Is God Immortal ?

Dec 2011
1,838
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.
No. You said it was a "pseudoscientific myth."

I have Kuhn's book. Kuhn was not delineating truth content. He was explaining how scientific paradigms form. Technically, Kuhn would not imply that any theory is correct or proven. That had nothing to do with his book.

Your proposition was that it was "pseudoscientific" is false.

Additionally, technically, per Popper et al, a scientific theory is NEVER proven. A scientific theory is only credible as long as it is testable. By testable, it is meant that we can test predictions that are drawn from the scientific theory. The BBTh meets all of those empirical qualifications.

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´.
Since the universe was so very hot through most of its early history, there were no atoms in the early universe, only free electrons and nuclei. (Nuclei are made of neutrons and protons). The cosmic microwave background photons easily scatter off of electrons. Thus, photons wandered through the early universe, just as optical light wanders through a dense fog. This process of multiple scattering produces what is called a “thermal” or “blackbody” spectrum of photons. According to the Big Bang theory, the frequency spectrum of the CMB should have this blackbody form. This was indeed measured with tremendous accuracy by the FIRAS experiment on NASA's COBE satellite.
WMAP Big Bang CMB Test

Page stamp:
  • NASA Official: Dr. Edward J. Wollack
  • Page Updated: Monday, 05-09-2016
 
Dec 2011
1,838
Marker:

Krauss, Lawrence. A Universe From Nothing, Atria, 2012.
Popper, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge,1963/2002.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, 1962/2012.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,590
England, 200 yards from Wales
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.
Sure physical existence is 'corruptible' - subject to illness, decay, pain etc. Are we not told that God designed it that way, in full foreknowledge of the suffering it would cause?

I wrote and meant "passibility", not "passability".
A mis-reading, my apologies. I'm not sure anyway what you mean by no one suffers beyond their passibility (ability to feel), the suffering is the feeling surely, so one is able to feel it? Certainly some people suffer beyond their ability to tolerate - hence suicide for one thing.

Is evil issuing from something else than inability/lack of power and failure to participate in God more fully?
If among 'evil' you include the sort of illnesses I mentioned, then yes of course it does, it comes from well-understood physical causes.

Even pain and disease turn some towards God and others away from God, what makes the difference?
That's true I think, not only with regard to God, some find a personal courage through suffering, others are broken by it. The difference - I wouldn't presume to say, as fortunately I haven't suffered to that degree, but maybe it lies in the type of suffering, the degree of suffering and simply individual character.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
3,975
India
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 ...
Universe was created in a Big Bang.
 
Nov 2016
403
Munich
As to the issue of a ´mortal Christian god´, I found that my consideration from yesterday (death of Christ as trinitarian manifestation of God indicates mortality of the Christian god) is basically confirmed by a very similar argumentation of Luther in his ´On the Councils and the Church´ from 1539 (until today unknown to me), where he says:

We Christians should know that if God is not in the scale to give it weight, we, on our side, sink to the ground. I mean it this way: if it cannot be said that God died for us, but only a man, we are lost; but if God‟s death and a dead God lie in the balance, his side goes down and ours goes up like a light and empty scale. Yet he can also readily go up again, or leap out of the scale! But he could not sit on the scale unless he had become a man like us, so that it could be called God‟s dying, God‟s martyrdom, God‟s blood, and God‟s death. For God in his own nature cannot die; but now that God and man are united in one person, it is called God‟s death when the man dies who is one substance or one person with God.

Until Luther it was consense among theologians that Jesus had divine and human nature in once, but that his suffering and death only happened to his human component and not to his divine one, which was seen as immortal. Now, Luther argues that in order to redeem mankind from sin, it would not suffice that a human being (the human component of Jesus) suffers and dies, but also the divine component, that is, Jesus in his quality of being God (in the trinitarian sense which was acknowledged by Luther) took by suffering and dying the sins of whole mankind. This is meant when Luther says that only the weight of (a dying) God in the scale makes it possible that Man (on the opposite side of the scale) goes up (= is redeemed).

As an atheist I´m anything but a follower of Luther or of the church, but in my view his argumentation makes sense within the frame of Christian theology. Moreover, if the Trinity dogma is accepted as one of the basics of Christian theology, it would be illogical to say that God (manifested in Jesus) didn´t die in the process of the crucifixion (notabene within the frame of Christian theology and mythology, independent from the question of historical truth).

So, who among the Christians in this forum rejects my or Luther´s argumentation should consequently also reject the Trinity dogma and the dogma of the redemption of mankind through Jesus´ suffering and death on the cross.
 
Last edited:

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,667
Romania
Sure physical existence is 'corruptible' - subject to illness, decay, pain etc. Are we not told that God designed it that way, in full foreknowledge of the suffering it would cause?


A mis-reading, my apologies. I'm not sure anyway what you mean by no one suffers beyond their passibility (ability to feel), the suffering is the feeling surely, so one is able to feel it? Certainly some people suffer beyond their ability to tolerate - hence suicide for one thing.


If among 'evil' you include the sort of illnesses I mentioned, then yes of course it does, it comes from well-understood physical causes.


That's true I think, not only with regard to God, some find a personal courage through suffering, others are broken by it. The difference - I wouldn't presume to say, as fortunately I haven't suffered to that degree, but maybe it lies in the type of suffering, the degree of suffering and simply individual character.

My apologies, but my impression is that we didn't advance at all from your first observations that started this discussion, so you can jut return to my first reply.
 
Jun 2016
1,590
England, 200 yards from Wales
My apologies, but my impression is that we didn't advance at all from your first observations that started this discussion, so you can jut return to my first reply.
No, no advance, basically two very different world-views.
By your first reply you mean #124? If I did return to it I could only make the same comments, which seems a bit pointless.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,590
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 ?
I already posted, but not to this post directly - so I'll just answer: My interest in Christian theology. Is God Immortal ?


  1. Is God (in your religion) immortal ?
    Yes, no, and not applicable - see my previous post for that explanation. But I'm going by Trinitarian God. - Is God Immortal ? - essentially, the Holy Spirit and Word involve the natural physical laws and mass/energies that make up the universe (but they're not limited to that). So, the Word is what created the natural laws of the universe, and the Holy Spirit is what carries them on - the Word incarnated into the flesh of Jesus and then died on the cross before ascending to be with the Father. The father is above the physical Universe, space and time - or think of it in dimensional terms, we're three-dimensional objects moving along the fourth dimension of time: and the father would be in a higher dimension, unchanging by the perception of our dimension (fulfilling the Platonist challenge answered by Philo of Alexandria in the Hellenistic Jewish era). So, the Word died and is therefore mortal, the Holy spirit will endure until the heat death and is therefore immortal (somewhat), and the father is beyond everything and so it is not applicable.

  2. Can he be killed/destroyed ?
    The incarnation of the Word can be destroyed, but not the immortal soul. In Christian theology, the Word returned to the father, and that would be beyond the boundaries (time and space) of the physical universe.

  3. Can he self destroy ?
    I suppose so if speaking of the Son, if exiting the universe can be seen as a form of self-destruction; which is somewhat what occurred when the Word returned to the side of the father. - but in terms of God the father, not applicable for the reasons I outlined in my previous linked post - but in short, God the Father is unchanging relative to our position - God the father can no more self-destroy than a painting; the Holy Spirit no more than the motion of photons.

  4. Can he be incapacitated ?
    Similar to asking if the dimensions of the universe (space and time) can be incapacitated.

  5. 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 ?
    No. The Son and Holy Spirit as advocates of humanity would have Satan as an adversary, since Satan is the adversary of humanity. There is also Lucifer/The Devil in Revelation which I personally find uninteresting from a theological standpoint - as I believe the whole thing is a clear metaphor of the planet Venus - as Venus is the morning star which challenges the sun... I suppose the morning star could be a metaphor for idolatry - or a personification of the idols; in that people are uplifting worldly values and loyalties to the level of Gods - to give some modern examples: Political ideological dogmas (Gun rights, nationalism, socialism, capitalism, etc...), fandoms (New York Yankees or Boston Redsox, Nintendo or Sony, Apple or Android, etc...), or leaders (Trump, Bernie Sanders, or even smaller figures like Cenk Uygur, Jordan Peterson, and Alex Jones) - you could argue that any of these figures are enemies... but not really since they'd technically be results of the forces set in motion by the Word - and this is where free will/motion comes into play; Roman Catholicism believes in free will, and that could be applied to the quantum mechanics of the universe - which means the potential for one thing or another to occur could happen but it is not a predetermined outcome.

My main sources - I suppose - would be the Gospels (especially John in this case), Philo of Alexandria, and Augustine of Hippo.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,590
As far as I know, mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²) has not been falsified or overturned in any way.

"How Einstein's E=mc² Works (Infographic)" | LiveScience



However, it has yet to be shown that any deity is governed by the known laws of physics, so using an extrapolation of those laws to attempt to describe the nature of a deity is purely speculative.
And Christian theology is a step further than that: the natural constants of the universe are of the essence of the Word/Logos itself. So while those laws might govern the behaviour of matter and energy in the Universe, they aren't necessarily governing the Son/Logos and certainly not the Father (who would be in a dimension above time and space)... ALTHOUGH, since a the Logos incarnate puts itself in the Universe (in Christianity), the body of Jesus was governed by the laws set in place at the time of creation - so when he was whipped he was damaged, when he was stabbed his flesh was pierced, and when he died his human body perished, and he existed this Universe.

In that way, you could look at it like a simulation where you set all the parameters, and then injected yourself into a body existing within it where you'd suffer all the consequences: how I'd explain the Word made flesh is in a nutshell.
 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,667
Romania
No, no advance, basically two very different world-views.
By your first reply you mean #124? If I did return to it I could only make the same comments, which seems a bit pointless.
Yes, I referred to that one. I agree re: "two very different world-views", my God is not like a human being having human thoughts, my God is the God of those who believe in Our Lord and God Jesus Christ and His Holy Church, and I follow the religion preached by St. Paul who "is said to have known Almighty God, by having known Him as being above all conception and knowledge. Wherefore also, he says, 'His ways are past finding out and His judgements inscrutable' [Romans 11:33] and His gifts 'indescribable' [2 Corinthians 9:15] and that His peace surpasses every mind [Philippians 4:7], as having found Him Who is above all, and having known this which is above conception, that, by being Cause of all, He is beyond all."
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions