A challenge to rational theism. Only a defunct God is possible, not a presently existing one.

spirit-salamander

[Title of the OP was changed because it was misleading. It suggested that I was making a positive argument for a God who no longer exists.]

I present a challenge to theism (It is only for dialectical reasons that the challenging argument clings to some basic assumptions of theism):

A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.

B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible.

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible.

C 1. God is absolutely simple. Otherwise, He would not be the first and most original principle.

C 2. Accordingly, He has no parts to offer for transformation. Rather, He would have to give Himself completely for this purpose. In fact, in His simplicity, He is so much of one piece that He would be entirely the power that would serve to transform.

D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe.

Here are three quotes to help explain B 1:

(1) “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)

(2) “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)

(3) “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?)

The following quote mentions a theological problem in case one wants to assume that God is not absolutely simple and has parts:

“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)

So, wouldn't creating out of His parts lessen or weaken and ultimately destroy Him anyway?

Supporting my argument, here are some more quotes:

Cosmological proofs of God do not necessarily lead to a God who still exists:

“Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists — which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach.” (George H. Smith – Atheism. The Case Against God)

“Indeed, why should God not be the originator and now no longer exist? After all, a mother causes a child but then dies.” (Peter Cole – Philosophy of Religion)

“This world […] is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him….” (David Hume – Dialogues concerning Natural Religion Part V)

Moreover, a postulated or even reasoned necessity of the existence of God probably does not exclude the possibility of his self-annihilation:

“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)

“The reasons given for believing that there is a necessary and simple being are only reasons for holding that, necessarily, at some time, there exists such a being. There is nothing incoherent in the idea that there was a first moment of Time, and that everything that was the case then was necessarily the case, including the existence of a simple being. That leaves open the possibility that this being might change or even cease to exist, contrary to classical theism.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)

This depends on a certain conception of time:

“For Time, I take it, is characterized by the before/after relation between its parts. As it is, there is a succession of other moments. Brian Leftow has pointed out that if you are the only person at the counter, you are not a queue, and that Time is like a queue in that respect. But as soon as someone else comes along, there is a queue, and you are at the head of it. Likewise, if there are no other moments because God chooses to do nothing, then that moment is timeless. Yet if God acts, there is then at least one other moment, and so there is Time.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)

Gnomon

D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe. — spirit-salamander

I can understand & agree with that argument --- and the perceived need for it --- except for the "completely" specification. There have been several proposals, as a substitute for ex nihilo creation, that a pre-existing god, in order to create our physical world, converted all or some portion of his own eternal divine substance into the mundane matter of our temporal universe*1. Spinoza, by contrast, postulated that the substance of our world is, and always has been, the substance of god*2. In the 17th century though, he was not aware of the unprecedented-sudden-emergence (Big Bang) theory, so did not have to explain how the transformation ex nihilo or ex deus could occur.

However, my own alternative explanation for the Big Bang creatio ex info is based on 21st century Information theory*3. Some physicists & information theorists have concluded that Generic Information is equivalent to Energy + Laws. Since causal Energy is inherently eternal --- cannot be created or destroyed (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) --- it is a suitable candidate for the divine Substance. But the Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom, that both Energy and Natural Law, existed prior to the creation event. Therefore, since the postulated Generic Information (EnFormAction)*4 combines the creative Power-to-Enform with the Design Parameters of Intention, the complexifying evolution of our vast universe from a dimensionless point in pre-space-time, would no longer be a mystery. It would simply function like a computer program, with an intrinsic operating system.

Unlike your Total Transformation Theory, and the tit-for-tat God's Debris notion, the EnFormAction Thesis leaves the Eternal Enformer (Programmer) intact. That's because the causal power of Nature is merely a temporary Space-Time implementation of the Infinite-Eternal potential of the unlimited power-to-create-worlds-from-scratch. Does any of that techno-theorizing make sense to you? Its primary weakness is that a Reason For Creation (Programmer motivation) is not apparent from inside the not-yet-complete evolution-of-creation (the program) itself. :smile:

*1. God's Debris : A Thought Experiment
It proposes a form of pandeism and monism, postulating that an omnipotent god annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient entity would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris". a 2001 novella by Dilbert creator Scott Adams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

*2. Spinoza's Substance :
As understood by Spinoza, God is the one infinite substance who possesses an infinite number of attributes each expressing an eternal aspect of his/her nature. He believes this is so due to the definition of God being equivalent to that of substance, or that which causes itself.
https://cah.ucf.edu/fpr/article/spinoza-on-god-affects-and-the-nature-of-sorrow/

*3. Essential Information :
The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information/

*4. EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative program of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Prime Mover.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

spirit-salamander

↪Gnomon

Thank you for your response. I agree with you that there are of course some alternatives to my construction which fits the God's Debris notion. (Aside from the fact that it is probably philosophically and empirically impossible to prove an absolute temporal beginning of the world.)

But the Big Bang theory assumes as an axiom, that both Energy and Natural Law, existed prior to the creation event. — Gnomon

But were energy as well as natural laws not rather completely distorted before the creation event? Infinitely distorted, perhaps, so that one can no longer speak of identity?

I draw my assumptions from the following sources:

From Katie Mack – The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking):

“What most physicists do think happened, a fraction of a second after whatever was the true “beginning,” was a dramatic super-expansion that effectively erased all trace of whatever went on before it. So the singularity is one hypothesis for what might have started everything off, but we can’t really be sure.”

From Katie Mack – The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking):

“Even if we did trust ourselves to dial back expansion all the way to that point, a singularity represents a state of matter and energy so extreme that nothing we currently know about physics can describe it. To a physicist, a singularity is pathological. It’s a place in the equations where some quantity that is normally well behaved (like the density of matter) goes to infinity, at which point there is no longer any way to calculate things that makes any sense.”

From John Hands – Cosmosapiens Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe:

“singularity

A hypothetical region in space-time where gravitational forces cause a finite mass to be compressed into an infinitely small volume and therefore to have infinite density, and where space-time becomes infinitely distorted.”

From http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html

“Our physics can explain most of the evolution of the Universe after the Planck time (approximately 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang).

The Planck time is the earliest moment in the history of the Universe where our physics still works.”

Does any of that techno-theorizing make sense to you? — Gnomon

To some extent, I can understand that. In the philosophy of religion, it is often discussed whether God, as the source of all being, has parts or not. Your remarks seem to imply that there are parts.

So at creation, parts would have to be converted, which could cause the injury problem mentioned in my original post. God would somehow suffer an injury. What is your assessment of this?

180 Proof

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander

This statement resonates with my thinking (unlike the rest of your demonstration) as the point of departure of my own speculative (Spinozist sub specie durationis) pandeism:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054

spirit-salamander

↪180 Proof

What do you think of the “God has parts – God has no parts” discussion in the philosophy of religion?

180 Proof

What do you think of the “God has parts – God has no parts” discussion in the philosophy of religion? — spirit-salamander

I think it's nonsensical. Just substitute "pants" for "parts" ...

spirit-salamander

↪180 Proof

Haha, you're right in that it has to be seen as making sense for my reasoning to work. I am still not quite sure myself what to make of this discussion between parts and non-parts.

But many see it as sensical, and they would have to take my argument seriously, wouldn't they?

180 Proof

↪spirit-salamander

Ask those who find the topic "sensical".

spirit-salamander

↪180 Proof

I have a naïve expectation that they will speak up here of their own accord.

Gnomon

(Aside from the fact that it is probably philosophically and empirically impossible to prove an absolute temporal beginning of the world.) — spirit-salamander

That goes without saying. Philosophers & Cosmologists don't "prove" anything, they merely argue for for their own mental model. In the book I'm currently reading --- Fire in the Mind, by George Johnson (1995) --- a cautionary insight may be relevant here : "When we look upon the grand architectures of cosmology and particle physics with the advantage of hindsight, developments take on an illusory sense of inevitability". So, we need to be aware of our own "filters" that channel everything we see. Despite the pitfalls, we are motivated by the implicit god gap in our scientific models, to speculate for provenance beyond the reach of empirical proving. " the cosmological model we have constructed has become so firmly lodged in the brain that mere humans can be heard to speculate confidently about the very origin of the universe. What caused the big bang? That is where science once left off and religion began".

