Will God Ever Die?

[Chip]

Yes, all religion aside ... will God ever die?

[steveox]

GOD is dead chip.Hes been dead since napoleon came.

[vyo476]

Didn't Nietzsche prove that God was dead?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes, all religion aside ... will God ever die?

How can you leave religion out of a discussion of God? How are you defining "religion"?

[9sublime]

I don't know what God is, so I can't really comment. Either he is dead, doesn't care or has a great scheme/leaves us to our own devices for a bit of fun.

I know one thing for sure, the Christian God (doesnt exist but if he did) is dead.

[Chip]

How can you leave religion out of a discussion of God? How are you defining "religion"?

Religion is, by encyclopedic definition created unanimously by the World Council of Religions representatives of every religion in the world way back in the late 1970s, a philosophy that contains both of the following tenets: 1) a belief in souls (a part of us that is seperate from our physicality and may have lived before our present physical life and continues to live on after we die), and, of course, 2) a belief in before or after life.

This valid authoritative foundational encyclopedic definition does not require God in the definition of religion, as theosophy and other new age karmic religions etc. simply do not have a tenet of God.

The fanatasy of souls and before/after life, which exists due to the universal historic realities that we will all someday die, that the spectre of death can be scary, that many have had the fear connected with the reality of their mortality exacerbated at an early age via the socioeconomic threat of premature death, and that such strong fear in the face of unchanging reality is coped with in compensational abatement by hiding from that reality in a mental fantasy, a fantasy that may be idiosyncratic or common collective ... is simply irrelevant to the topic of whether or not God will ever die.

My question is whether or not God will ever die, in reality.

Thus the fantasy tenets that define religion, and therefore religion itself, is indeed irrelevant to this discussion, as fantasy is irrelevant to a discussion about reality.

[Chip]

Didn't Nietzsche prove that God was dead?
I don't know.

Last I looked, it was God who proved Nietzsche was dead. ;)

[DrWho]

Didn't Nietzsche prove that God was dead?

God is dead - Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead - God

[DrWho]

The God of the Bible will never die. Neither will our spirits. All of us are eternal spirits and spiritual beings do not die as only the flesh can decay.

On the other hand when a spiritual being is separated from his creator that is the true definition of death. The definition of death (decay) that I was referring to in the first sentence is only a precursor of the more real death (separation).

Decay allows us to fear separation so that we can take appropriate action and let God mend the rift between us.

[9sublime]

Chrisitanity will be dead in a thousand years or so, if humanity is still alive. You really think Christianity is any different than any other religion that has come and gone? The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, and other ancient/classical religions have died out as times change.

[DrWho]

Chrisitanity will be dead in a thousand years or so, if humanity is still alive. You really think Christianity is any different than any other religion that has come and gone? The Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, and other ancient/classical religions have died out as times change.

Yes I do. I can't prove it to you but maybe some day you will see it this way yourself - maybe not.

I see all religions as man's attempt to reach out to God. I see Christianity as God reaching out to man.

The Bible says that if a thing is from men it will pass away and if it is from God it cannot. Time will tell.

[9sublime]

Tell me what the difference is between Christianity and any other religion that makes it so unique please.

[DrWho]

Tell me what the difference is between Christianity and any other religion that makes it so unique please.


In Christianity you salvation is not won/earned/whatever based on anything you do. God Himself has created the means of salvation and He has performed the works required and He has given it freely to whoever wants it. You don't need to follow any rules, recite any incantations, engage in any rituals, etc.

It does not matter who you are God offers His grace to you.

[Chip]

The God of the Bible will never die. Neither will our spirits. All of us are eternal spirits and spiritual beings do not die as only the flesh can decay.

On the other hand when a spiritual being is separated from his creator that is the true definition of death. The definition of death (decay) that I was referring to in the first sentence is only a precursor of the more real death (separation).

Decay allows us to fear separation so that we can take appropriate action and let God mend the rift between us.
There is no evidence of any kind, sentient or intuitive, that has ever existed to support the claim that our spirit can live without the mass and energy of which it is composed.

