A challenge to rational theism. Only a defunct God is possible, not a presently existing one.
[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 fitout 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:
Theres an objectionIll call it the Injury Problemthat I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the xs are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the xs, then God loses whatever functions or features the xs 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 dont really contribute to Gods 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 dont really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himselfreplace 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 Gods 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)
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 fitout 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:
Theres an objectionIll call it the Injury Problemthat I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the xs are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the xs, then God loses whatever functions or features the xs 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 dont really contribute to Gods 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 dont really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himselfreplace 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 Gods 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)
Comments (47)
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. Its 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
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.)
Quoting 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 cant 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. Its 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.
Quoting 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?
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
What do you think of the God has parts God has no parts discussion in the philosophy of religion?
I think it's nonsensical. Just substitute "pants" for "parts" ...
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?
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".
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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}
Quoting 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).
[i]"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 cant 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 thats 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."[/i]
https://www.gestaltreality.com/articles/the-universe-as-god/
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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).
Quoting Gnomon
Infinite power could mean an infinite number of power components.
Quoting Gnomon
The Quantitative over the qualitative, after all.
Quoting Gnomon
inexhaustible Potential = an actual infinite set of potentials?
Quoting Gnomon
I agree. That is why I wrote in my argument:
Quoting spirit-salamander
The non-physical can be transmuted into the physical.
Quoting Gnomon
In fact, those who assume God without parts say that God with parts could be something like Thor.
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:
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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 :
Aristotles 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
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.
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
Finally confessing your own "Enformer" god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Good for you, sir. :clap: :smirk:
@universeness
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.
I would argue that it is simply impossible for us to conceive. The universe need not conform to our limited understanding.
Quoting spirit-salamander
A clumsy side step dance attempting to avoid the problem of ex nihilo nihil fit that arises from the assumption that:
Quoting spirit-salamander
and a questionable interpretation of Genesis 1.1.
Quoting spirit-salamander
What knowledge do you have of a transcendent substance and what it is capable of?
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?
Quoting Fooloso4
What clumsy side step dance? I don't understand what you mean.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Is your god constrained by logic?
Quoting 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.
Quoting spirit-salamanderQuoting Fooloso4
One of the basic rules of thinking I follow is not to draw conclusions about things we can know nothing of.
Quoting 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.
Quoting spirit-salamander
It is not about your interpretation. The issue predates us.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting spirit-salamander
What follows from implausible premises is not plausible.
Quoting 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.
That's fair, I agree with you. I have now changed the title of my OP.
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/
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.
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).
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)
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.
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.
Let's say God is not simple, but that he has parts. Would you agree with the injury problem that is stated below?
Quoting spirit-salamander
If a God with parts injures himself at creation, then a God without parts must directly die, must he not?
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.
Okay, maybe I just need to lower the standard of my argument a bit.
Since my argument from simplicity would only be a possibility and not a necessity (assuming you are correct in your critique), and since the classical cosmological proofs of God strictly speaking do not prove a present existence of God (see last quotes in the OP; and provided that they otherwise work), the rational theist (hitherto always believing in the provability of a presently existing God), as I have called him/her, cannot be sure of a present God, and must therefore now believe fideistically (irrationally?) in it.
What is it you hope to gain from making these arguments?
In the specific case here, simply defending the (new) title of my post. I am also looking for counter-arguments, which you have thankfully given me. These can then lead me to approach the matter somewhat differently. And, of course, I hope to gain the impression that the reader is enriched with something new, something she has not heard countless times before.
And in general, I hope that the idea of a defunct God will be further explored and elaborated within the philosophy of religion (what I have found in textbooks and treatises so far is rather meager). So, expanding the conceptual landscape in the service of truth. This can possibly be accelerated if a general public is interested. It's a bit odd that the great David Hume has already taken up this idea in his popular dialogues on religion without it getting much attention. Perhaps it is because he mentioned it in an amusing way.
But he actually saw it as a genuine alternative to the result of the usual teleological/intelligent design proof of God, that is my interpretation.
There is another, much older, trope of a dead god. That one was put into service and gained critical historical significance.
To what end do you think this idea of a defunct god serves? How do you see it as an alternative to teleological/intelligent design arguments? It could be argued that an acorn dies or is transformed in order to become an oak. The same teleological argument can be made about a god who dies or is transformed to become something else.
You seem to be alluding to something obviously familiar, yet I can't figure it out. Christ dying on the cross? Or Indian mythology? Or from indigenous cultures?
Quoting Fooloso4
Probably not a practical end, rather only a theoretical one. But I would have to think about that further.
I would have to proceed systematically and ask what end is served by the idea of a world without God, who was not before, is not beside, nor will be after.
And what end is served by the idea of a presently existing God.
If I think about it carefully, the idea of a defunct God can yield the same values as theism or atheism. It would therefore simply cause more confusion.
Quoting Fooloso4
I was thinking more of Hume's specific argument, if I recall it correctly. It's been a long time since I read it. Hume (or the character in the Dialogues with whom Hume can most readily be equated) admits that there is order in the natural world. Order seems to refer to an ordering principle. Theism says this principle is a perfect being co-existing with the world. Hume now brings alternatives. There could be a plurality of fundamental ordering principles (atomism?) Or the principle that orders the world is of inferior nature. And finally, that principle perished in creating order, which is now independent through conservation principles.
Quoting Fooloso4
Interesting approach, the world or its emergence would thus have something necessary, inevitable.
I don't see how you derive what you call "D" here. If God is One, and was active prior to His creation, what prevents Him from being active currently?
What I see first is contradiction within B 2:
If all that exists at a given time, is one substance, then all is one. Accordingly, it is impossible that one becomes two. or any other multiplicity, unless there is something which is other than the one, which serves as a boundary, or divisor, within the one, to make two, or the proposed multiplicity. Therefore it is contradictory to say that One can transform itself into Many. This proposition implies that the One is not really one, or the Many is not really many.
Because of this, we need to look more closely at your principle that God is simple. You say that God must be simple, as the "most original principle". But this as well is contradictory. The nature of "a principle" is such that it always consists of parts. There cannot be a principle which does not have constituent parts which comprise the principle.
So, allow me to return to my original objection. To "be active" is a principle which implies the necessity of parts. There is a number of things implied within this concept "active". There is a substance which is active, there is space to be active in, and there is time. If God was active, then those three required parts of the principle "active" are necessary.
I conclude that your argument is misdirected in a number of ways.
I leave open whether God was active in every way appropriate to him prior to his creation. At least as far as creation is concerned, he was inactive prior to it. Sounds logical to me anyway, and that's how I understand my construction.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps the following quote will be helpful:
"According to stuff monism there is only one kind of stuff (e.g. material stuff ), although there may be
many things. According to thing monism there is strictly speaking only one thing. Spinoza is an exemplary thing monist." (Galen Strawson - Nietzsches Metaphysics?)
You mean thing-monism, whereas I mean stuff-monism.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why should God, as One, not be His own divisor or boundary-puller, directed towards Himself?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Actually, I wanted to avoid evoking too many technicalities with the term "principle". If it causes too many problems, I shall simply say "most original source" instead.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Even if a principle must always have parts, I refer to the Injury Problem:
Quoting spirit-salamander
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay, then I say God was totally inactive before creation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Would you agree thatcreatio ex nihilo in the strict sense can only mean creatio ex deo?
The scholars or experts in the philosophy of religion: Daniel Soars, Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker, Bill Vallacella (Maverick Philosopher) whom I quote in the OP see it that way. They all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the logical problem. The same applies to the mystic Jakob Boehme.
If in theism stuff of God is the "material" for creation, and considering the following:
Quoting spirit-salamander
Doesn't it follow that God must use himself up completely in creation?
The alternative is panentheism: for in panentheism, creatures are not absolutely distinct from God, as in theism. Rather, there is a kind of continuum of the world to God.
Yes.
You might find this interesting. In Kabbalah, Jewish mysticism, the problem of creation is dealt with differently. Ein Sof (without end) withdraws itself in order for there to be room to create the world.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I was thinking along the lines of a theological one.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I think this is the background against which the former question can be asked. Everything from an absentee landlord to protector and provider.
Quoting spirit-salamander
Right. That was one of the things I was getting at with the question.
Quoting spirit-salamander
I think this overstates the case. The point is that the idea of a defunct god does not do away with teleology. Theology made use of teleology but it was with Aristotle a natural rather than theological principle. It is of the nature of an acorn to become an oak. But not every acorn becomes an oak and there is nothing necessary about there being acorns and oaks.
If God is necessarily one, then He cannot divide Himself. If He is capable of dividing Himself, you cannot describe Him as necessarily one.