But were energy as well as natural laws not rather completely distorted before the creation event? — spirit-salamander

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Is that a Katie Mack notion? Are the Laws themselves "distorted" (quantum fluctuations?) or is our view of them warped by preconceptions? Some Cosmologists seem to assume that natural laws were "engraved in stone", so to speak, prior to the Big Bang. Others guess that physical laws develop along with physical evolution. If Natural Laws are inconstant though, then our scientific speculations are shooting at a moving target.

To some extent, I can understand that. In the philosophy of religion, it is often discussed whether God, as the source of all being, has parts or not. Your remarks seem to imply that there are parts. — spirit-salamander

No, I did not intend to imply that the Ground of Being is a composite entity. Instead, the Source of our space-time world is assumed to be a non-physical infinite Whole, which is not diminished by spawning space-time parts. A Whole, by definition, can have parts (holons), which may have subordinate parts of their own. But the First Cause of our own ever-changing part is pictured as the ultimate Whole : the infinite power to create finite things. Not a thing among things, but the essence of beingness; a Qualia, not a Quanta. {see Gestalt God below}

So at creation, parts would have to be converted, which could cause the injury problem mentioned in my original post. God would somehow suffer an injury. What is your assessment of this? — spirit-salamander

A god injured by exercising his own creative power reminds me of the old riddle : "could God create a rock to big for God to pick-up?"; thereby suffering a divine hernia. That notion is skeptical of the possibility of Omnipotence. The implication is that God is a physical being with physical limitations. To me, that sounds like a mythical humanoid god (e.g Thor), which is not what I have in mind as the Prime Mover of the Big Bang. {see Creation vs Conversion below} :smile:

PS__Creation vs Conversion : My information-based Big Bang scenario includes a sort of "Conversion", which I prefer to call a Transformation. The power-to-enform does not involve a physical transmutation of one material thing into another physical thing (e.g. lead into gold). Instead, EnFormAction transforms inexhaustible Potential (cosmic energy) into Actual physical things (matter) that are subject to dis-integrating Entropy. One Whole, many Forms.

PPS__Gestalt God : I just stumbled on this webpage while Googling gestalt (holistic) notions of God. Since I am mostly ignorant of Gestalt theory, this not my personal perspective, but, as a thought experiment, it seems to be relevant to the question of a world-creating Deity's relationship to its Creation (internal parts).
"You are God, nothing exists outside of you, you are everything. You are pure energy, completely formless and unlimited. You are infinite. Something very difficult to comprehend. Now, you wish to learn about yourself, and who you are and what you can do. So you begin to create, but since you are everything and are infinite you can’t create outside of yourself you must create within yourself. It is impossible for something to exist outside of infinity. So you begin to create dimensions like up and a down, and left and right, you begin to create little objects within your self. These objects are not separate from you, they are you, they are within you.
Now you have established internal reference points and objects and are learning about yourself, and what you are capable of. Yet you are not finished. You begin to create little entities within yourself and give them consciousness, so they can look up at you and say: “Ah that’s God, this is me, and this is what we can do.” The singularity has become a plurality but at the fundamental level it is still a singularity."
https://www.gestaltreality.com/articles/the-universe-as-god/

spirit-salamander

Philosophers & Cosmologists don't "prove" anything, they merely argue for for their own mental model. — Gnomon

Basically, I agree with you. But perhaps one could say that proving mental model world explanations is possible after all. One only has to agree on a few conditions. The most important might be compliance with the law of excluded contradiction. Then the one that favors the theory that covers conceptually or rationally most aspects of being or all known so far. Every theory that has even a single contradiction in it would be disproved, and the contradiction-free and most all-encompassing one would be the proven one.

Since, in my opinion, there cannot be conceptually or factually an infinite number of theories, only an infinite variety of names and expressions, which, however, want to say the same thing, a proof is not theoretically impossible. The emphasis is on “theoretically”.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. — Gnomon

I had understood you to mean that energy and law of nature before creation were identical to energy and law of nature after creation. In other words, that the pre-existent energy and natural law remains unchanged in the post-existence.

What I wanted to say is that I thought that everything that pre-exists is infinitely warped and thus has no identity with what is understood to be energy and natural law after creation. Does what I'm saying make sense? It could be that I have simply misunderstood you.

No, I did not intend to imply that the Ground of Being is a composite entity. Instead, the Source of our space-time world is assumed to be a non-physical infinite Whole, which is not diminished by spawning space-time parts. — Gnomon

The ground of all being would thus be completely rounded, so to speak. This ground would be absolutely homogeneous as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece. Why should the spawning of space-time parts not diminish it? “Diminish” would actually be an understatement in this case. It would have to be “destroy”, considering that to create would be to use God's “material”, as quoted in the original post. If you take a little of this “material”, you ultimately take all of it.

The only solution I can see would be to say that the ground of all being has an infinite number of parts (the parts don't have to be on a par, they could be in a hierarchical order).

the infinite power to create finite things. — Gnomon

Infinite power could mean an infinite number of power components.

a Qualia, not a Quanta — Gnomon

The Quantitative over the qualitative, after all.

EnFormAction transforms inexhaustible Potential (cosmic energy) into Actual physical things — Gnomon

“inexhaustible Potential” = an actual infinite set of potentials?

The power-to-enform does not involve a physical transmutation of one material thing into another physical thing (e.g. lead into gold). — Gnomon

I agree. That is why I wrote in my argument:

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander

The non-physical can be “transmuted” into the physical.

To me, that sounds like a mythical humanoid god (e.g Thor), which is not what I have in mind as the Prime Mover of the Big Bang. — Gnomon

In fact, those who assume God without parts say that God with parts could be something like Thor.

Gnomon

Every theory that has even a single contradiction in it would be disproved, and the contradiction-free and most all-encompassing one would be the proven one.. . . . a proof is not theoretically impossible — spirit-salamander

Hypothetically, that might be possible. But I'm not aware of any human enterprise that is "contradiction-free" or "all-encompassing". That would seem to require Omniscience.

I just read about the scientific search for order within randomness, which involved attempts to beat the odds in gambling, and to find predictable patterns in the chaos of the stock market. Obviously, the mathematicians believed that beating the house in Las Vegas was "not theoretically impossible". But so far it has been impractical.

They were using early computers in the 1980s, but 40 years later, with much faster calculators, they have been unable to overcome the essential randomness in reality. Yet the author concluded, "Something about the mind, wired to find patterns both real and imaginary, rebels at this notion of fundamental disorder". Ironically, in my information-based thesis, the underlying randomness of the world, provides options for human free-will, including the freedom to make wrong choices, and to bet against the house. :smile:

I had understood you to mean that energy and law of nature before creation were identical to energy and law of nature after creation. In other words, that the pre-existent energy and natural law remains unchanged in the post-existence. — spirit-salamander

That was not what I meant. Instead, the Energy & Laws of our world are defined by the limitations of Space-Time. But the eternal Potential for those specific causes & rules could be adapted to the design requirements of any of a zillion worlds*1. Some scientist have postulated that the laws of physics have evolved along with the matter it governs. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose it's possible.

Anyway, I'm guessing that the Big Bang Singularity was like a computer program containing an operating system of Energy & Laws to govern the evolution of the world it created. A corollary to that creation myth is that the pre-existing Programmer had an infinite array of settings from which to create a world. Don't take this too seriously though. It's just speculation into the unknown from the axiom of an information-processing world. :cool:

*1. This is only about abstract Potential. I make no conjectures about any Actual Worlds other than the one instance we can experience.

What I wanted to say is that I thought that everything that pre-exists is infinitely warped and thus has no identity with what is understood to be energy and natural law after creation. Does what I'm saying make sense? It could be that I have simply misunderstood you. — spirit-salamander

I have no reliable information about pre-existence. So anything I might imagine could be "warped" by my own pre-conceptions. But I still don't grasp what you are trying to imply about an imaginary deity that existed eternally, and that, for no apparent reason, decided to create a world-simulation to play around with. Are you saying that the creator of an imperfect word, must be insane? So his idea of energy & laws would be warped like a fun-house mirror? :joke:

The ground of all being would thus be completely rounded, so to speak. This ground would be absolutely homogeneous as if flawlessly and seamlessly made from one piece. Why should the spawning of space-time parts not diminish it? “Diminish” would actually be an understatement in this case. It would have to be “destroy”, considering that to create would be to use God's “material”, as quoted in the original post. If you take a little of this “material”, you ultimately take all of it. — spirit-salamander