Denial of the reality of one's mortality is invalid when projected upon God.

God is material too, just like we are.

So I repeat my question: will God ever die?

And "die" means cease to exist in the physical, and, thus, in the spiritual too.

[DrWho]

There is no evidence of any kind, sentient or intuitive, that has ever existed to support the claim that our spirit can live without the mass and energy of which it is composed.

Denial of the reality of one's mortality is invalid when projected upon God.

God is material too, just like we are.

So I repeat my question: will God ever die?

And "die" means cease to exist in the physical, and, thus, in the spiritual too.

Other than you saying so, there is no evidence to suggest that spirit is made up of energy. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that spirit is immortal. It is not scientific evidence but it is evidence none the less - the Bible. You may believe it or not, but at least read it, assuming you have not, or you will not be in much of a position to discount or accept what it says.

Long before you defined "die" for us the Bible has been using it in a much broader way:

"Death is never defined by lexicographers as extinction, annihilation, non-existence or unconsciousness
Death in the Bible is always pictured as a separation between two things."

http://www.bible.ca/d-death=separation.htm

[9sublime]

In Christianity you salvation is not won/earned/whatever based on anything you do. God Himself has created the means of salvation and He has performed the works required and He has given it freely to whoever wants it. You don't need to follow any rules, recite any incantations, engage in any rituals, etc.

It does not matter who you are God offers His grace to you.

Then why go to church, get on your kness, pray, eat bread and wine from an old mans hand, talk in tounges, charm snakes etc.

Buddism is also more of a way of life, with some rituals, but it is more about your actions in day to day life.

Christianity has an afterlife, a higher being and a belief in the soul like every other religion, they just have difference names and methods of selecting who goes to heaven. It's no different from any other religion, its just the one you've happened to end up supporting. Kind of like a football team.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Religion is, by encyclopedic definition created unanimously by the World Council of Religions representatives of every religion in the world way back in the late 1970s, a philosophy that contains both of the following tenets: 1) a belief in souls (a part of us that is seperate from our physicality and may have lived before our present physical life and continues to live on after we die), and, of course, 2) a belief in before or after life.

This valid authoritative foundational encyclopedic definition does not require God in the definition of religion, as theosophy and other new age karmic religions etc. simply do not have a tenet of God.

The fanatasy of souls and before/after life, which exists due to the universal historic realities that we will all someday die, that the spectre of death can be scary, that many have had the fear connected with the reality of their mortality exacerbated at an early age via the socioeconomic threat of premature death, and that such strong fear in the face of unchanging reality is coped with in compensational abatement by hiding from that reality in a mental fantasy, a fantasy that may be idiosyncratic or common collective ... is simply irrelevant to the topic of whether or not God will ever die.

My question is whether or not God will ever die, in reality.

Thus the fantasy tenets that define religion, and therefore religion itself, is indeed irrelevant to this discussion, as fantasy is irrelevant to a discussion about reality.
Thank you for the definition, it's good to know how you define the words. God is not dead, He lives in a rock pile outside El Arco, Mexico. From an espistemological perspective I suspect that it's an impossibility to say for certain if God will ever die, but, why should It die? Energy never dies, it only transforms, God must be some kind of energy so It will just transform... ad infinitum.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Other than you saying so, there is no evidence to suggest that spirit is made up of energy. There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that spirit is immortal. It is not scientific evidence but it is evidence none the less - the Bible. You may believe it or not, but at least read it, assuming you have not, or you will not be in much of a position to discount or accept what it says.

Long before you defined "die" for us the Bible has been using it in a much broader way:

"Death is never defined by lexicographers as extinction, annihilation, non-existence or unconsciousness
Death in the Bible is always pictured as a separation between two things."

http://www.bible.ca/d-death=separation.htm

I have read the Bible and it's a vast jumble of religious twaddle most of which was plaigarized from earlier sources and shot through in a few places with gems of wisdom attributed to various folks--mostly Jesus. The good things that Jesus had to say are the very things that Christians don't practice because they are simply too difficult for most people. Loving God is pretty easy because there's no test for it, but loving your neighbors as yourself is pretty obvious if you actually do it, but the percentage of the self-identified followers of Jesus who do manage it are probably less than 1/1000 of one percent. If you move on to turning-the-other-cheek and returning-good-for-evil, well, Hell, I don't even see anybody advocating that, let alone doing it.

