Much ado about godslaying

[Tuddrussell]

I am starting a blog on the aptly named website blogger, and it is about killing things that are very stubborn about dying.

The very first posting is about killing gods, and here is what I wrote:

How to kill a god

Well, I might as well start at the top, and tell you how to kill a god.

The first step is obviously figuring out exactly what sort of god you are fighting, as they have vastly different strengths, and weaknesses.

Generally there are three different classifications of gods: Transcendent, spiritual, and physical.

They can best be envisioned by the holy trinity: the father, the son, and the holy ghost.

The father: God, he who is everywhere, and knows everything.
Honestly I have no idea how to kill such a thing, but your best bet is to sic an anti-god against it.

The son: Jesus, god in the flesh, and/or the son of god... Christianity confuses me some times.

I assume that Jesus can die, because he has before, but he would just resurrect in a few days... If you want a more permanent option you would have to kill his poppa.

The holy ghost: I have no clue, I don't even know what that is, and I'm far too lazy to look it up, but I guess you'd have to combine my kill God plan, with my guide for killing ghosts... but I know I wouldn't want the wrath of God on me.

Physical gods are like the Olympians, and the old gods. Killing them would require a lot of fire power, or you could instigate a civil war... What better way to kill something then to have it kill itself?

there are also different types of gods: Fertility, death, war, famine, trivia, thunder, fire, earth, wind, poison, dragon, normal.. basically what they are a god OF.

As in: Thor, god of thunder!

Some gods you can kill, and some you have to pray for mercy, and yet others you can only fear.

I will make separate posts for dealing with specific gods, and goddesses that I believe can be killed by a mere mortal.

Also I will make posts for Demi-gods, and tricksters. Which are a bit different.

-End copy-

I have three questions.

Was this a good post?

How can I improve it?

How would you go about killing a god?

[Tuddrussell]

Also note that I am a pagan, if pascal's wager is solid then I should join the more populous religion, or at least the one I was raised in.

Then I would have a reasonable excus to tell the creator/God, or whatever what was waiting for me.

[bernee51]

You remind me of the npc fall-from-grace, from planescape: torment, you just disbelieve everything, like a rampant disbeliever.

No I have a healthy skepticism guided by critical analysis.

Now about providing evidence that these things yof which ou wish to discuss their disposal actually exist outside imagination?

Oh that's right I forgot you believe that 'if you can think of it it exists' don't you.

[bernee51]

Also note that I am a pagan, if pascal's wager is solid then I should join the more poulous religion, or at least the one I was raised in.

Then I would have a reasonable excus to tell the creator/God, or whatever what was waiting for me.

Why have any religion?

Do you beleive in belief no matter what it is?

[Tuddrussell]

I tired nihilism, it almost killed me... I prefer to live.

I believe the way I do because of divine intervention, I have already told the story to you.

I believe in the possiblity of everything, and the infinity of the universe, and theoritcal physics... until a more logical, better supported theory comes out.

But above all else, I believe the things I see with my own eyes.

[bernee51]

I tired nihilism, it almost killed me... I prefer to live.

No argument there...life is too wonderful think nothing of it.

I believe the way I do because of divine intervention, I have already told the story to you.

Yes the wolf in the dream.

I believe in the possiblity of everything, and the infinity of the universe, and theoritcal physics... until a more logical, better supported theory comes out.

Which scientific 'theory' posits an infinite universe?

But above all else, I believe the things I see with my own eyes.

Werewolves, vampires, leprechauns and gods?

[Tuddrussell]

If you want to argue, or debate about whether these things exist, then let us go to a topic dealing with existence, and have a game of ping-pong using lwords instead of paddles, and logic instead of balls... oh wait, I do believe we already did that.

Can't you just assume that gods exist, and then have a discussion about possible ways of killing them?

Most religious people get offended with those questions, and people who think like me are few, and far between... and most of them are in mental institutions, or cut off from civilization.

Thus only open minded religious folk, or clever atheists who can put aside their personal beliefs and think of things in a new way ar most likely gong to help me with this.

Hypothetically, if gods exist, how would we go about killing them?

That's all I'm asking.

[Tuddrussell]

Tegmark's classification:

Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon

A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

An infinite universe should contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes. All will have the same physical laws and physical constants. However, almost all will be different from our Hubble volume regarding configurations such as how matter is distributed in the volume. But since there are an infinite number of such volumes, then some of these will be very similar or even identical to our own. Thus, far beyond our cosmological horizon, there will eventually be a Hubble volume identical to our own. Tegmark estimates that such an identical volume should be larger than a googolplex meters away.


Level II: Universes with different physical constants

"Bubble universes", every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, they have physical constants that are different from our universe), our universe is just one of the bubbles.In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation theory, the multiverse as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. There exists an infinite number of such bubbles which are embryonic level I multiverses of infinite size. Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical constants.