That may be the key difference between our god-models. In my view, the physical world is indeed made of malleable Matter, but the meta-physical world-maker consists only of immaterial Information (power to enform, to create). So, my personal creation myth says that the Programmer converted some of Her ideas (mental essence) into a real world (material stuff). Hence, Mind was transformed into Matter*2. In other words, Aristotelian universal Substance (abstract form ; essence) was converted into particular Substance (matter). You can measure a "little" piece of Matter (Quanta), but Abstract Form is an integrated holistic mental concept, of which you can't measure just one part. That's the idea behind Giulio Tononi's Integrated Information Theory. :nerd:

*2. Matter vs Form :
Aristotle’s hylomorphism is, roughly speaking, the idea that objects are compounds consisting of matter and form.
https://metaphysicsjournal.com/articles/10.5334/met.2
Note -- I interpret "hyle" in terms of modern Matter, and "form" as the modern notion of mental Information (meaning & intention). Another term for "form" is Design. The physical stuff our senses observe is a "compound" of Matter (mass) & Mind (design). We interpret the signals of our senses as meaningful patterns of Information.

The only solution I can see would be to say that the ground of all being has an infinite number of parts (the parts don't have to be on a par, they could be in a hierarchical order). . . . . In fact, those who assume God without parts say that God with parts could be something like Thor. — spirit-salamander

Obviously, we are thinking of "wholes" & "parts" in a different sense : Quantitative vs Qualitative. A physical Whole System does indeed contain many parts*3. But my meta-physical (conceptual) Wholeness is an indivisible Singularity*4. :wink:

*3. Holism :
the theory that parts of a whole are in intimate interconnection, such that they cannot exist independently of the whole, or cannot be understood without reference to the whole, which is thus regarded as greater than the sum of its parts.

*4. Singularity :
The point at which a function takes an infinite, uncountable & indivisible, value
Note -- Unlike physical collections of things in space-time, the presumptive Deity is singular, unique, and is of undefinable number. Hence, no parts.

spirit-salamander

So, my personal creation myth says that the Programmer converted some of Her ideas (mental essence) into a real world (material stuff). Hence, Mind was transformed into Matter — Gnomon

Would it be fair to describe your construction or model as panentheism? If so, I would get the point. For my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test.

Gnomon

Would it be fair to describe your construction or model as panentheism? If so, I would get the point. For my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test. — spirit-salamander

Yes. Here's an excerpt from my thesis glossary :

PanEnDeism :
Panendeism is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
https://panendeism.org/faq-and-questions/
1. Note : PED is distinguished from general Deism, by its more specific notion of the G*D/Creation relationship; and from PanDeism by its understanding of G*D as supernatural creator rather than the emergent soul of Nature. Enformationism is a Panendeistic worldview.

PS__This information-based god-model omits some of the deficiencies of traditional definitions, that have been deconstructed by Atheists. I'll have more to say in another post.

Gnomon

my argument is in principle directed only against ordinary (pure) theism (proper), which is put to a severe test. — spirit-salamander

Coincidentally, I just read an article in the Feb/Mar 2023 issue of Philosophy Now magazine. It is addressed to "fundamentalist Atheists" who argue against fundamentalist Monotheism. It, somewhat satirically, presents alternatives to the Good God model of the Bible. My own god-posit is mostly an explanation for the god-gap in the Big Bang creation story. BB does not begin at the beginning, but assumes the prior existence of Creative Power and Directional Rules for evolution. So, like a Cosmologist, I reasoned backward from current conditions to see if there were any clues to the how & why of sudden emergence from Erewhon (nowhere).

The magazine article is entitled Evil From Outside, and subtitled : alternative explanations of suffering, somewhere between traditional monotheism and new atheism. Again, coincidentally, that could describe my own alt-Deity thesis. I come from a fundamentalist Christian background, but long-ago rejected the authority of the Bible. However, I still saw a philosophical necessity for a Creation Myth to explain why there is something instead of nothing. And the only pertinent revelation is the Creation itself -- as known by inquiring human minds.

The PN article excludes the notion of a Good God, with its intrinsic Problem of Evil (theodicy). So, the author concludes that "The theodicy atheists paint a picture of an imperfect god and then argue that an imperfect God cannot exist". By that, the author assumes that the atheists are saying that "if I was god, the world would not involve suffering". Yet, my own theory accepts the imperfect world as it is, warts and all --- including my own aches & pains & disappointments. And asks "why & how would a supposedly omnipotent world-creator design an imperfect system such as our own beloved habitat?"

I won't go into the details of my own thesis here. So I'll just run through the historical alternatives presented in the article. Perhaps you can add your own Extinct Deity to the list.

1a. Mad or Bad : "that last amorphous blight of nether-most confusion where bubbles and blasphemes at infinity's center the mindless daemon-sultan Azathoth". ___H.P, Lovecraft
1b. "if there is a universal mind, must it be sane?". ___Charles Fort
1c. "Whatever brute or blackguard made the world . . . ?" ___A. E. Housman

2. Cosmic Trickster : Marvel comic poly-deity Loki, or "Satan as seen in the book of Job"

3. Incompetent but loving God : "hopelessly inefficient". A bungler.

4. Quarreling gods : "several gods with divergent opinions" --- as in Homer's stories.

5. Competing Deities : "good and evil beings who are equally powerful" (Zoroastrian, Gnostic)

The author chastises both Theists and Atheists, "Any attempt of create such a path implies that a human being can imagine what it would be like to be God". In my own musings, I try to avoid such hubris. But, as an amateur Philosopher & Cosmologist, I have modeled my own Creator in the image of a human Computer Programmer, in order to draw whatever conclusions that analogy might point toward. But I don't claim to actually "know the mind of God"*1, as both Einstein and Hawking claimed as their goal.

So, the Enformationism thesis was the beginning of my own humble attempt to understand why the First Cause of our world, that Atheists dismiss as a Big Mistake, and that both Einstein & Hawking called "The Grand Design"*2 is the way it is : amazing but not yet perfect. :smile:

*1. In 1925, Einstein went on a walk with a young student named Esther Salaman. As they wandered, he shared his core guiding intellectual principle: "I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are just details."
https://www.livescience.com/65628-theory-of-everything-millennia-away.html

*2. The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)
"What I see in Nature is a grand design that we can understand only imperfectly, one with which a responsible person must look at with humility".
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/616922

↪180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

180 Proof

My own god-posit is mostly an explanation for the god-gap in the Big Bang creation story. BB does not begin at the beginning, but assumes the prior existence of Creative Power and Directional Rules for evolution. So, like a Cosmologist, I reasoned backward from current conditions to see if there were any clues to the how & why of sudden emergence from Erewhon (nowhere).

I still saw a philosophical necessity for a Creation Myth to explain why there is something instead of nothing. — Gnomon

Finally confessing your own "Enformer" god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Good for you, sir. :clap: :smirk:

@universeness

universeness

↪180 Proof

If @Gnomon had to endure a 'fundamentalist Christian background,' then that is a very heavy chain to unravel. I am sure you would agree.

He must be fully credited for demonstrating the kind of will, skill and bravery, required to be able to contest the rationality and truth of viewpoints, that he had to live amongst, everyday. When did he decide to risk inciting the wrath of those he depended on for food/shelter etc or familial support. I have heard so many deconstructing theists, on call in shows, talk about the absolute turmoil they had to go through in their lives to pursue truth and reject the tenets of the religion they were forced to comply with from birth.
I DO consider such to be a form of mental terrorism and child abuse.
Managing to extract themselves from almost all they have ever known, due to a need for truth, makes such folks very brave people indeed!!!
I am glad to see evidence that his reason does compel him to label his enformer, as a god of the gaps posit, and I also applaud him for that with NO MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. I am sure you mean your :clap: in the same way.

Fooloso4

B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible. — spirit-salamander

I would argue that it is simply impossible for us to conceive. The universe need not conform to our limited understanding.

He produces from His Own eternal nature — spirit-salamander

A clumsy side step dance attempting to avoid the problem of ex nihilo nihil fit that arises from the assumption that:

A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago. — spirit-salamander

and a questionable interpretation of Genesis 1.1.

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible. — spirit-salamander

What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of?

spirit-salamander

I would argue that it is simply impossible for us to conceive. The universe need not conform to our limited understanding. — Fooloso4

To create literally out of nothing is logically impossible because “nothing” is the absence of anything that has any trace of “being”. Do you agree or disagree with ex nihilo nihil fit? If not, what are the basic thinking rules you follow when you philosophize?