It is interesting to find out where your patriarchal, misogynist attitudes come from, Dr., the Bible is pretty hateful towards women and the Christian church has treated them like 2nd class citizens for a couple of thousand years. It's nice to see you carrying on the tradition. You know the Bible allows women to be taken as the spoils of war, raped, and then turned out? Did you ever notice that when Jesus stopped the good people from stoning the fallen woman, that He never asked where the man was that had sex with her? Did you ever wonder why? Son of God, my ass! If Jesus did that, then He was just another misogynist, sheep-herding, camel rider. Nice, makes a woman anxious to become a Christian. I'll bet, Who, that you are a young Christian man and not married, going by what you've written anyway.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Then why go to church, get on your kness, pray, eat bread and wine from an old mans hand, talk in tounges, charm snakes etc.

Buddism is also more of a way of life, with some rituals, but it is more about your actions in day to day life.

Christianity has an afterlife, a higher being and a belief in the soul like every other religion, they just have difference names and methods of selecting who goes to heaven. It's no different from any other religion, its just the one you've happened to end up supporting. Kind of like a football team.

No rituals? Ha! It's funny how Dr. Who forgot about the ritual cannibalism practiced in the Christian churches all across this country every Sunday. You know, it smacks of the secret, sacred Mormon underwear. Christianity is chock-a-block with rituals.

[DrWho]

I have read the Bible and it's a vast jumble of religious twaddle most of which was plaigarized from earlier sources and shot through in a few places with gems of wisdom attributed to various folks--mostly Jesus. The good things that Jesus had to say are the very things that Christians don't practice because they are simply too difficult for most people. Loving God is pretty easy because there's no test for it, but loving your neighbors as yourself is pretty obvious if you actually do it, but the percentage of the self-identified followers of Jesus who do manage it are probably less than 1/1000 of one percent. If you move on to turning-the-other-cheek and returning-good-for-evil, well, Hell, I don't even see anybody advocating that, let alone doing it.

It is interesting to find out where your patriarchal, misogynist attitudes come from, Dr., the Bible is pretty hateful towards women and the Christian church has treated them like 2nd class citizens for a couple of thousand years. It's nice to see you carrying on the tradition. You know the Bible allows women to be taken as the spoils of war, raped, and then turned out? Did you ever notice that when Jesus stopped the good people from stoning the fallen woman, that He never asked where the man was that had sex with her? Did you ever wonder why? Son of God, my ass! If Jesus did that, then He was just another misogynist, sheep-herding, camel rider. Nice, makes a woman anxious to become a Christian. I'll bet, Who, that you are a young Christian man and not married, going by what you've written anyway.

Yes I have heard all of this before. There are so many errors in what you say, things that are passed around from skeptic to skeptic, and stereotypes that it becomes clear that you have never read the Bible with any understanding whatsoever. It is pretty easy to knock a book that you don't understand.

You don't understand me in the slightest either.

[DrWho]

No rituals? Ha! It's funny how Dr. Who forgot about the ritual cannibalism practiced in the Christian churches all across this country every Sunday. You know, it smacks of the secret, sacred Mormon underwear. Christianity is chock-a-block with rituals.

Ha that's a good one. I haven't heard the one about us being cannibals in a long time. In fact, I think it was more than 15 years ago when I was still an atheist.

[DrWho]

Then why go to church, get on your kness, pray, eat bread and wine from an old mans hand, talk in tounges, charm snakes etc.



None of these are a requirement of being a Christian. If a person wants to do them they may. Even the wacky stuff.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by Chip
There is no evidence of any kind, sentient or intuitive, that has ever existed to support the claim that our spirit can live without the mass and energy of which it is composed.

Denial of the reality of one's mortality is invalid when projected upon God.

God is material too, just like we are.

So I repeat my question: will God ever die?

And "die" means cease to exist in the physical, and, thus, in the spiritual too.

Other than you saying so, there is no evidence to suggest that spirit is made up of energy.
Wrong.

Whenever we talk to another person we are empirically aware of the energy or their spirit.

We are also aware of the mass of their spirit, as it always eminates from their physical presence and nowhere else.

That is compelling evidence that a person's spirit is connected with both their mass and their energy and is thus material in origin.

What there is simply no evidence of any kind is that one's spirit can ever exist outside of one's mass and energy.




There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that spirit is immortal.
Wrong.

There is no real evidence of any kind that one's spirit continues to live after one dies or that one's spirit has lived before one's material being.

Remember, evidence of a here and now reality must be observed in the here and now.

Just because someone wrote something in a book is simply not evidence.

And paranoid schizophrenic babblings are also not evidence, be they spoken in the here and now or documented from the past.




It is not scientific evidence but it is evidence none the less - the Bible.
The Bible is not evidence.

Again, the phenomenon of which we speak, if it holds true in the here and now, must be observable in the here and now.

And, as I said, documented cases of paranoid schizophrenia are simply not evidence.




You may believe it or not, but at least read it, assuming you have not, or you will not be in much of a position to discount or accept what it says.
Again, religion and religious text is irrelevant in this discussion, first because it isn't evidence and second because the defining religion tenets are fantasy, not reality.


Long before you defined "die" for us the Bible has been using it in a much broader way:

"Death is never defined by lexicographers as extinction, annihilation, non-existence or unconsciousness
Death in the Bible is always pictured as a separation between two things."

http://www.bible.ca/d-death=separation.htm
Again you reference The Bible.

Thus your reference is meaningless and irrelevant.

Please stick to the subject ... and simply answer from your heart ... and if you reference religion, you're answering from your mind, not your heart.

Thank you.

[Chip]

From an espistemological perspective I suspect that it's an impossibility to say for certain if God will ever die, but, why should It die? Energy never dies, it only transforms, God must be some kind of energy so It will just transform... ad infinitum.
Energy is a component of matter.

The material (matter) is composed of mass and energy and conforms to the relative proportion of E = M C^2.

Thus it seems reasonable to me that God is massive.

For God to die, God must be alive.

If you don't see God as being alive, then the question is moot to you.

I suppose then that it is a prerequisite that you realize that God is not only alive, but is material, composed of both mass and energy, and, that God is a person.

This is a reality.

With this reality in mind, will God ever die?

[DrWho]

Again, religion and religious text is irrelevant in this discussion, first because it isn't evidence and second because the defining religion tenets are fantasy, not reality.



The way you experience a person spirit and energy as connected to their material body is the way you experience it. I have never experienced that so I can only take your word for it or disbelieve you.

But what you tell me about your experience is evidence.

The way all the prophets of the Bible experienced the world, the 66 books that they wrote at different times and in different places with no possibility of colusion, and the complete lack of contradiction in those books is their subjective experience. I can only take their words for it or I can disbelieve them.

What they say is evidence.

But I do find the evidence of a major world religion stronger than what I read from an anonymous person on the internet. Especially since it has passed tests and you have not.

[DrWho]

Again you reference The Bible.

Thus your reference is meaningless and irrelevant.

Please stick to the subject ... and simply answer from your heart ... and if you reference religion, you're answering from your mind, not your heart.

Thank you.

Since when has answering from my heart been a condition of my participation?

I choose to answer the way I want to answer. And answers from the Bible are relevant to millions of people who believe it as well as to millions more who want to know what other people believe.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Energy is a component of matter.
I think that you've got it wrong here, Chip, energy and matter are the SAME thing, Einstein's equation simply tells us how much energy is represented by a particular quantity of matter. The energy is equal to the amount of matter times the speed of light squared. It is not that "energy" is a component of matter like metal is a component of your car. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing. One can change them back and forth but neither can be destroyed. Though there is evidence that sub-atomic particles may evaporate, but it is unclear if this is a destruction of the matter or just a phase change from matter to energy.

The material (matter) is composed of mass and energy and conforms to the relative proportion of E = M C^2.

Thus it seems reasonable to me that God is massive.

For God to die, God must be alive.

If you don't see God as being alive, then the question is moot to you.

I suppose then that it is a prerequisite that you realize that God is not only alive, but is material, composed of both mass and energy, and, that God is a person.

This is a reality.

With this reality in mind, will God ever die?

What a wonderful semantic house of cards. And I love the way to finish it with: "This is reality." Wow. Got anything but your own personal word to support this philosophical construct? I mean, you've announced with certainty that THIS IS REALITY so maybe you could show us how you can prove it?

Quoting Einstein's formula was nice, but I'm not sure you are interpreting it correctly when you use it to determine that God is obese. How did you get to that exactly?

[Pidgey]

I guess that whole E=MC^2 deal has always bothered me a little bit... kinda' looks like an F=MA equation, doesn't it? Work done. The accompanying physical principle was always something equating energy and matter. I 'spect it's like the problem I've always had with the idea that g=32.2 ft/sec/sec being the definition of gravity (earth's). For a lot of people, that's as far as they go. To me, it quantifies gravitational acceleration on our planet, but it doesn't define gravity at all.

So, since we're composed of matter and energy, rather like a brick, how does this magical concept of life fit in there? What is it? And if it can be evident in us, animals and bugs (that list could go on, of course), then could it also be far more vast?

[Mare Tranquillity]

I guess that whole E=MC^2 deal has always bothered me a little bit... kinda' looks like an F=MA equation, doesn't it? Work done. The accompanying physical principle was always something equating energy and matter. I 'spect it's like the problem I've always had with the idea that g=32.2 ft/sec/sec being the definition of gravity (earth's). For a lot of people, that's as far as they go. To me, it quantifies gravitational acceleration on our planet, but it doesn't define gravity at all.

So, since we're composed of matter and energy, rather like a brick, how does this magical concept of life fit in there? What is it? And if it can be evident in us, animals and bugs (that list could go on, of course), then could it also be far more vast?

If we are all made of the same material--energy--then everything is potentially alive isn't it? No one yet has defined the spark of (whatever) that makes us "alive".

[Chip]

I think that you've got it wrong here, Chip, energy and matter are the SAME thing, Einstein's equation simply tells us how much energy is represented by a particular quantity of matter. The energy is equal to the amount of matter times the speed of light squared. It is not that "energy" is a component of matter like metal is a component of your car. Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing. One can change them back and forth but neither can be destroyed. Though there is evidence that sub-atomic particles may evaporate, but it is unclear if this is a destruction of the matter or just a phase change from matter to energy.



What a wonderful semantic house of cards. And I love the way to finish it with: "This is reality." Wow. Got anything but your own personal word to support this philosophical construct? I mean, you've announced with certainty that THIS IS REALITY so maybe you could show us how you can prove it?

Quoting Einstein's formula was nice, but I'm not sure you are interpreting it correctly when you use it to determine that God is obese. How did you get to that exactly?
Again, you add nothing of substance to the discussion.

You simply erroneously criticize as a means of attempting to hide the fact that you have nothing of substance to offer of your own ... or that you refuse to offer up of yourself in projective fear that others are like you and would wax critical of it. :eek:

For someone who professes to know physics, you are rather behind in the times.

Now stop "grading our papers", professor ... and submit one of your own ... or you will fail this class for lack of presentation. :cool:

[Coyote]

Wrong.

Whenever we talk to another person we are empirically aware of the energy or their spirit.

We are also aware of the mass of their spirit, as it always eminates from their physical presence and nowhere else.

That is compelling evidence that a person's spirit is connected with both their mass and their energy and is thus material in origin.

What there is simply no evidence of any kind is that one's spirit can ever exist outside of one's mass and energy.



There doesn't seem to be any emperical evidence that there is any such thing as a "spirit" - all of your "compelling evidence" seems like nothing more then your opinion and personal observations...

[ArmChair General]

Again, you add nothing of substance to the discussion.

You simply erroneously criticize as a means of attempting to hide the fact that you have nothing of substance to offer of your own ... or that you refuse to offer up of yourself in projective fear that others are like you and would wax critical of it. :eek:

For someone who professes to know physics, you are rather behind in the times.

Now stop "grading our papers", professor ... and submit one of your own ... or you will fail this class for lack of presentation. :cool:

She destroyed your pitiful attempt at an argument thats what she did.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Again, you add nothing of substance to the discussion.

You simply erroneously criticize as a means of attempting to hide the fact that you have nothing of substance to offer of your own ... or that you refuse to offer up of yourself in projective fear that others are like you and would wax critical of it.

For someone who professes to know physics, you are rather behind in the times.

Now stop "grading our papers", professor ... and submit one of your own ... or you will fail this class for lack of presentation.

Well, behind the times or not, at least I'm not incoherent, nor am I postulating wildly and refusing to provide anything to support my positions. Using a misinterpretation of a famous equation to shore up your dubious notions wasn't very effective.

Trying to reduce vast complex concepts into cute, little yes or no answers adds credence to Coyote's idea that you must be 14. If I fail the class I'll challenge because the course work was not only vague and contradictory, but it was poorly prepared and even more poorly presented. Given a rational question and a clear set of definitions from which to work, I will be able to turn out a paper on this subject of 8000-10000 words, with footnotes, and I will get an A in the course. And it won't even be the first time I have done so.

[Chip]

There doesn't seem to be any emperical evidence that there is any such thing as a "spirit" - all of your "compelling evidence" seems like nothing more then your opinion and personal observations...
No, there is likely no classical empirical evidence of our spirit.

Therefore our spirit does not exist ... right?

No.

If we were talking about atoms and asteroids, then lack of empirical evidence is of value.

But the lack of that which is material to participate in the provision of empirical evidence of the spiritual is irrelevant to the ontological experience of one's self.

The being which each of us is transcends our empirically detectable material.

When we say "I am" we aren't talking about our matter in whole or in part, we're talking about our entity as a being, upon which it is impossible to put our finger.

I can't help but wonder if your reluctance to accept the spiritual is due to abuse at the hands of the religious, the religious who know not that of which they speak.

Perhaps, though, we may one day find a way of discerning the spirit empirically. We know now that sub-atomic particles emit a wave of massless energy. We also know now that sub-atomic quantum mechanical processes of a very special nature are at work in the brain.

Perhaps it's only a matter of time before we can link the physical to the non-physical.

In the meantime, does it really matter?

After all, no one's going anywhere -- when we biologically die, quantum mechanics strongly suggests that we spiritually die as well.

And that thought can be pretty scary ... scary enough to cause denial of the very existence of that which we are.

[bododie]

What do you suppose sustains God in the first place, that He could die?

[Chip]

What do you suppose sustains God in the first place, that He could die?
I haven't a clue.

I wish I did.

I don't feel particularly sustained by the thought of my death.

It's actually pretty scary ...

... Even though I trust God that all, even death, is as it should be, and, contrary to some religious mythology, no particular horrors await.

But if God could die, that changes things a bit.

It's like discovering our parents aren't gods, but imperfect -- it reduces our security somewhat when we discover this as kids.

God may be the only reason cosmological nothing does not "exist".

But all that is and has been alive that I've ever observed eventually dies.

Is God mortal too?

Is existence itself also mortal?

Is God merely so large that his life is so long compared to ours that he just looks immortal?

And if God can really die, then, like all others that die, something must have created God ... in which case is God thus not really God?

My tendency is to conclude that if God was not created by something/someone else, then God is immortal.

Otherwise, God is not.