Quoting spirit-salamander
This is an expression of the same problem. It assumes that God is one, and many at the same time. But until the proper principle is applied, which could allow the same thing to be one and many at the same time, the problem described is just fictional, a derivative of the base contradiction of being one and many at the same time.
Quoting spirit-salamander
This doesn't resolve anything, because now you need a cause to make God become active.
Quoting spirit-salamander
You'd have to explain to me these proposals before I could assess them properly.
Quoting spirit-salamander
No, because we haven't properly accounted for how "parts" as distinct individuals could exist as a united "whole". Until we establish the proper relationship between parts and whole, such speculation is useless.
The point is that we describe these relations in spatial terms, then we want to transpose spatial relations to establish a temporal priority. But you have provided no principles of commensurability to relate spatial terms to temporal terms.
So for example, you describe God as one whole. This would imply no space within God, as separating one part from another, because this would indicate that god is a multitude. Then (implying temporal posteriority), God divides into parts. But where does the space within God come from? Now we say, that this space is due to the fact that God is active. But space within God implies that God is a multitude, rather than one. So we go around in a vicious circle which is unresolvable, until we remove the idea that God is one. Then God is necessarily a multitude. But how do we call this multitude by one name, "God"? This can be resolved by looking at the possibility of a relationship which is other than spatial.
I appreciate the clarification. It allows for philosophical dialog, without getting into political posturing. I too have constructed an alternative god-model for my own worldview, and I enjoy sharing views without getting into condemnations. However, some materialist posters see no need for a god-posit at all. As Feynman advised, in order to avoid feckless hypothetical speculations, "just shut-up and calculate". They accept reality as it appears on the surface, and don't try to look for underlying principles that are not empirically verifiable. But this is a philosophical forum, so we don't calculate, we speculate.
I agree that traditional Theism is inappropriate for our modern world. Therefore, it is indeed due for a philosophical & scientific update. For example, my god-model terminology derives mostly from 21st century Quantum and Information Theories. Moreover, as an alternative to traditional religious Theism, my Deistic god-model is a non-intervening abstract philosophical principle. That's not a concept to inspire hope in the down-trodden masses. Just a way to make sense of some paradoxes & contradictions of our amazing, but imperfect world. Here, I take your list of postulates as an outline for presenting some of my own ideas. As you will see, my theory departs from yours mainly in the last item.
A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.
*** Since the physical world is limited by Entropy, its time to exist must also be limited.
A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.
*** The Act of Creation is confirmed by BB theory. Only the nature of the Actor remains to be updated. The Genesis myth was based on experience with ruling tyrants in ancient Mesopotamia. Surely, we can come up with a more modern notion of creation and causation.
B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible.
*** Yes, but creation from infinite Potential is not only possible but scientifically credible, since materialistic classical Physics was undermined by statistical Quantum Physics. Mathematics is no-thing, yet it includes all possible values. And the basic elements of physical reality (particles) seem to exist in a never-land state of suspended existence, until realized by an observation. Quantum Fields, Virtual Particles, and Superposition are about as close to nothingness as you can get within Space-time. But they are full of possibilities.
B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible.
*** Yes, transformation is what energy does. And Energy could be construed as "transcendent substance" prior to its transformation into mundane Matter. In its Potential states of position, charge, "zero point", etc. Energy is invisible & intangible. For example, a Virtual particle has no charge, but after transformation into a Real particle, it may possess the causal property of charge. We only know that ghostly Energy has passed through, like a tornado in the night, by observing the after-effects.
C 1. God is absolutely simple. Otherwise, He would not be the first and most original principle.
*** Simple = unified or integrated as in a holistic Singularity. I interpret the Big Bang evidence as implying that the Energy Source of Creation was/is a complete infinite Whole, within which at least one Holon (our world) exists. In that case the Source is also the Origin, and being transcendent, a universal Principle instead of a space-time Thing. Note, if necessary, I'll address the definitions of Potential & Holons in another post.
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.
*** This supposes a physically limited God. If the whole from which our world emerged was physical/material, it would have a limited supply of substance from which to construct a world. But, if the Whole consists of infinite metaphysical Potential, it would not be diminished by the transformation of infinite Possibility into finite Actualities. That's what happens when a quantum system in statistical superposition transforms into the specific state we know as a Particle. But the infinite Potential (Energy) remains at 100% (second law of thermodynamics).
D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe.
*** I prefer to think of the Creator as a non-physical Principle, similar to abstract Logos. and an infinite Potential, like Chaos (infinite being without finite order).
The math of Statistics assumes a range from 0% to 100%. But, since the math is Ideal, it is not subject to physical laws. You can subtract 10% from 100% over & over without making the whole any less complete.
Quantum Physics uses the concept of an Infinite Potential Well to describe the unlimited mathematical range within physical particles could possibly exist.
PS__I suspect that your demoted deity theory is similar in motivation to my own Whole/Holon theory : to fill the god-gap in Big Bang theory. However, I label my god-model as PanEnDeism, instead of Pantheism or Pandeism.
Non-supernatural Theism :
The belief that God became the Universe is a theological doctrine that has been developed several times historically, and holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe. Historically, for versions of this theory where God has ceased to exist or to act as a separate and conscious entity, some have used the term pandeism, which combines aspects of pantheism and deism, to refer to such a theology. A similar concept is panentheism, which has the creator become the universe only in part, but remain in some other part transcendent to it, as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe
Quoting spirit-salamander
I am now thinking of a different approach: You write:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps the act of dividing should be viewed merely metaphorically.
And on the other hand, perhaps what is traditionally said about God (in relation to his creation) metaphorically could be understood literally.
For this, I refer to passages by David Bentley Hart from his book THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS. The bold highlights were added by me.
"Another, very traditional way of putting the matter is to say that created things exist by subtraction: that is, they are finite and somewhat diffuse expressions of an infinite and indivisible reality, and their individual essences are simply special limits graciously set to the boundless power of being that flows from God, special definite modes in which God condescends to share his infinitely expressive plenitude. Orone more very venerable metaphorGod is the infinite ocean of being while creatures are finite vessels containing existence only in limited measure." (David Bentley Hart - THE EXPERIENCE OF GOD BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS, BLISS)
subtraction comes from the Latin subtrahere and means as much as:
carry off
subtract
take away
To carry off or take away from God, I guess. There is no other way to make sense.
"their individual essences are simply special limits graciously set to the boundless power of being that flows from God"
The boundless power of being and God should be identical, shouldn't they?
God "condescends to share his infinitely expressive plenitude".
What does the dictionary say:
"condescend
1: to assume an air of superiority
The writer treats her readers as equals and never condescends to them.
2
a: to descend to a less formal or dignified level: UNBEND
would not condescend to respond to such a crass remark
b: to waive the privileges of rank"
God gives of his simplicity (which is his being) in sharing "to waive the privileges of rank".
"God is the infinite ocean of being while creatures are finite vessels containing existence only in limited measure."
The vessels contain water from the ocean, which in itself is spaceless.
If we take what I quoted literally, we come closer to my argument.
"In the end, the crucial question is whether any of the relations that finite contingencies have to Gods infinite absolute being require alterations in God himself; and the traditional assumption is that God is not like some finite bounded substance that undergoes change as a result of external forces but is the transcendent source of the actuality of all substances and forces, and so he does not receive anything from outside himself, for everything is always in him and already realized in his own essence in an immeasurably more eminent way."
My argument assumes total alteration.
"What I want to emphasize here is that, whatever elaborations the different traditions have worked upon the idea of divine simplicityhowever ingenious or convoluted, clear or obscurethe elementary metaphysical premise remains constant: that God is not like a physical object, composed of parts and defined by limits, and so is dependent upon nothing and subject to neither substantial change nor dissolution. There is an old Aristotelian principle, which seems to me quite obviously true, that in any causal relation change occurs in the effect, not in the cause itself. If, when two finite substances are involved in a causal relation, each undergoes some change, this is because each is limited and lacking in some property the other can supply, and so each functions as both a cause and an effect in that relation. Ice melts upon a burning coal but also cools the coal; and neither can affect the other without being affected in turn. God, however, is not a limited physical substance, standing outside other such substances, and his particular spiritual intentions (acts of will and knowledge, that is) toward finite things involve no physical processes and no modifications of his substance from without. And if those intentions somehow determine anything about who God is, it certainly could not be a passive determination in any sense, but an eternal act of self-determination or self-expression. More important, they would certainly add nothing new in the order of real being to God, since the subtracted reality of finite things is always already embraced within the infinitely fuller reality of divine being."
"... [W]e can observe the divine simplicitys plural expressions and effects in contingent things, and from those abstract toward the reality of their unconditioned source.But, in the end, how that simplicity might be modulated within itself is strictly unimaginable for us. At that uncrossable intellectual threshold, religions fall back upon inscrutable doctrines, philosophers upon inadequate concepts, and mystics upon silence. Si comprehendis, non est deus, as Augustine says: If you comprehend it, it is not God."
Hart does not seem totally averse to a "modulation" of God. That's my impression.
"modulation
1
: an inflection of the tone or pitch of the voice
specifically : the use of stress or pitch to convey meaning
2
: a regulating according to measure or proportion : TEMPERING
3
: a change from one musical key to another by modulating
4
: the process of modulating a carrier or signal (as in radio)
also : the result of this process"
"modulate
verb
Definition of modulate
as in to regulate
to make changes to (something) in order to keep a desirable balance, proportion, etc.
He takes insulin to modulate his blood sugar levels.
She kept talking during the performance, making no effort to modulate her voice.
Synonyms & Similar Words
[b]
regulate
adjust
improve
correct
change
adapt
modify
tune
alter[/b]"
"I will add only that philosophers often tend to overburden the notion of the simplicity and immutability of Gods metaphysical substance with questions regarding whether God might have had a somewhat different personal identity had he chosen not to create as he did, and whether then his decisions change him from what he might otherwise be. After all, the choices we make seem subtly to determine who we are in relation to a world of things outside ourselves; whether our choices actually change us as spiritual substances is a rather difficult question, but they do at least shape our personal histories. Whatever the case, however, and as interesting as that question may be, even after one has stripped away all the anthropomorphic imagerythe imagery, that is, of God deliberating over what to do in the future, in accord with various internal and external limitations, until he vanquishes his uncertaintyit is not very germane at this point.
I would say it is very germane at this point.
Hart would say that I operate on "stubborn anthropomorphism". Then I say, So what.
If I omit anthropomorphism, it does not follow that God cannot become defunct. This is evident from the quotation from Augustine alone: If you comprehend it, it is not God. My argument may thus not be necessary, but possible.
Here is another fitting quote:
Quoting T Clark
I don't see how you come to the conclusion that God must be altered. To take away, or subtract from the infinite leaves it no less infinite. So if the defining feature of God is "infinite", subtracting from Him would leave Him still infinite, therefore unaltered. This is what Socrates argued of "the idea". It doesn't matter how many things partake of the same idea, the idea remains the same regardless.
But I had the impression that Hart left the question of an alteration in God somehow ambivalent. He has, of course, the clear tendency or conviction towards unchangeability, but he is apparently aware of the more or less justified theoretical problems of the critics.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is definitely true for the quantitative infinite, but I'm not so sure about the qualitative.
I am personally not sure whether Schopenhauer is right or wrong with the following quotations:
"Finite and infinite are concepts that have significance only in relation to space and time, in that both are infinite, i.e., endless, as well as infinitely divisible. If one still were to apply these two concepts to other objects, then the latter must be such as fill space and time and partake of their qualities. From this we are able to measure how great is the abuse perpetrated with these concepts by philosophasters and windbags in this century."
(Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume 2
Chapter 13
On philosophy and its method
§20 Annotations)
"Sometimes it is said to be the absolute, which we have recognized in § 20 above as the cosmological proof, compelled to travel incognito; and sometimes, however, it is said to be the infinite, in contrast to the finite, since the German reader, as a rule, is quite content with this verbiage and does not notice that in the end nothing can be clearly understood by this, except that which has an end and that which has no end."
(On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
§ 34 Reason)
The infinite God could perhaps only have the trivial and negative sense of "He is not a finite being". Nothing more.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Certainly, what you say has never been uncontroversial:
"In VI. 4. 2 Plotinus connects the problem of soul's presence in body with a larger issue, that of the presence of intelligible reality in the sensible world. He is aware that in doing this he is confronting one of the most difficult problems facing any Platonist. Among the difficulties presented by Plato in his Parmenides concerning the theory of Forms is that of the presence of a single Form in a multitude of particular sensible objects (131ac): how could one Form (for example, the Form of beauty) be present in many (beautiful) things without being divided up among them?
The presence of the Form in a multitude seems to mean destruction of the Form as a whole, as a unity. This cannot be right. But to save the Form's unity, one must abandon its presence in many things. This too is unacceptable. Plato himself gives no clear indication as to how one is to resolve this dilemma. Aristotle considered it as yet another decisive reason for rejecting Plato's theory of Forms (Metaphysics, 1. 6). The problem remained unresolved, lying deep, as a possibly fatal flaw, in the heart of Platonic philosophy. The Middle Platonists were aware of it, but they contented themselves with references to the mysterious relation between intelligible and sensible reality. Plotinus' Ennead VI. 45 is the first Platonist text we have which faces the issue squarely." (Dominic J. O'Meara - Plotinus - An Introduction to the Enneads)
Plotinus' own solution is also considered controversial by some.
I see it the same way. The latest example of an unphilosophical attitude to theology comes from a philosopher:
Massimo Pigliucci
@mpigliucci
Im sorry but I cant any longer take seriously any essay or paper that itself takes talk of god seriously. Its simply a non starter. And a trite and (very) old one.
https://twitter.com/mpigliucci/status/1640908332327223296?s=20
The tweet has definitely caused irritation among one or the other.
Anyone who practices philosophy must also take God talk seriously. Philosophy, in my opinion, includes all philosophical fields, without exception.
Quoting Gnomon
The model I present is called by the philosopher of religion Paul Draper demergent deism.
(the opposite of emergent theism/deism, according to which the world evolves until it eventually becomes or produces God)
I am definitely sympathetic to your construction. It seems to me a plausible possibility of candidates for world explanation.
[quote=Laozi]The Dao that can be told is not the eternal Dao. The names that can be named are not eternal names.[/quote]and culminates for me with https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/791947
I do not see how "infinite" could be anything other than quantitative. I don't see how to conceive of an infinite quality. What would that even mean? Notice that the "omni" prefix sometimes used to describe God's qualities, does not mean "infinite". In fact it's more like the inverse of infinite, as the limit to the quality, whereas "infinite" means unlimited.
Quoting spirit-salamander
The theory of participation is flawed, and Plato exposed this. I believe that Aristotle did provide a workable resolution by placing actuality as necessarily prior to potentiality, his so-called cosmological argument.
The concept of individual parts partaking of the whole, makes the whole passive, as being partaken of, without changing. But the active parts must receive their actuality, or activity from somewhere, as cause, and the somewhere cannot be the passive whole. This is why Aristotle proposes a further actuality, which is properly an immaterial actuality, like the soul, which therefore cannot be described in spatial terms, like the activity of parts.
Plotinus does not provide a solution, because the One which is proposed as the source of all, is said to be an infinite potentiality. But this meets the problem which Aristotle expressed, an infinite potentiality could not actualize itself. So there is no means (cause) whereby everything could proceed from the One.
"Infinity" defined as a quantitative measure is a common stumbling block for philosophical forays into transcendent topics. If the context is a space-time bounded world, then an objective quantitative definition is appropriate. But if the context is unbounded open-ended Eternity-Infinity, a subjective qualitative interpretation is necessary*1.
When we are talking about a "demoted deity" in the form of the real world, it's OK to speak of parts relative to the whole. But, if that Creative Power existed prior to the Big-Bang --- before the emergence of finite space-time from a hypothetical undefined realm of statistical possibility/probability --- then the physical limits of space & time do not apply, and the whole is likewise undefinable and indivisible.
Besides, space & time are abstractions that exist only in minds, not in matter*2. Space & Time are imaginary measuring sticks that we overlay on the material world in order to provide chunks of meaning for the mind. Even the beginning-of-time is a human milepost that we use to mark the distinction between Time & Eternity.
As you said, a Space-time deity would be finite in scope, and almost infinitely divisible. Such is the mystery of math, with its never-ending numberline. In that case, Infinity-plus-One is still Infinity. That makes sense only because "infinity" is an ideal definition, not a real physical thing. Likewise, the gap-filling deity we imagine as a defining context for the open-ended Big Bang theory, is an ideal concept, that we may never know in reality. If that hypothetical gap-filler is also the Cause & Creator of reality, then all of its defining properties are abstract qualities. :smile:
*1. Is infinity a quantity? :
Good question. No. Infinity is a limit, which can't be a quantity, and a bound, which can be a quantity.
https://www.quora.com/Is-infinity-a-quantity
*2, How is space time an illusion? :
Locations in space and time, hence, have no identity and can be said to exist only as mathematical conveniences. Quantum theory suggests that locality is an illusion, a byproduct of the decoherence that occurs between quantum waves so that nonlocal effects are damped while local effects are reinforced.
https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/space-and-time-may-be-illusions-1aa71e8de03e