A clumsy side step dance attempting to avoid the problem of ex nihilo nihil fit — Fooloso4

What clumsy side step dance? I don't understand what you mean.

a questionable interpretation of Genesis 1.1. — Fooloso4

I am not trying to interpret Genesis. I have given a formal argumentation, and the quotations are only meant to help in understanding. You should rather stick to the mere structure of argumentation.

What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of? — Fooloso4

If the origin of the world is credited to God and creatio ex nihilo is to be understood only as creatio ex deo, it follows that God stuff is capable of being transformed into worldly stuff.

The aim of my argument is only to put theism to the test. It is, I would argue, at least prima facie intuitively plausible.

This is also evident in the fact that the authors of the quotations that serve as an aid to understanding all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the problems mentioned.

If you don't believe in a theistic god (or at least consider God to be very improbable), and don't believe that he can be rationally modelled and proven to exist (in an inductive, deductive or abductive way), then my argument won't be of much interest to you. I suppose.

180 Proof

↪universeness

:up:

Fooloso4

To create literally out of nothing is logically impossible because “nothing” is the absence of anything that has any trace of “being”. — spirit-salamander

Is your god constrained by logic?

Do you agree or disagree with ex nihilo nihil fit? — spirit-salamander

The question itself is without basis. The question can only be asked by something that exists in a world of things that exist.

If not, what are the basic thinking rules you follow when you philosophize?

This misses my earlier point:
— spirit-salamander

The universe need not conform to our limited understanding. — Fooloso4

One of the basic rules of thinking I follow is not to draw conclusions about things we can know nothing of.

What clumsy side step dance? I don't understand what you mean. — spirit-salamander

The question which has long been debated is, how could God create something ex nihilo? The question grew out of an interpretation of Genesis. He created the world out of himself was put forth as a solution. The whole thing is clumsy because it rests on questionable assumptions.

I am not trying to interpret Genesis. — spirit-salamander

It is not about your interpretation. The issue predates us.

You should rather stick to the mere structure of argumentation. — spirit-salamander

A variation of ex nihilo nihil fit: out of an argument based on nothing comes nothing. What follows from a premise may be valid but not sound.

What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of?
— Fooloso4

If ... — spirit-salamander

You have not answered the question. I asked what knowledge you have of this transcended substance, not what follows from it and other questionable assumptions about creation and beginnings.

It is, I would argue, at least prima facie intuitively plausible. — spirit-salamander

What follows from implausible premises is not plausible.

If you don't believe in a theistic god — spirit-salamander

It is not a question of what I believe but of whether you accomplished what you set out to do in the title of the OP. You did not.

spirit-salamander

It is not a question of what I believe but of whether you accomplished what you set out to do in the title of the OP. You did not. — Fooloso4

That's fair, I agree with you. I have now changed the title of my OP.

Gnomon

I am glad to see evidence that his reason does compel him to label his enformer, as a god of the gaps posit, and I also applaud him for that with NO MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. I am sure you mean your :clap: in the same way. — universeness

To the contrary, I explicitly stated that my non-theist god-quest was provoked by the god-gap problem in Big Bang cosmology*1. My Enformer or Programmer is indeed a gap-filler or law-giver. It's similar to Plato's "Logos", except that his was based on the notion of Logical Necessity, not an origin-theory gap. It also plays the role of Aristotle's "Prime Mover", as an alternative to eternal regression of causation. The ancient Greek origin story was rather abstract, suggesting that our orderly world emerged from an eternal state of Chaos. Basically, I was philosophically motivated by the realization that the Big Bang theory --- and it's subsequent gap-fillers --- did not explain the existence/origin of our evolving world*2.

As usual, 180's ad hominem homily -- with sarcastic malice intended -- casts shade, but no light. Although he severely criticizes my personal Information-theoretical god-model, I've never been able to parse-out his own belief on the god-gap question. Does he simply assume that the universe is self-existent? Which could imply that, due to intrinsic Entropy, it is also suicidal. He often quotes Spinoza about his Pantheistic nature-god-model, as do I. But his Angry Atheist act suggests that he is not indifferent to the world-origin god-gap question, which Spinoza did not address -- simply assuming without evidence that Nature/God is eternal. In that case, 180 may pin-up some kind of god-image to throw spleen-darts at. What do you think, is it on the alt-god list, or none of the above, or all of the above? :smile:

*1. Stephen Hawking's big bang gaps :
The laws that explain the universe's birth are less comprehensive than Stephen Hawking suggests. . . . there is no compelling need for a supernatural being or prime mover to start the universe off. But when it comes to the laws that explain the big bang, we are in murkier waters.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/04/stephen-hawking-big-bang-gap

*2. The Big Bang says nothing about the creation of the cosmos :
cosmology says nothing about how the cosmos came to be
https://bigthink.com/13-8/big-bang-does-not-explain-cosmic-creation/

↪180 Proof

universeness

↪Gnomon

Many folks are content to assign no significant credence level to any current proposal for the origin of the universe. 'I don't know' and 'I have heard no convincing proposals, yet.' These are perfectly valid positions and are in line with atheism.
I personally assign most credence to eternal cyclical/oscillating universe models like CCC, with no need for a first cause spark. But I am not fully locked in to the proposal. No enformer required, such would be superfluous.
I will let @180 Proof answer your question as and if he chooses to.

Fooloso4

I find the idea of a self-destructive god interesting but do not think it represents a serious challenge unless the rational theist is one who holds that the only function of god was to create the world.

Relativist

A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin. — spirit-salamander

You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this implies it is logically impossible for it to have been caused (there's no time prior to an initial point of time).

spirit-salamander

↪Fooloso4

My argument tries to build on the creative function that has been performed, regardless of the other functions that could have been performed. Why is that not enough in your view?

Some scholars I quote find that ex nihilo can only mean ex deo. This forces them to abandon theism and adopt panentheism:

“In any case, one thing seems clear: there is a problem with reconciling CEN with EEN. The reconciliation sketched here involves reading creatio ex nihilo as creatio ex Deo. The solution is not pantheistic, but panentheistic. It is not that all is God, but that all is in God.” (Maverick Philosopher – Creation ex nihilo or ex deo)

Of course, drawing the line between theism and panentheism is difficult. I would imagine that many do not find my argument seriously challenging because their God is already a panentheist God without them being aware of it.

After all, there are also biblical passages that are panentheistic:

"In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). “One God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:6). “…Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11). Theses verses hint us toward panentheism (not pantheism), the idea that the universe is in God and God is in every part of the universe, that God interpenetrates every part of nature, yet is distinct from it." (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)

spirit-salamander

You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this implies it is logically impossible for it to have been caused (there's no time prior to an initial point of time). — Relativist

My argument takes place within the framework of a more or less loose or strict theism. I have not made that too clear.

If you believe that God cannot be a cause of the world, my argument is doomed to fail for you from the start.

My criticism of theism would be that God can only transform himself into the world, either completely or in such a way that he is "injured" to such an extent that he must perish. This could be understood as causation.

Fooloso4

Why is that not enough in your view? — spirit-salamander

My view has nothing to do with it. It is the view of the rational theist that you are addressing. Now unless you define a rational theist as someone who holds that God creates the world and then does nothing more, the question of something more is on the table. If a rational theist holds that creating the world is not all that God does, then a self-destructive God will be rejected.

A likely point of attack would be C1 and C2. The idea of simplicity. It does not follow from the idea of simplicity that God cannot create out of himself without becoming other than himself.

spirit-salamander

A likely point of attack would be C1 and C2. The idea of simplicity. It does not follow from the idea of simplicity that God cannot create out of himself without becoming other than himself. — Fooloso4

Let's say God is not simple, but that he has parts. Would you agree with the injury problem that is stated below?

“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo) — spirit-salamander

If a God with parts “injures” himself at creation, then a God without parts must directly “die”, must he not?

Fooloso4

↪spirit-salamander

For the sake of the argument let's assume there is a simple, divine substance. What knowledge of it might we possibly have? We cannot take what is true of the substances it creates as the standard of what it is capable of or how it is able to create a world that is other than it is.

An argument from a substance that creates the world out of its own parts is not the same as an argument without parts except for the part about parts.

To create out of itself does not mean to lose a part or the whole of itself in the act of creation. It means to create out of its own capacity to create something, not to make of itself something other than it is.

A challenge to rational theism. Only a defunct God is possible, not a presently existing one.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions