Is God Immortal ?

May 2008
4,461
Fireland
The best of the Big-Bang-theory is that it is the eponymist of Chuck Lorre´s ingenious sitcom of the same name. It should give cause for concern that the theory was conceived in 1927 by a Jesuit, Georges Lemaitre, in order to connect Christian thought with modern physics. The theory is from a scientific view all but ironclad, so it´s more than anything else a pseudoscientific myth.



Like I said, I don´t think that the BBTh is a recommendable alternative to that outdated theistic worldview, because it echoes the same irrational premise that the world "must" have a beginning in time.
Except it demonstrably does (some 13 point splash billion years ago) - a figure which is ironclad insofar as there is almost universal consensus among cosmologists; ie folks who do the math for a living, unlike you or I. In short, while there will be always huge conceptual difficulties regarding the staggering and seemingly inexplicable nature of the phenomenon the fact that it occurred broadly along the lines detailed (nucleosynthesis after roughly 4 minutes etc.) is seldom seriously disputed. The scientific community, quite rightly, is quibbling about pieces of the jigsaw it CAN provide not those it knows it probably never will. As a discipline, it is framed to do no more.
 
Likes: Cepheus
Dec 2011
1,821
The best of the Big-Bang-theory is that it is the eponymist of Chuck Lorre´s ingenious sitcom of the same name. It should give cause for concern that the theory was conceived in 1927 by a Jesuit, Georges Lemaitre, in order to connect Christian thought with modern physics. The theory is from a scientific view all but ironclad, so it´s more than anything else a pseudoscientific myth.



Like I said, I don´t think that the BBTh is a recommendable alternative to that outdated theistic worldview, because it echoes the same irrational premise that the world "must" have a beginning in time.
Your statement is false.

The BBTh is the leading paradigm for universe creation and there are predictive elements that can be tested and have been tested.

The theory involves tiered evidence factors and multiple scientific disciplines including among others, observational evidence, cosmic microwave background radiation data along with testable and theoretical particle physics evidence.

The last sentence is incorrect as well. To begin with, there are no ontological or teleological arguments in the BBTh. Additionally, there are no propositions in the BBTh that require a supernatural cause.

In regard to Lemaitre, whomever conceives a scientific theory has no bearing on its propositional content. However, Lemaitre was well qualified to make the observations that he did.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
3,968
India
A question: what if Kali killed Brahma ... what will happen to the universe?
Brahma is immortal. Also, nothing would happen to universe. Its Vishnu job to look after the universe. The Hindu trinity is about a sort of monotheistic belief that God having three natures as a creator(Brahma), Vishnu(preserver) and Destroyer(Shiva). Kali is a form of Shakti which is a feminine manifestation of powers of trinity gods, Kali looks angry and scary looking to scare off the demons.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,659
Romania
The cited definition of the Dao seems quite incomplete to me, moreover, I can´t comprehend your conclusion that it comes "near" to the Islamic description of Allah.

That definition says about the Dao:

It is the timeless, formless, the eternal... the unmanifest out of which all manifestations (including time and space) are born.

However, this is only one aspect of the Dao. According to classical Dao literature, the Dao not only brings forth first the oneness, then the duality (Yin and Yang) and then the complexity of its manifestions (the order is ontological, not temporal), but is also immanent to these manifestations. So the Dao is not "One", as is stated about Allah, and it´s not "formless", as said in the definition above, but comprises form (also dualistic) and formlessness, as does the Buddhistic "shunyata" (identity of form and formlessness). As opposed to this, Allah is seen in Islamic thought as completey separated (transcendent) from the world. So the Dao and Allah are very different from one another.

Furthermore, the Dao is impersonal, of course, while Allah is undoubtedly personal, what is shown, for example, by his all-too-human insisting on obedience. Unlike in Islam, there is no concept of a hell in Daoism in the sense of an eternal penal camp for "vicious" souls, rather hell is considered a state of mind full of blind anger.
Toshihiko Izutsu Sufism And Taoism : Toshihiko Izutsu : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,659
Romania
Why the Church would do this I wouldn't know, probably based on some idea like inherited original sin.
Technically speaking innocent? Well most children have some naughtiness, not many are un-innocent enough to deserve a painful and fatal illness.
Suffering is not only retributive, but they wouldn't suffer bodily if they weren't in corruptible bodies. Perhaps you should know that what is corruptible gets corrupted.

Passability?
I wrote and meant "passibility", not "passability".

People with painful and fatal illnesses suffer not because of failings in their relationship with God, but because of a fault in their genes, or infection by some micro-organism - things supposedly designed by God. (Obviously I am not speaking of those ill as a result of human activity, their own or another's - like lung cancer from smoking).
Is evil issuing from something else than inability/lack of power and failure to participate in God more fully? Even pain and disease turn some towards God and others away from God, what makes the difference?
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
2,191
Australia
Your statement would be false according to Søren Kierkegaard who posits that the concept of God is to offset the "objective uncertainties" in life.

Science cannot predict the random ups and downs, good times and bad times, the health and sickness or generally unpredictability that humans face everyday.
And God can predict them? At least in the literal sense, no, "it" cannot. But people are more than willing to believe that, despite the fact that actual predictions are extremely vague.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,497
Stockport Cheshire UK
This is for monotheists
For polytheists, I guess the same questions apply but on a case by case (god by god) basis

  • Is God (in your religion) immortal ?
  • Can he be killed/destroyed ?
  • Can he self destroy ?
  • Can he be incapacitated ?
  • Does he have ennemies ? What is their plan for winning if God cannot be destroyed/incapacitated ? Why do they keep up the fight under these conditions ?

What passages from relevant scripture support the answers to these questions ?
But surely if any of these things can happen to a god... they are not really a god.
 
Nov 2016
400
Munich
Your statement is false.

The BBTh is the leading paradigm for universe creation and there are predictive elements that can be tested and have been tested.
(...)
The last sentence is incorrect as well. To begin with, there are no ontological or teleological arguments in the BBTh. Additionally, there are no propositions in the BBTh that require a supernatural cause.

In regard to Lemaitre, whomever conceives a scientific theory has no bearing on its propositional content. However, Lemaitre was well qualified to make the observations that he did.
Which of my statements should be "false"? The BBTh is a theory, what means that it is not proven and seemingly not provable. Therefore any doubtful statements about it cannot be "false". That the BBTh is the "leading paradigm" was not questioned by me, however, that a theory is a leading paradigm does in no way mean that the theory is correct. You surely have heard about Thomas Kuhn´s book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" where Kuhn analyzes the shifts and changes of scientific paradigms which were seen as true for a while and then abandoned in favor of another paradigm.

So your argument "is the leading paradigm" is pointless for several reasons. Moreover, there is a lot of inconsistencies in this theory that give reason to call it into question instead of following it as one follows a dogma in religious matters.

The theory involves tiered evidence factors and multiple scientific disciplines including among others, observational evidence, cosmic microwave background radiation data along with testable and theoretical particle physics evidence.
As to the "cosmic microwave background radiation", to name just one example, the background radiation data which seemed to give proof of a big bang have been relativized in 2015 when scientists rejected the validity of these data with the argument that the cosmic dust was to dense to allow a correct interpretation of the alleged measurements of background radiation by the telescop ´Bicep2´. The rejection was accepted by the scientists of ´Bicep2´.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
5,430
Planet Nine, Oregon
Which of my statements should be "false"? The BBTh is a theory, what means that it is not proven and seemingly not provable. Therefore any doubtful statements about it cannot be "false". That the BBTh is the "leading paradigm" was not questioned by me, however, that a theory is a leading paradigm does in no way mean that the theory is correct. You surely have heard of Thomas Kuhn´s book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" where Kuhn analyzes the shifts and changes of scientific paradigms which were seen as true for a while and then abandoned in favor of another paradigm.

So your argument "is the leading paradigm" is pointless for several reasons. Moreover, there is a lot of inconsistencies in this theory that give reason to call it into question instead of following it as one follows a dogma in religious matters.
I'd have to agree. Also, from observed results there was probably no singularity at the beginning, and, iirc, it is not possible to look back beyond a certain point due to the particle horizon. A "Big Bounce" is another possibility.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,526
Lago Maggiore, Italy
And to be rational to the end ... any entity we will meet who will sustain to be the Creator ... will never be able to prove to be the Creator, even creating a new universe in front of us. That would prove that such a God is able to create a universe, not that He created this universe ...
 

Similar History Discussions