Logical arguments for the death of God.

[godelian]

Saying and claiming that the Universe, Itself, is 'unprovable' is like 'trying to' state and claim, ' 'I' think, therefore 'I' am 'unprovable' ', or, ' 'I' existing is 'unprovable' '.

You cannot irrefutably prove that you are not an AI bot.

1. 'I' do not want to.

2. 'i do not care what 'you' human beings believe is true.

3. 'you' are, obviously, still, missing the whole point, here.

you saying and claiming that the Universe, Itself, is 'unprovable' is like 'you' 'trying to' also state and claim, that there is not an 'I' existing. Full stop.

You can only provide evidence that satisfies much lower standards of evidence. Again, you fail to understand what "proof" means.

If 'you' only knew, here, "godelian". If 'you' only knew.

Once more, for 'those' with the ability to learn, understand, and reason.

If one 'tries' to state or claim that the Universe, Itself, is 'unprovable', then 'that one' has just contradicted "its" own 'self', just like if 'it' 'tried' to' claim that 'it', "itself", is 'unprovable'.

Once again, by the very act of claiming that the 'Universe is unprovable', 'the one' who made 'the claim' has just proved, absolutely, that the actual Universe, Itself, does exist, and thus 'the Universe is actually, irrefutably, provable'.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like the 'irrefutable proof' of 'this', and of 'many other things', here, then allow 'us' to just a peaceful open and honest discussion, here, or anywhere else.

You simply do not understand the difference between truth versus provability. The physical universe is a benchmark for truth. It cannot be one for provability.

[Age]

You cannot irrefutably prove that you are not an AI bot.

1. 'I' do not want to.

2. 'i do not care what 'you' human beings believe is true.

3. 'you' are, obviously, still, missing the whole point, here.

you saying and claiming that the Universe, Itself, is 'unprovable' is like 'you' 'trying to' also state and claim, that there is not an 'I' existing. Full stop.

You can only provide evidence that satisfies much lower standards of evidence. Again, you fail to understand what "proof" means.

If 'you' only knew, here, "godelian". If 'you' only knew.

Once more, for 'those' with the ability to learn, understand, and reason.

If one 'tries' to state or claim that the Universe, Itself, is 'unprovable', then 'that one' has just contradicted "its" own 'self', just like if 'it' 'tried' to' claim that 'it', "itself", is 'unprovable'.

Once again, by the very act of claiming that the 'Universe is unprovable', 'the one' who made 'the claim' has just proved, absolutely, that the actual Universe, Itself, does exist, and thus 'the Universe is actually, irrefutably, provable'.

And, as always, if absolutely any one would like the 'irrefutable proof' of 'this', and of 'many other things', here, then allow 'us' to just a peaceful open and honest discussion, here, or anywhere else.

You simply do not understand the difference between truth versus provability.

you keep missing 'the point', and, your attempts at deflection, and thus deception, here, are not working.

The physical universe is a benchmark for truth.

So, well to 'this one' anyway, the 'very thing', which 'this one' claims, absolutely, can not be 'proven', is 'this one's' benchmark for 'truth', itself.

It cannot be one for provability.

'This one', believes, absolutely, that 'the benchmark' that it uses for 'truth', itself, is impossible to be proven.

'This one' also can not, yet, fathom, comprehend, and understand that the probability of the Universe, Itself, is Itself. Which by 'this one's own existence, itself, is the 'living proof' of the living Universe, itself, existing.

'I' am not sure why these very clearly self-evident and simple Facts can not, yet, be understood by 'the one' known as "godelian", here.

it continually 'tries to' claim that by observing things no thing can be proved, but does not realize that by the very Fact of 'observing' or 'observation', itself, proves things, like, for example, that the Universe, itself, is a proved Fact.

[Age]

You simply do not understand the difference between truth versus provability.

Once again, you state some thing and make another claim, but 'this' is only what you do. Where is the actual proof, exactly?

[godelian]

You simply do not understand the difference between truth versus provability.

Once again, you state some thing and make another claim, but 'this' is only what you do. Where is the actual proof, exactly?

Your posts are evidence for this fact. They satisfy, however, lower standards of evidence than "proof". Again, you do not understand "proof". Not all evidence is irrefutable.

[Age]

You simply do not understand the difference between truth versus provability.

Once again, you state some thing and make another claim, but 'this' is only what you do. Where is the actual proof, exactly?

Your posts are evidence for this fact.

Once again, I say, and ask for, some thing, but 'this one' talks about something else, entirely.

They satisfy, however, lower standards of evidence than "proof". Again, you do not understand "proof". Not all evidence is irrefutable.

Once again, 'this one' assumes and believes I am saying some thing, which I am completely and utterly NOT.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

1 The universe began a finite time ago. TRUE.

2 Only a divine act could spark its beginning. FALSE.

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

We don't know scientifically if creation from nothing is impossible. And we don't know rationally either. It raises questions worse than QM does.

4 The universe arises from God’s substance, a self-existent reality holding the full scope of being. FALSE. But TRUE if there were God.

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

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

7 God became the universe entirely, leaving no trace of His transcendence. FALSE. TRUE. I.e. if He is the ground of infinite, eternal being, it doesn't show.

[Age]

1 The universe began a finite time ago. TRUE.

2 Only a divine act could spark its beginning. FALSE.

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

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

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

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

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

What 'we' have, here, are seven clear prime examples of fallacies, both of the logical and/or red herring types.

[promethean75]

You're learning about logical fallacies now, Age? Fuckin A where have I been.

[Eodnhoj7]

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?

If the universe came from nothing than the universe does not have a finite existence as finite requires the relation of one thing to another, through the act of distinguishing one thing from another, and as such the universe has no beginning because nothing is not a beginning as a beginning is a thing.

[Eodnhoj7]

If God could not be eliminated than God would not be God for God would be subject to existence. God would have to die to be God.

This is partly why I am in a phase of exploring Christianity again. The desolation of God is a fascinating paradox, regardless of being literal and/or symbolic.