What do you think of the idea that God died to become the universe?

[Htom Sirveaux]

I've been playing around with this idea, and it would seem to answer both the origin and nature of the universe, as well as account for why we aren't being directly/objectively interacted with by God as an agent, either in word or deed.

But how can an eternal thing die? By becoming limited and non-eternal. If God becomes the universe, then God is subjected to time and limited by the physical laws that define the reality we interact with.

I also find it interesting that this has echoes of the idea of "God as Jesus" dying and being raised so that the early church could experience him in a new way (through the holy spirit). God incarnates as the universe (which is also the death part), and then is experienced in a new way through the harmony of the physical laws and the quest for inner/social/ecological harmony among humans (the holy spirit part). Such harmonies symbolize the original unity of God before the limiting that defines the universe.

[The Traveler]

1. In an ancient Hebrew text

the following is written. I am sure something is lost in translation, but I still find it moving. "God is the One who suffered the pain of Division, that It may come to know the Joy of Union." I find that a more satisfying metaphor. And very beautiful.

I encountered this in William Irwin Thompson's text "The Time Falling Bodies Take to Light". It's a thought provoking read, even though subsequent archaeological discoveries undermine some of his thesis. I recommend it highly to all those who are interested in exploring the intersection of science and mysticism.

This notion of consciousness falling into matter was specifically explored by the Sufi poet Rumi, and Andrew Harvey's book "The Way of Passion" provides a compelling overview of Rumi's poetry and mysticism. Again, I recommend it highly. Fair warning, though. Harvey is gay, and makes no attempt to avoid the homoerotic element of Rumi's poetry and life. I'm securely straight and stuff like that doesn't bother me. I mention this because it does disturb some people, and they lose track of the beauty of the message, which is perhaps best summed up in Bede Griffith's death bed admonition: "Serve the growing Christ". And that was Griffith's answer to Rumi's ancient question: "Who will bear water to those on fire?" It turns out that's our job, man, even if we ourselves burn.

Clearly, science and religion are in conflict in this day and age. It's a silly conflict in my view, and the fault lies not with the scientist. They are just following the method, and the evidence. If your faith requires that you cling to 6000 year old cosmologies, your faith is in trouble. We've learned a few things since then. I advocate avoiding those controversies and sticking to what is important ... helping your fellow human being triumph, and thereby achieving that Union of which those ancient Hebrews wrote.

Trav

[LostOne4Ever]

2. How does it answer the origin/nature of the universe

Anymore than an argument not invoking a god?

It still remains that if all things must have a beginning, what created god? If we hold that god is the eternal why can we not hold that the universe is eternal and cut out the middle man?

But how can an eternal thing die? By becoming limited and non-eternal.

Sounds doubly contradictory to me. If something is enternal it is by definition forever not limited. Nor can it become limited. Thus in becoming limited it was not unlimited in the first place. However, if we hold that it can not become limited it is limited in that it can not become limited and thus a contradiction occurs.

Sorry need to post this pic after saying all that:



^cartoon monkey known for being very redundant in his speaking patterns (for those who don't get the joke)


Put another way, can an all powerful being create a rock so heavy that it itself can not lift it?

Im not saying its not possible, but as with all other theisms I just don't see any evidence for it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. Some things do not have a beginning.

For example, existence/causality. Anything that could cause that to exist would have to already exist with causal power. Things which do not exist have no causal power. In a state where absolutely nothing existed, nothing would ever come out of it (and I'm talking no laws of quantum physics either. This isn't a "but virtual particles come out of nothing!" situation). Therefore, if anything with causal power has ever existed, something must have always existed with causal power.

Then, as you say, "but why can't the universe be that eternal thing?" I don't find the philosophical arguments that an eternal universe is impossible to be compelling, but science seems to be pointing in the direction of our universe having a beginning in the Big Bang. I know that many scientists are working on what came before the big bang, and if they discover something that disagrees with there being an absolute beginning to everything (for example, if universes turn out to be created in black holes, and reality is an endless stack of universes within universes), I will of course defer.

But as it stands now, it seems more plausible that there was a beginning, because of Occam's Razor. As I explain below, time being unlimited seems to require that at least two things always exist, so that each one's time can be measured by the other. But why should we assume that there are at least two things out there that inherently exist? A simpler explanation would be that just one thing has always existed, and time is not eternal, just a function of the one thing changing itself or causing something else to exist.

Regarding a potential contradiction in whether an eternal thing can limit itself, if only one thing exists, there is nothing else to measure its existence against, therefore no time. As soon as either another separate thing exists, or the first thing changes itself, then time happens and exists for the first thing even though it previously had no time.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

28. Close, but no cigar.

At times I consider myself a theist, other times not, so take this with about a ton of salt.
What you said comes about as close as anything to what I've thought, which is actually quite simple: most of us imagine God, and all the attendant beings, angels, dybbuks, whatever, to be not-matter.
Now if you're not material, you obviously don't care about time, which Einstein showed to be a property of matter. Which explains why God is "eternal", not because it lives forever, but because for God time simply doesn't figure into anything. Which also explains why non-material beings would know both the future and the past.
Outside of time would be a better description than eternal, which presupposes time in the first place.

[CFLDem]

43. Lol thanks for the monkey.

I totally forgot about that show! Good times good times...

[uriel1972]

3. Well as long…

As you don't burn people alive for disagreeing with you, I can only say "Whatever floats your boat."
It's a nice scenario that occurs also in the ideas of the Kabbalah and Gnostic Christianity. All very warm and fuzzy and inclusive.
However there is no evidence for it.

[Feral Child]

4. As good as any mythology

if it comforts you. I don't see the need for it, but I'm not the Alpha and Omega.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. i think it is useless.

It explains exactly nothing. Arguably it is less than useless as it introduces a non-explanatory complication.

[Htom Sirveaux]

10. Well, the existence of the original thing doesn't have an explanation, that's true.

Because as I said, at some point you run out of explanatory power. Existence and causality can't be explained, because any explanation would require the use of the very existence and causality you are trying to explain in the first place.

But we go back as far as we can, explanation-wise, and prefer the simplest explanation.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It continues to explain nothing.

"god did it and he died" is just as explanatory about the creation of this universe as "god did it", which is to say it explains nothing, adds nothing other than an unneeded new variable, and as it offers no explanation for this "god that creates universes and dies" own existence, does not get at a first cause either.

As for the other part "and he died" which explains why we can't find any evidence of this god, it only explains something if one accepts that god existed, which since you are off trying to provide yet another proof of that claim, is circular.

Further, if universes come into existence all the time, god did it and died just falls apart. How about god did it and doesn't give a shit? That would also fit the data (but remain useless) and does not suffer from the multiverse problem. Obviously less satisfactory to those desperately in need of an omnipotent being.

[Htom Sirveaux]

14. But that's the value of this view.

"god did it and he died" is just as explanatory about the creation of this universe as "god did it", which is to say it explains nothing, adds nothing other than an unneeded new variable,

In this view, God isn't a new or separate variable. There's only one variable here, and as TygrBright said, it transforms. "God" is the word for the original state.

and as it offers no explanation for this "god that creates universes and dies" own existence, does not get at a first cause either.

I addressed this in the post above this one when I said that we run out of explanatory power at this point. It's a consequence of the idea that something that does not exist has no power to cause anything. You can't explain the first and only thing in existence with reference to anything else, because there is nothing else.

As for the other part "and he died" which explains why we can't find any evidence of this god, it only explains something if one accepts that god existed, which since you are off trying to provide yet another proof of that claim, is circular.

It suggests that "no evidence!" is not conclusive with regard to this conception of God.

Further, if universes come into existence all the time, god did it and died just falls apart. How about god did it and doesn't give a shit? That would also fit the data (but remain useless) and does not suffer from the multiverse problem. Obviously less satisfactory to those desperately in need of an omnipotent being.

Unless all existent universes begin at the same point, in which case, they can't be organized according to time. Otherwise, there would be some kind of "meta-time" which is not what General Relativity indicates, as far as I understand it. Beginning at the same point would suggest that even a multiverse has the origin I've been suggesting for our universe.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. OK then how about we replace "GOD" with "Pokemon"?

I'm actually fine with the Pokemon explanation for our universe popping out of nothing as it does not come with the 10,000 years of baggage GOD comes with, plus it is far more indicative of the actual value of the theory.

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. This makes it seem like

your main objection to what I've been saying is that you don't like the word "God" because you have too many unpleasant associations with it. I've answered your other objections here, do you have any specific responses to my answers?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. No, because you seem to want to insert GOD into "I don't understand this" and I am suggesting

that that approach is basically dishonest. Insert "Pokémon". The value that substitution provides is identical to the value GOD provides, without all the god-baggage. I don't see why you would object, unless your agenda is to stick your god into this gap in your understanding in order to "prove" that your god actually exists.

[Htom Sirveaux]

30. You can call it "Pokemon" or "Thor" or "Zeus" or whomever you like...

as long as you redefine those words to fit the issues of existence and causality that I've been discussing. Otherwise, you'd just be creating a strawman by substituting cultural mythology and failing to fairly engage what I've been saying. Or is that the point, possibly in retribution for theists creating strawmen about atheists?

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. How about calling it "the previous universe"?

That's what you seem to be describing - an object that was everything there was (though tenses like 'was' contain baggage about time, which may not be wise), but which is not present in this universe in any way - and 'god' gives the impression of an entity that exists in this universe. And if you think it 'died', then the limit of its existence is the creation of this one. So 'previous' seems a reasonable adjective for it (although it too has implications of time - the 'causing' universe, perhaps?)

[goldent]

6. I like your kind of idea

I think if God is ever proved to exist, it will be via physics. In other words, they will come to a point where they can prove that a "God" thing exists. Not necessarily the God we believe in, but of course we will immediately try to make the connection. The Big Bang was a step in this direction. Just now I read a little about the Big Bang in wikipedia and found this fascinating:

In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[49] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.[50] Arthur Eddington agreed with Aristotle that the universe did not have a beginning in time, viz., that matter is eternal. A beginning in time was "repugnant" to him.[51][52]

[TygrBright]

7. The way you put it yourself, it's not "death" but "transformation."

Being a believer myself I've always inclined toward the concept of Universe-as-God, so it's harmonious to me.

amiably,
Bright

[Iggo]

8. Not much, to tell you the truth.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. Fair enough.

I don't mind my ideas being called "wrong" in the least.

[Iggo]

15. Sorry, I could've been nicer about that.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. No worries!

You could have said far worse. I thought what you did say was actually pretty polite.

[mr blur]

12. Pathetic, desperate and rather sad.

[MisterP]

18. cabbala--it's theoretical physics, for theology!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzimtzum

[edhopper]

19. It presupposes

that the concept of a God has some validity. So you first must offer some evidence that God is a viable idea. Without that, why introduce God into the equation?

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. Did you read this post?

I explain further here

[edhopper]

22. Are you talking about God

as a sentient being, or just whatever the cause of the Universe was, with no pretense of a conscious entity?

[Htom Sirveaux]

23. I don't have a firm opinion on that one yet.

Still working it out, and I'm very aware of the dangers of projecting human ideas of mind as I do so.

[edhopper]

25. Well if you are just talking about some physical property

that brought about the Universe, why call it God. Unless you are speculating a supernatural variable, this is just cosmological and better suited for the Science Forum.
If you are talking about a being of some sort, than my original objection stands.

[Htom Sirveaux]

33. I think this really gets to the heart of the matter.

The difference between atheists and theists does to really center around how the universe was created. It's "was whatever created the universe an agent or not?" Is the creator more like a computer or more like a human being? Does it make choices like we perceive ourselves as making or not?

Like I said, I don't have a firm opinion on this. It seems that in order to have enough information to decide the question, you'd have to first detect the multiverse, if such a thing exists. If it doesn't, then I'd consider that evidence that an agent was at work and created only one out of the multitude of possible universes.

If the multiverse does exist, then you'd need to be able to have watched it come into being, and see if defective universes were created that promptly fell apart. That'd be our first clue that the creator was some kind of automatic process akin to natural selection. If no such universes were created, then it would it at least be possible that agent-like choices were being made.

So yeah, insanely difficult question.

[edhopper]

40. Physicist have dealt with the something

From nothing problem. And as far as I know they haven't found the need for a deity in any of the theories or explanations.Hawkins has even stated that none were involved.
Just seems to be an unnecessary factor being shoehorned into the process because people need to have God fit into things.
What evidence is there that there was any intelligence involved in creation of the Universe?

[Htom Sirveaux]

41. So according to the physicists,

does God have causal power despite not existing? Could God be causing virtual particles despite not existing?

If not, then however virtual particles come into being, they don't come from nothing. If they truly did, the difference between existence and non-existence would be meaningless. Everything existent and everything non-existent would be equally causal.

So no, physicists have not dealt with the "something from nothing" problem.
----
Meanwhile, the fact that the universe has a comprehensible, intelligible structure for us to discover could be evidence that something with the power to comprehend and define such structure was behind it. Whether computer-like or human-like, I don't know, but the mathematical equations have been there, whether we were around to perceive them or not.

Is that conclusive? No. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, it could be that illogical universes get created alongside the logical ones, and fall apart immediately, in a process approximating natural selection. That's why I said that I don't know whether the inherently existing thing is an agent or not.

[edhopper]

42. There is no need to postulate a God

In any of this.
There are greater minds than mine that have written extensively on this, Daniel Dennet for one comes to mind.
Your logic seems terribly flawed and you physics anthropomorphic.

Nothing I have seen you write here looks like anything but an attempt to find a Place for God where one is not needed in explaining the Universe.
An elaborate God of the gaps, and nothing more.

Sorry, but I just don't see this as valid speculation.

[NoOneMan]

26. What difference does it make?

If God is dead, God is dead and you can go about your day no matter, and stop talking about things of no further consequence.

[elleng]

27. 'God' did not die, COULD not die, 'God' is Nature itself.

[wandy]

29. The universe was created in six days. Well, "god days", however long that might be............

Fact is the Creator of the Universe got off to a late start but had the time to set down a few laws of mathematics giving great attention to the laws of probability. Non the less, by 07:00 the Creator of the Universe was having breakfast at, where else, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
What went on for the rest of those six days?
Well. Kings, Popes, despots, pretty much human kind in general filled in the blanks.
Until the seventh day. That was when the Creator of the Universe rested.
Leaving us in charge as Stewards.
Leaving us to determine the faith of all things.

We should be careful not to mess things up.

[longship]

31. Do you mean other than a complete lack of evidence?

Science does not work by way of the making shit up paradigm. That has long since been falsified as a methodology. The only arbiter in science is nature herself. She is the final decider, born out by data. The extent to which your hypothesis is not born out by the data, is the extent to which it is falsified.

The god hypothesis does not rise to a level of tentative hypotheses, let alone one which merits consideration. It is not an hypothesis at all. It is merely making shit up, long since falsified.

William of Okham put it quite succinctly. Thou shall not multiply entities unnecessarily. He did that in the 14th century CE. It has since become one of the most important maxims of methodological naturalism, the scientific method.

When one argues that god died to create the universe, one is adding a huge additional, and unnecessary, entity to the equation. Sir William of Okham's razor slices it right off.

[Htom Sirveaux]

32. I much appreciate the Razor.

I used it to slice off the idea of an eternal universe.

Such a universe would require unlimited time, which means that at least two things have to be inherently existing so that the time of each could be measured by the other. Instead of two inherently existing things, it would be much simpler if there was just one, and time began when the one inherently existing thing either split into two or more things, or somehow caused something other than itself to come into existence.

Far from being unnecessary, the one existent thing turns out to be the least necessary.

[longship]

34. The multiverse hypothesis slices that one off, quite a close shave.

Granted, unnecessarily multiplying entities seems to be a bit profligate in a multiple universe scenerio. Nevertheless, there seems to be multiple hypotheses which lead one to multiple universes. At best, one cannot cut them off... At least not yet. If this latest gravitational wave evidence in the CMB is upheld, there may be hell to pay for those who deny multiple universes.

It is still in question, as it it should be. We will see, hopefully eventually.

I recommend Sean Carroll's Blog for much deeper details. It is entitled "Preposterous Universe" and includes "S=k Log W" on its masthead. Enough said?

[Htom Sirveaux]

35. Yep, multiple inherently existing universes is even worse

than the single eternal universe, with just two inherently existing entities. And the single inherently existing entity is still the Occam's Razor champ.

Nonetheless, I don't think a single inherently existing entity is incompatible with the multiverse. Why not the creation of multiple universes from a common origin, the one inherently existing thing?

[longship]

38. I prefer the Alexander Bullock hypothesis.

From the awesome 1936 flick My Man Godfrey, with William Powell, Carole Lombard, and a superb script and supporting cast, including Eugene Pallette as Bullock.

To quote him:

All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people.

We seem to have all the elements in place.

Some visuals.


Pallette w/ family.


Lombard and Powell.


A great flick.

Damn! Cannot seem to get a pic of Bullock to load. It's still a classic film. Finally. Blurred but it is what it is. The Criterion Collection DVD is wonderfully restored.

You can watch it all here: http://www.criterion.com/films/653-my-man-godfrey

[rug]

39. I bet that Franciscan friar said a lot of Masses as well.

[mike_c]

36. it sounds just as plausible as every other creation myth....

eom

[Lilyhoney]

37. Read this book...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris


It surmises that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient God 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", hence the title.


Written by Scott Adams. I read it and gave it a lot of thought. I think you will enjoy it.


Lilyhoney

[LiberalAndProud]

44. I think you need to flesh this out a little bit.

Sing the song of harmony and flesh it out with some interesting allegorical tales. Your vision of god is every bit as marketable of Joseph Smith's. You could make a fortune.

As to whether you have a handle on some facet of some truth somewhere, I'm not sold. Somebody, somewhere will be.