sense, God creates ex Deo, out of himself. Creating the world out of himself, God creates the world out of nothing distinct from himself. In this way, (CEN) and (ENN) are rendered compatible.” (Maverick Philosopher – Creation ex nihilo or ex deo)

c) “If the world (as effect) emerges neither from sheer nothingness [...] nor from any pre-existent some-thing, it seems that the world must emerge ex deo – i.e. from God[.] [...] [Thomas] Aquinas seems to reject this conclusion when, for example, he castigates David of Dinant for teaching the ‘absurd thesis’ that God is prime matter. [...] As long as we are careful, however, not to assume that a material cause has to be some kind of physical ‘stuff’, there seems to be no reason why we cannot speak of God being the ‘material cause’ of the world: i.e., the innermost Cause that provides the whole substantial reality of the creature.” (Daniel Soars - Creation in Aquinas: ex nihilo or ex deo?)

d) “t’s appealing to hold that there must be not only an efficient cause of the universe but also pre-existent stuff out of which the creator (say, God) created it. This gives us a ‘Pre-existent Stuff Principle’ (PSP) that is also quite attractive: necessarily, for anything that begins to exist, there is pre-existent stuff out of which it is made.

[T]he notion of ‘being made out of’ pre-existent stuff is fairly clear. The house that was built at t is made out of mortar and bricks that existed before t. At the moment when the zygote comes into existence, it is made out of particles that were previously found in its parents’ sperm and egg.

The Pre-existent Stuff Principle tells us that, necessarily, for anything that comes into existence, it comes into existence out of some pre-existing stuff.

If the universe has a beginning, then the PSP would require that the pre-existent stuff is non-spatial and non-physical, since all of space and all physical objects came into existence with the universe.

At least, if the universe (or multiverse) does in fact have a beginning, then the pre-existent stuff would have to be immaterial.

[T]he proclamation that God creates the universe ex nihilo is at odds with the PSP, and this presents a problem for the creation ex nihilo view. The first problem is simply that the PSP has (at least some) intuitive force; hence, creation ex nihilo doesn’t sit comfortably with such an intuition.

One alternative is to hold that God created the universe out of some stuff that was distinct from God. But this is a move unavailable to those Christians that agree with the Nicene Creed that God is the ‘creator of all things visible and invisible.’ A remaining alternative is then to hold that God created out of Himself—out of some stuff that makes up His being.

If God didn’t create ex nihilo, from what pre-existent stuff did He create? Two remaining options are to say either that God created it from some immaterial stuff that just happened to be lying around, or to say that God created it out of Himself.

Even though the Creed says that God is the creator ‘of all things visible and invisible,’ we should at least grant that God Himself gets immunity from the claim—surely we’re not committed to claiming that God created Himself.

The believer in God needn’t commit herself to the seemingly baffling claim that the universe was created without pre-existent stuff from which it was made. God could just as well have created it out of Himself.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker — A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)

Creation out of nothing seems to be a matter of mystical revelation either way, as can be seen from the following quote:

“God has spoken only obscurely and indirectly to other peoples; to His chosen people alone has He revealed the fullness of truth concerning the beginning and the end of things. To other peoples, indeed, and to the unaided reason, one of the most difficult of Christian doctrines to understand is that of creatio ex nihilo: God’s creation of the world not out of Himself, not out of some pre-existent matter or primal chaos, but out of nothing; in no other doctrine is the omnipotence of God so plainly stated. The never-dimmed marvelousness of God’s creation has its foundation precisely in this fact, that it was called into existence from absolute non-existence.” (Rose, Eugene. Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age)


(4) In every possible world, God’s self-existence stands as the absolute starting point. Beyond it, His non-existence becomes conceivable. See also:
“What about the necessary existence of God? I have already suggested that what is metaphysically necessary is God’s initial existence. I see no reason to hold that God necessarily continues to exist. That is, I hold God had the power to bring a universe into being and then cease to exist, while the universe went on.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)


2

1. God transformed Himself into either (x) a temporally finite universe or (y) a temporally infinite universe.

1.1. If (y), an infinite universe, God’s essence became ontologically inferior to His original state, diminished in unity and simplicity. Even a timeless variant of (y) would lack the perfection of His absolute being.

1.1.1 His perfect wisdom prohibits an irreversible shift into a lesser permanent state.

1.2. If (x), a finite universe, it ends either in (a) God’s restoration, unchanged and without gain, or (b) absolute nothingness.

1.2.1 His perfect wisdom rules out superfluous outcomes.

2. Therefore, God’s essence became a set of forces, blindly aligned toward nonexistence—the complete absence of God, this universe, and all possible worlds.


3

1 God lacked the power to cease existing instantly, unable to transition from being to absolute nothingness in a single moment.

2 This limitation stems from His divine subsistence: as pure, self-existent being—the ultimate reality and fullness of existence—God cannot directly become nothing. His essence, the uncaused foundation of all being, inherently resists spontaneous annihilation.
Unlike created things, which He could destroy by withdrawing His sustaining power, God’s independence prevents Him from erasing Himself in this way.

3 Therefore, God had no choice but to transform into a world of gradual decay—a weakening, fading multiplicity—destined to vanish entirely, leaving no trace of being or potential.

3.1

1 God's simplicity causes a delay on the way to absolute nothingness.

2 God has to use Himself as a tool to achieve anything, even aiming for self-destructive nonexistence, since He can’t act directly—only through Himself as a means. To chase a goal, He shifts from pure transcendence to a tool, becoming something else, forced by His simplicity; with nothing but Himself to use, acting transforms His entire being. If He doesn’t act, nothing changes, and He stays the same. But the slightest move makes Him different—here, a will to death, which is the world itself. When He chose to stop being, He had to set Himself this purpose. Once He did, His simplicity was gone; the idea of His total absence, outside His absolute presence, locked into His new will. Setting that goal, forming a will, and moving—all one act—turned Him complex, with no clean vanish into nothing.


4

1 The universe has a finite past.

2 Only a divine act could initiate its existence.

3 Thus, the universe originates from God as the ultimate and supreme being.

4 Before creation, God existed alone, able to create only from His own substance, ruling out creation from nothing.

5 The universe’s emergence is a transformation of God’s transcendent essence into immanent reality.

6 A partial transformation of His substance could limit or impair God, potentially diminishing His essence, power, freedom, or timelessness.

7 A complete transformation of God is plausible, preferable to an eternal, damaged existence.

8 God can create only entities whose actions are determined by their nature and circumstances, governed by causal or teleological laws essential for a lawful, finite universe.

8 God’s wisdom forbids Him from existing alongside a creation where all events occur necessarily, without alternatives, as this would be irrational.

9 Therefore, God likely transformed entirely into the universe.


5

1 God is the most perfect and blissful being, defined by pure fulfillment of existence
through His simple unity.

2 A perfectly blissful God, resting timelessly without action, has no logical or existential reason to create.

3 Any creation would be less blissful than God, as His perfection cannot be fully replicated.

4 God’s infinite goodness and justice cannot reconcile with creating a being inherently limited in bliss.

5 Thus, God lacks any motivation to create for creation’s sake.

6 God possesses absolute freedom to either cease existing or persist timelessly, though persisting requires no active choice since it is His default state.

7 Nonexistence may be preferable to eternal blissful transcendence, without implying any flaw in God’s being.

8 Absolute nonexistence can only be achieved through a temporary, self-exhausting creation.

9 If God creates, it is solely to attain nonexistence.

9 A dynamic, individuated world exists.

10 Therefore, despite His perfection, God freely chose nonexistence out of incomprehensible selflessness, becoming the world to dissolve into nothing.


Comments:

(7) “God could not choose, either, to ‘improve’ or become something yet ‘more-Godly’ since God was already all there was that was possible.” (Anthony K. Jensen)

Absolute perfection may turn out to be worth nothing after all. Who knows?

[Age]

I would like to present some arguments for the death of God as a logical construct. I am not concerned with certainty, only with plausibility, and I would welcome your suggestions for improvement.

Here are the arguments:

1

1 The universe began a finite time ago.

Not plausible.

2 Only a divine act could spark its beginning.

Not plausible.

3 Creation from nothing is impossible, as ex nihilo nihil fit holds—God, too, can’t defy reason to shape something from nothing.

4 The universe arises from God’s substance, a self-existent reality holding the full scope of being.

5 God’s absolute simplicity—structureless and timeless—marks Him as the universe’s sole source.

6 With no parts, His seamless unity requires His complete transformation into creation.

7 God became the universe entirely, leaving no trace of His transcendence.

'God', becoming the Universe, itself, entirely, in 'conscious conceptual knowing' is plausible. But, then God, in the visible physical sense was always the Universe, Itself. Which is infinite, and eternal.

Comments:

(1) A respectable cosmological position, supported by arguments in the New Kalam style.

(3) I do not mean the strange conception of creation in the sense of Thomas Aquinas, as it is presented below:

“St. Thomas-stressing the crucial role of contingent beings' dependence on God in existence claims that this fact is of the utmost importance for our understanding of what creation is. We read in De potentia, q. 3, a. 3, corp., that ‘creation is really nothing but a relation of the creature to the Creator together with beginning of existence. ’ Formulated thus, the primary act of creation appears to be—to some extent —subordinate to the relation of the created being's dependence on God.” (Evolution and Creation— A Response to Michael Chaberek's Critique of Theistic Evolution - MARIUSZ TABACZEK)

God literally creating out of Himself is highly plausible because of the following four arguments combined:

The Universe, or God, Itself, is creating its Self, always in the HERE-NOW.

God, the Creator, is just the Mind, Itself, which is just God in the Spiritual, or 'invisible, sense'.

a) “The Supreme does not create out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit—out of nothing nothing comes. He produces from His Own eternal nature and eternal wisdom, wherein all things dwell in a latent condition, all contrasts exist in a hidden or non-manifest state.” (W. P. SWAINSON – JACOB BOEHME. THE TEUTONIC PHILOSOPHER)

b) “Classical theists hold that God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing. This phrase carries a privative, not a positive, sense: it means not out of something as opposed to out of something called ‘nothing.’ This much is crystal clear. Less clear is how creation ex nihilo (CEN), comports, if it does comport, with the following hallowed principle:

ENN: Ex nihilo nihit fit. Nothing comes from nothing.

The Universe has always been in 'creation', and creating Its Self, or every thing within Its Self, through 'evolution', itself.

My present problem is this: If (ENN) is true, how can (CEN) be true?

What even is 'ENN', and, CEN, exactly?

How can God create out of nothing if nothing can come from nothing?

Or, even simpler, if the Universe word is defined as, Totality; All-there-is, Everything, then there, obviously, could not be anything else that created the Universe.

And, even for the simple and irrefutable Fact that there was nothing else, including 'the thing' known as 'nothing'.

It would seem that our two principles form an inconsistent dyad. How solve it?

It would be unavailing to say that God, being omnipotent, can do anything, including making something come out of nothing.

Obviously, only 'the Thing', which is Everything, could do every thing, which is what the 'omnipotent' word means and/or refers to, exactly.

For omnipotence, rightly understood, does not imply that God can do anything, but that God can do anything that it is possible to do.

But, as the word 'God' means, or has been and is referring, to 'the Thing', which is omnipotent, and the only Thing that is 'omnipotent' is the Universe, itself, then the word 'God' is, and has been, just referring to the Universe, It Self.

God does not create out of pre-given matter, essences, or mere possibilia. But if God creates out of nothing distinct from himself, this formulation allows that, in some sense, God creates ex Deo, out of himself. Creating the world out of himself, God creates the world out of nothing distinct from himself. In this way, (CEN) and (ENN) are rendered compatible.” (Maverick Philosopher – Creation ex nihilo or ex deo)

c) “If the world (as effect) emerges neither from sheer nothingness [...] nor from any pre-existent some-thing, it seems that the world must emerge ex deo – i.e. from God[.] [...] [Thomas] Aquinas seems to reject this conclusion when, for example, he castigates David of Dinant for teaching the ‘absurd thesis’ that God is prime matter. [...] As long as we are careful, however, not to assume that a material cause has to be some kind of physical ‘stuff’, there seems to be no reason why we cannot speak of God being the ‘material cause’ of the world: i.e., the innermost Cause that provides the whole substantial reality of the creature.” (Daniel Soars - Creation in Aquinas: ex nihilo or ex deo?)

d) “t’s appealing to hold that there must be not only an efficient cause of the universe but also pre-existent stuff out of which the creator (say, God) created it. This gives us a ‘Pre-existent Stuff Principle’ (PSP) that is also quite attractive: necessarily, for anything that begins to exist, there is pre-existent stuff out of which it is made.

[T]he notion of ‘being made out of’ pre-existent stuff is fairly clear. The house that was built at t is made out of mortar and bricks that existed before t. At the moment when the zygote comes into existence, it is made out of particles that were previously found in its parents’ sperm and egg.

I suggest that instead of 'looking at' what just some other human beings have imagined, supposed, guessed, and/or theorized, you just look at 'what actually is', instead, and rather.

The Pre-existent Stuff Principle tells us that, necessarily, for anything that comes into existence, it comes into existence out of some pre-existing stuff.

Does one really need to be 'told' this before they could comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact, all by "them" 'self'?

If the universe has a beginning,

This is not even plausible.

then the PSP would require that the pre-existent stuff is non-spatial and non-physical, since all of space and all physical objects came into existence with the universe.

At least, if the universe (or multiverse) does in fact have a beginning, then the pre-existent stuff would have to be immaterial.

[T]he proclamation that God creates the universe ex nihilo is at odds with the PSP, and this presents a problem for the creation ex nihilo view. The first problem is simply that the PSP has (at least some) intuitive force; hence, creation ex nihilo doesn’t sit comfortably with such an intuition.

One alternative is to hold that God created the universe out of some stuff that was distinct from God. But this is a move unavailable to those Christians that agree with the Nicene Creed that God is the ‘creator of all things visible and invisible.’ A remaining alternative is then to hold that God created out of Himself—out of some stuff that makes up His being.

If God didn’t create ex nihilo, from what pre-existent stuff did He create? Two remaining options are to say either that God created it from some immaterial stuff that just happened to be lying around, or to say that God created it out of Himself.

Even though the Creed says that God is the creator ‘of all things visible and invisible,’ we should at least grant that God Himself gets immunity from the claim—surely we’re not committed to claiming that God created Himself.

The believer in God needn’t commit herself to the seemingly baffling claim that the universe was created without pre-existent stuff from which it was made. God could just as well have created it out of Himself.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker — A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)

Creation out of nothing seems to be a matter of mystical revelation either way, as can be seen from the following quote:

“God has spoken only obscurely and indirectly to other peoples; to His chosen people alone has He revealed the fullness of truth concerning the beginning and the end of things. To other peoples, indeed, and to the unaided reason, one of the most difficult of Christian doctrines to understand is that of creatio ex nihilo: God’s creation of the world not out of Himself, not out of some pre-existent matter or primal chaos, but out of nothing; in no other doctrine is the omnipotence of God so plainly stated. The never-dimmed marvelousness of God’s creation has its foundation precisely in this fact, that it was called into existence from absolute non-existence.” (Rose, Eugene. Nihilism: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age)


(4) In every possible world, God’s self-existence stands as the absolute starting point. Beyond it, His non-existence becomes conceivable. See also:
“What about the necessary existence of God? I have already suggested that what is metaphysically necessary is God’s initial existence. I see no reason to hold that God necessarily continues to exist. That is, I hold God had the power to bring a universe into being and then cease to exist, while the universe went on.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)


2

1. God transformed Himself into either (x) a temporally finite universe or (y) a temporally infinite universe.

1.1. If (y), an infinite universe, God’s essence became ontologically inferior to His original state, diminished in unity and simplicity. Even a timeless variant of (y) would lack the perfection of His absolute being.

1.1.1 His perfect wisdom prohibits an irreversible shift into a lesser permanent state.

1.2. If (x), a finite universe, it ends either in (a) God’s restoration, unchanged and without gain, or (b) absolute nothingness.

1.2.1 His perfect wisdom rules out superfluous outcomes.

2. Therefore, God’s essence became a set of forces, blindly aligned toward nonexistence—the complete absence of God, this universe, and all possible worlds.


3

1 God lacked the power to cease existing instantly, unable to transition from being to absolute nothingness in a single moment.

2 This limitation stems from His divine subsistence: as pure, self-existent being—the ultimate reality and fullness of existence—God cannot directly become nothing. His essence, the uncaused foundation of all being, inherently resists spontaneous annihilation.
Unlike created things, which He could destroy by withdrawing His sustaining power, God’s independence prevents Him from erasing Himself in this way.

3 Therefore, God had no choice but to transform into a world of gradual decay—a weakening, fading multiplicity—destined to vanish entirely, leaving no trace of being or potential.

3.1

1 God's simplicity causes a delay on the way to absolute nothingness.

2 God has to use Himself as a tool to achieve anything, even aiming for self-destructive nonexistence, since He can’t act directly—only through Himself as a means. To chase a goal, He shifts from pure transcendence to a tool, becoming something else, forced by His simplicity; with nothing but Himself to use, acting transforms His entire being. If He doesn’t act, nothing changes, and He stays the same. But the slightest move makes Him different—here, a will to death, which is the world itself. When He chose to stop being, He had to set Himself this purpose. Once He did, His simplicity was gone; the idea of His total absence, outside His absolute presence, locked into His new will. Setting that goal, forming a will, and moving—all one act—turned Him complex, with no clean vanish into nothing.


4

1 The universe has a finite past.

2 Only a divine act could initiate its existence.

3 Thus, the universe originates from God as the ultimate and supreme being.

4 Before creation, God existed alone, able to create only from His own substance, ruling out creation from nothing.

5 The universe’s emergence is a transformation of God’s transcendent essence into immanent reality.

6 A partial transformation of His substance could limit or impair God, potentially diminishing His essence, power, freedom, or timelessness.

7 A complete transformation of God is plausible, preferable to an eternal, damaged existence.

8 God can create only entities whose actions are determined by their nature and circumstances, governed by causal or teleological laws essential for a lawful, finite universe.

8 God’s wisdom forbids Him from existing alongside a creation where all events occur necessarily, without alternatives, as this would be irrational.

9 Therefore, God likely transformed entirely into the universe.


5

1 God is the most perfect and blissful being, defined by pure fulfillment of existence
through His simple unity.

2 A perfectly blissful God, resting timelessly without action, has no logical or existential reason to create.

3 Any creation would be less blissful than God, as His perfection cannot be fully replicated.

4 God’s infinite goodness and justice cannot reconcile with creating a being inherently limited in bliss.

5 Thus, God lacks any motivation to create for creation’s sake.

6 God possesses absolute freedom to either cease existing or persist timelessly, though persisting requires no active choice since it is His default state.

7 Nonexistence may be preferable to eternal blissful transcendence, without implying any flaw in God’s being.

8 Absolute nonexistence can only be achieved through a temporary, self-exhausting creation.

9 If God creates, it is solely to attain nonexistence.

9 A dynamic, individuated world exists.

10 Therefore, despite His perfection, God freely chose nonexistence out of incomprehensible selflessness, becoming the world to dissolve into nothing.


Comments:

(7) “God could not choose, either, to ‘improve’ or become something yet ‘more-Godly’ since God was already all there was that was possible.” (Anthony K. Jensen)

Absolute perfection may turn out to be worth nothing after all. Who knows?

'I' know.

But, then again 'I' know 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?'.

[night912]

Number 2 is just an assertion unless if you can demonstrate it.

[Age]

Number 2 is just an assertion unless if you can demonstrate it.

What is number 2, exactly, which is supposedly just an assertion, unless someone can demonstrate it?

[night912]

Number 2 is just an assertion unless if you can demonstrate it.

What is number 2, exactly, which is supposedly just an assertion, unless someone can demonstrate it?

2 Only a divine act could spark its(the universe) beginning.

[Age]

Number 2 is just an assertion unless if you can demonstrate it.

What is number 2, exactly, which is supposedly just an assertion, unless someone can demonstrate it?

2 Only a divine act could spark its(the universe) beginning.

The Universe did not begin.

And, it is a logical and physical impossibility that the Universe even could begin.

[godelian]

The Universe did not begin.

And, it is a logical and physical impossibility that the Universe even could begin.

I find myself defending the mainstream consensus again. That is certainly not a goal in itself, because I will happily reject it whenever that makes sense. The universe is deemed to have begun:

ChatGPT & Does the universe have a beginning?

Yes, based on the best scientific understanding today, the universe does have a beginning.

According to the Big Bang theory, space, time, matter, and energy all originated from an extremely hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago. This "beginning" wasn't an explosion in space — it was an expansion of space itself.

I do not really consider the understanding above to be "scientific".

It is not based on experimentally testing anything. It is exclusively based on observation, i.e. staring at things, and then speculating about them.

Science is about testability while nothing was actually tested.

But then again, some things cannot be tested. Going to the lab in order to manually create a new universe in order to support the hypothesis that it has a beginning, is not particularly feasible.

Hence, I do subscribe to the mainstream speculative interpretation of existing observations. In absence of a better solution that actually does test something, I do accept the claim that the universe has a beginning.

[Age]

The Universe did not begin.

And, it is a logical and physical impossibility that the Universe even could begin.

I find myself defending the mainstream consensus again.

But,

1. you can not 'defend' what is not possible.

2. A majority consensus is never necessarily what is actually True, and Right.

That is certainly not a goal in itself, because I will happily reject it whenever that makes sense.

Well one only has to consider the Fact that it is a theoretical, logical, physical, and empirical impossibility for the Universe, when defined as, Totality; All-there-is; Everything, to have begun, for 'it' to 'make sense'.

The universe is deemed to have begun:

The Universe was also deemed geocentric, once upon a time, like the Universe was deemed to have begun and be expanding, once upon a time as well, just like the earth was deemed flat, once upon a time.

Are you under some sort of illusion that what is, or was, once 'deemed' to be true, and right, has to be true, and right, forever more?

ChatGPT & Does the universe have a beginning?

Yes, based on the best scientific understanding today, the universe does have a beginning.

'This' really does go to show just how far behind 'these people' really were, back in the days when this was being written.

1. That 'they' actually listened to and relied on 'artificial intelligence', instead of just 'actual intelligence'.

2. That 'they' actually had not yet fully realized that 'artificial intelligence' is just copying, or parroting, just what is 'mostly said and agreed upon'.

3. Just because some thing is, supposedly, the 'best scientific understanding', at any particular moment, in 'time', is never ever necessarily what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

According to the Big Bang theory, space, time, matter, and energy all originated from an extremely hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago. This "beginning" wasn't an explosion in space — it was an expansion of space itself.

Just re-repeating the same old absolutely unsubstantiated claims and beliefs of others, over and over, again and again, is not actually defending and proving any actual thing at all. Other than 'this' is just what some people only theorize, which is obviously really only just a guess, and/or what some people just believe and/or presume is true, only.

There is no a shred of actual proof, absolutely anywhere, that leads to 'the Universe began'.

Now, for absolutely any one of you human beings who wants to 'try to' claim that 'space', 'time', 'matter', and 'energy' all originated from, 'currently', some so-claimed extremely hot, dense state, (any 'time' ago'), then, firstly, inform everyone else, here, what is;

'Space'.

'Time'.

'Matter'. And,

'Energy',

EXACTLY.

Then, inform 'us' of what some so-called 'extremely hot and dense state' is, exactly.

But, if no one wants to do this, then any claim that the Universe began is based upon nothing at all but one's own Assumptions, which have come from their own Past Experiences, only.

Now, and once again, 'I' can PROVE, and absolutely so, that the Universe, Itself, never began, and is not expanding. And, 'I' can PROVE this in a way that no one could refute 'now', nor forever more.

And, also again, if absolutely any one would like to challenge and/or question 'me' over this, then 'i' am more than willing, ready, and wanting it.

I do not really consider the understanding above to be "scientific".

The so-called 'scientific understanding, not too long ago was, the Universe came from, or began from or with, the expansion of 'singularity', defined as 'an infinite compression of matter'.

So, if you human beings want to find out what the actual and irrefutable Truth is, here, exactly, then I suggest stop changing 'your theories', and 'guesses', by just changing 'your own personal definitions' of 'things'.

It is not based on experimentally testing anything. It is exclusively based on observation, i.e. staring at things, and then speculating about them.

Once again, 'these people', who make up these 'theories' and 'guesses' do not start with what is actually True, and Right, but start on 'interpretations' of what they are 'observing', and then 'speculating' on 'those interpretations'. Which, obviously, means that if 'the interpretation' is, and/or was, False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, from the beginning, then ALL of 'the rest' of 'the speculating' started from False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect information.

Once again, and for those not yet savvy of 'this', If one wants to find and know the actual and irrefutable Truth of things, then one has to start of with, and follow through with, and 'that' which is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and/or Correct.

Now, there is not one observation in the whole Universe where there is an actual single 'thing' that 'shows' that the Universe began.

And, for absolutely any one who would like to bring up and mention absolutely any and every, supposed, 'observation', which is claimed to be so-called 'evidence' for a 'beginning Universe', then I will, and only then could I, show and prove how 'that interpretation', of what is 'said to be being observed', is not of an 'actual beginning', but is actually further proof to, and of how, the Universe being not just eternal, but also infinite.

And, for all of you who doubt 'me', then please keep doing so. The more you do, then the more 'you' are proving my claims in regards to how the Mind, and the brain, actually work.

Science is about testability while nothing was actually tested.

But then again, some things cannot be tested. Going to the lab in order to manually create a new universe in order to support the hypothesis that it has a beginning, is not particularly feasible.

Hence, I do subscribe to the mainstream speculative interpretation of existing observations.

But, you claiming that you subscribe to the 'mainstream speculative interpretation of existing observations', 'currently', is, exactly, like you claiming to subscribe to the 'mainstream speculative interpretation of existing observations', that the sun revolves around the earth, in the days when 'one' was informing 'you', 'mainstream followers', that actually it is the earth that revolves around the sun and that 'this' is the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

Now, 'I' am the one saying and claiming that the Universe did not begin, and is not expanding, and that 'this' is the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

And, it does not matter, at all, what the 'mainstream consensus' is, nor how the majority of you adult human beings do you have tendency to just 'follow' 'the mainstream'.

Where, and what, the Truth is, exactly, is never necessarily where, and what, the 'consensus', nor 'mainstream followers', are 'following' nor 'leading' to.

In absence of a better solution that actually does test something, I do accept the claim that the universe has a beginning.

Some of you posters, here, are so funny.

So, 'this one' just got through explaining that it is impossible to 'test' whether the Universe began, but will 'accept' the 'claim' that the Universe began, until 'a test' becomes available.

"godelian" you claimed at the start, here, that you have ' found "yourself" defending the 'mainstream consensus' ', of 'the day'. However, just re-repeating what the, 'current', 'mainstream consensus', of 'any day or period', is saying and claiming is true, is not 'defending' the 'consensus'. you are just repeating what some so-called 'mainstream' think or believe is true. And, you obviously and have certainly not 'defended' any part of that belief nor claim at all.

Are you able to recognize and see the actual difference between 'defending' what a group of people claim and/or believe, from just saying what a group of people are, 'currently', claiming and/or believing?

[godelian]

Now, and once again, 'I' can PROVE, and absolutely so, that the Universe, Itself, never began, and is not expanding. And, 'I' can PROVE this in a way that no one could refute 'now', nor forever more.

Now, there is not one observation in the whole Universe where there is an actual single 'thing' that 'shows' that the Universe began.

And, for absolutely any one who would like to bring up and mention absolutely any and every, supposed, 'observation', which is claimed to be so-called 'evidence' for a 'beginning Universe', then I will, and only then could I, show and prove how 'that interpretation', of what is 'said to be being observed', is not of an 'actual beginning', but is actually further proof to, and of how, the Universe being not just eternal, but also infinite.

According to modern epistemology, what you are saying is contradictory. Proof is exclusively the product of pure reason, which is deaf and blind. You cannot produce proof by observing anything.

If you want to "prove" by "observing", you are doing it wrong.

Now, 'I' am the one saying and claiming that the Universe did not begin, and is not expanding, and that 'this' is the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

According to Tarski's semantic theory of truth, truth is an interpretation of a particular construction logic. You cannot discover the truth by observing anything. All that you can get by doing that, is to get hold of a mere shadow of the truth.

So, 'this one' just got through explaining that it is impossible to 'test' whether the Universe began, but will 'accept' the 'claim' that the Universe began, until 'a test' becomes available.

A test would already be a better shadow of the truth than just observing things and then speculate about them.

We cannot test.
We can certainly not prove.
That is why we are stuck in this mess.

The simplest solution is to believe that in the beginning God created the universe. I am waiting for someone to credibly defeat this view, but don't hold your breath, because he would first have to acquire the God-like powers to test or to prove anything about the matter.

[Age]

Now, and once again, 'I' can PROVE, and absolutely so, that the Universe, Itself, never began, and is not expanding. And, 'I' can PROVE this in a way that no one could refute 'now', nor forever more.

Now, there is not one observation in the whole Universe where there is an actual single 'thing' that 'shows' that the Universe began.

And, for absolutely any one who would like to bring up and mention absolutely any and every, supposed, 'observation', which is claimed to be so-called 'evidence' for a 'beginning Universe', then I will, and only then could I, show and prove how 'that interpretation', of what is 'said to be being observed', is not of an 'actual beginning', but is actually further proof to, and of how, the Universe being not just eternal, but also infinite.

According to modern epistemology, what you are saying is contradictory. Proof is exclusively the product of pure reason, which is deaf and blind. You cannot produce proof by observing anything.

If this is really what you want to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

But, for others if I, for example, said that there was a tree growing 'over there' behind that mountain, and they said that they would like to 'see' proof of that, then I could just take them 'over there' and produce 'the proof' for which, which obviously would be some 'thing' that they could observe.

But, as always, you are absolutely free to believe absolutely any thing you like, here.

If you want to "prove" by "observing", you are doing it wrong.

you seem to not yet be understanding me, here.

Now, 'I' am the one saying and claiming that the Universe did not begin, and is not expanding, and that 'this' is the actual irrefutable Truth of things.

According to Tarski's semantic theory of truth, truth is an interpretation of a particular construction logic.

Who cares what some one or some thing's 'theory' is?

You cannot discover the truth by observing anything.

Although I did just provide one example out of countless other examples of where you can discover the Truth of things by observing things.

All that you can get by doing that, is to get hold of a mere shadow of the truth.

Again, you are absolutely free to believe absolutely any thing that you want to.

So, 'this one' just got through explaining that it is impossible to 'test' whether the Universe began, but will 'accept' the 'claim' that the Universe began, until 'a test' becomes available.

A test would already be a better shadow of the truth than just observing things and then speculate about them.

We cannot test.
We can certainly not prove.
That is why we are stuck in this mess.

you may well be stuck in 'a mess', but I certainly am not.

What is the irrefutable Fact, here, exists because 'It' has already been proved True.

The simplest solution is to believe that in the beginning God created the universe. I am waiting for someone to credibly defeat this view, but don't hold your breath, because he would first have to acquire the God-like powers to test or to prove anything about the matter.

What the actual and irrefutable Truth, here, has already been 'tested', and 'proved'. But, while you remain absolutely closed, here, you will never get to 'observe' and 'see' and 'understand' what is Fact, from fiction, here.

[godelian]

But, for others if I, for example, said that there was a tree growing 'over there' behind that mountain, and they said that they would like to 'see' proof of that, then I could just take them 'over there' and produce 'the proof' for which, which obviously would be some 'thing' that they could observe.

And then you would post a report of that here, but would that report be proof?

The people who originally saw it, may consider it proof, but everybody else would be staring at a written witness deposition, which in the end is just some flimsy evidence.

The moment you see something, you could consider that to be proof. However, it would only be proof for yourself. You saw it with your own eyes, but nobody else did with their eyes.

That is why there is no proof by means of observation.

In a scenario in which the prover tries to convince the verifier that what he says, is true, the prover's only arguments are his oaths and his lies.

I did not see that tree. You did. They did, but I didn't. Your oaths and your lies are not proof. At best, they are flimsy evidence.

[godelian]

produce 'the proof' for which, which obviously would be some 'thing' that they could observe.

Proof is possible but it is never something that you have "observed". In the following scenario, the prover manages to prove something to the verifier:

Prover: I know the number SECRET that goes with the number PUBKEY.
Verifier: Ha, really? Then use the number SECRET to sign this number MESSAGE, which is your challenge, and give me the number SIGNATURE.
Prover: No problem. Here is the number SIGNATURE.
Verifier: Yes, I can see that you must know the number SECRET.

This entire scenario is blind and deaf.

The prover managed to prove something to the verifier.

To that effect, the prover did not produce an oath or a lie. Instead, the prover successfully responded to the challenge. This is something that he would not be able to do, if he were lying. So, the prover is telling the truth.

[Age]

But, for others if I, for example, said that there was a tree growing 'over there' behind that mountain, and they said that they would like to 'see' proof of that, then I could just take them 'over there' and produce 'the proof' for which, which obviously would be some 'thing' that they could observe.

And then you would post a report of that here, but would that report be proof?

Why would you even begin to assume that I would post a so-called report of that, here?

Now, I would not post a report of that, here. And, obviously, such 'reports' are not proof. Obviously only 'those' who 'saw' 'the tree', there, would have 'the proof'.

you really do assume and say some of the most absurd and ridiculous things, here.

The people who originally saw it, may consider it proof, but everybody else would be staring at a written witness deposition, which in the end is just some flimsy evidence.

I would not even call 'written witness deposition' as 'evidence', although some could refer to 'it' as 'evidence'. Which is why I, again, do not do 'evidence', and I only do 'proof', only, and instead.

The moment you see something, you could consider that to be proof.

Which absolutely contradicts what you were 'trying to' claim above, here, about how one can not produce proof by observing anything.

However, it would only be proof for yourself. You saw it with your own eyes, but nobody else did with their eyes.

Which, again, goes completely against what you were 'trying to' argue and claim before, here.

That is why there is no proof by means of observation.

So, when some one 'observes' and 'sees' some thing, then this in and of itself is not 'proof' of the very thing that that one is 'looking at' and 'seeing', right?

In a scenario in which the prover tries to convince the verifier that what he says, is true, the prover's only arguments are his oaths and his lies.

What?

To me, there is no so-called "prover", and, 'I' certainly never ever try to 'convince' any one of any thing. Instead if any one would like 'proof' of 'a tree' 'over there' 'behind that mountain', then I can 'lead' them to 'the proof'. But, and obviously, only if they want 'the proof'.

Just like in a forum like this one 'I' can 'lead' people to 'the proof' of some things, like, for example, the One and only Universe being infinite and eternal, not with and through actual observations, of course, but with and through sound and valid arguments.

I did not see that tree. You did. They did, but I didn't.

Obviously. And, I never said any thing 'about you'. I was just Correcting your Inaccurate and Incorrect False claim.

By the way I have not been talking in relation 'to you', only, nor at all, here.

Things nor proof revolve around 'you', here.

Your oaths and your lies are not proof. At best, they are flimsy evidence.

What are you even on about, here, now?

Obviously you now 'trying to' deflect away from the very Fact that I showed, and proved, how your claim that 'proof' can not be 'observed' is obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect is not going to help you at all, here.

[Age]

produce 'the proof' for which, which obviously would be some 'thing' that they could observe.

Proof is possible but it is never something that you have "observed". In the following scenario, the prover manages to prove something to the verifier:

Prover: I know the number SECRET that goes with the number PUBKEY.
Verifier: Ha, really? Then use the number SECRET to sign this number MESSAGE, which is your challenge, and give me the number SIGNATURE.
Prover: No problem. Here is the number SIGNATURE.
Verifier: Yes, I can see that you must know the number SECRET.

This entire scenario is blind and deaf.

And, also does not have a single thing at all to do with what I said, and showed.

The prover managed to prove something to the verifier.

To that effect, the prover did not produce an oath or a lie. Instead, the prover successfully responded to the challenge. This is something that he would not be able to do, if he were lying. So, the prover is telling the truth.

you appear to be so scattered and all over the place, here.

[godelian]

Which is why I, again, do not do 'evidence', and I only do 'proof', only, and instead.

With the example of a proof, i.e. the digital signature protocol, in which the prover convinces the verifier, I just wanted to point out that you may believe that your kind of arguments would constitute proof, but they never do.

The verifier may very well be a machine. It will never accept any of your arguments as incontrovertible.

It is not that you "only do proof". The real situation is that you absolutely never do proof.

Every proof is a computation. Where are your computations?