This level also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory

Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations correspond to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains 6 sides and that the result correspond to a quantum mechanics observable. All 6 possible ways the die can fall correspond to 6 different universes. (More correctly, in MWI there is only a single universe but after the "split" into "many worlds" these cannot in general interact.)

Tegmark argues that a level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a level I-II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space." Similarly, all level II bubble universes with different physical constants can in effect be found as "worlds" created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a level III multiverse.

Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.

Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble

The Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level considers equally real all universes that can be defined by mathematical structures. This also includes those having physical laws different from our observable universe. Tegmark writes that "abstract mathematics is so general that any TOE that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words, say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one can generally find a formal system that it is a model of." He argues this "it implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "it subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be say a Level V."

Jürgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures" is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations. He also explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly computable universes.

Cyclic model and Oscillatory universe

In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).

M-theory, Brane cosmology and String theory landscape

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer); each universe takes the form of a D-brane]. Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes. This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.


Anthropic principle

The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which were finely-tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.

Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe within the multiverse

A quote by Tegmark answers: "A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all." He continues "A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm."


Possible worlds are a way of explaining probability, hypothetical statements and the like, and some philosophers such as David Lewis believe that all possible worlds exist, and are just as real as the actual world (a position known as modal realism).

Another newer theory is the Ultraversial Theory, developed by Thomas Francis Carney III, at the age of 17.The Ultraverse theory contends that there may exist only "universial plane", but within that plane multiple "verses", similar to a standard universial model, exist. Carney theorized that the Universe may be one, grand ultraverse, and within that ultraverse, are the many "big bang universes", all within the same free space. To picture this model, picture the standard universe; now, in the same way galaxies are within the universe, so are the individual "verses" within the grand ultraverse.The universes may be connected, or free-floating, or even overlapping, and each scenario is a unique condition. Carney expands this theory with many add-on possibilities: Is this ultraverse itself another "verse" in an even grander universe? Is the ultraverse infinite? (E.t.c) The ultraverse theory, according to Carney, may help to explain the cause for the big bang, by allowing for the singularity to have existed from sources elsewhere in the ultraverse. This theory opens up many philsophical questions, such as the cause for existence, universial intelligence, extraterristrial life, and limitations for perceived existence. (Meaning, if one universe was closed off in a blanket of spacetime, does another universe exist relative to that universe?)

Fictional realism

The view that because fictions exist, fictional characters exist as well. There are fictional entities, in the same sense as that in which, setting aside philosophical disputes, there are people, Mondays, numbers and planets.

Eschatological scenarios may include a new different world after the end time of the current one. For example, Hindu cosmology include the idea of an infinite cycle of births and deaths and an infinite number of universes with each cycle lasting 8.4 billion years.

Similar eschatological scenarios appear in other religions, in the form of belief in there being a new and different world after the end time of the current one.

[FinalEnigma]

The problem with this is that you're talking about things that are almost not even discussable.

How do you kill the christian God. "sic an anti-God on it"? What on earth does that mean? and where would you get an anti-God? What is it, and why couldn't he simply use his infinite power to non-exist it?

the only feasible way to even try to 'kill' the christian God I could see, since he's omnipotent, would be to trick him* into killing himself, since his power might theoretically be able to harm him - but when you're throwing infinities at infinities, you run into problems.

*not that you can't trick him, because he's all knowing.

the only other feasible response to the question of how to kill the Christian God would be...kill all the Christians. If you decide that the christian God isn't real and can only affect the world through the actions of Christians, then killing all Christians would fix the problem.

Killing the holy [strike]ghost[/strike] spirit(some christian object to calling it the holy ghost) is tough, especially when you don't bother to research what it is.
You actually seem to have put more effort into arguing about your post than producing it, since you went to all the trouble of researching Tegmark's classification.

[Tuddrussell]

An anti-god is the reverse of a god, as in it is as powerful, but is evil... unless the god in question is evil, then it would be good.

I never specified the christian god, I was merely using the holy trinity as a metaphor to describe the three classifications of gods.

And I didn't research any of that for that argument, I'm a science major, and a regular in a religious forum... I did the research independently of the argument, I just answered bernee51's question using it.

Also, most of it was copied off of wikipedia.

If a god exists then balance dictates that an equal but opposite being must also exist, if you have located one god, it shouldn't be too hard to find it's counter-point.

The reason that god A doesn't kill god B using it's ultimate power is because god B, AKA the anti-god, is also in possession of ultimate power.

Some christians would also object to calling it the holy spirit as well, so really it comes down to either calling it what you want to call it, or figuring out which is more popular.

Killing all the christians will not kill their god, if you're going by "the belief makes it real" system, because once something exists it tends to get rather stubborn about existing.

Think of it like shooting at someone who shot at you: Killing them would only serve as revenge, because the bullet is still flying at you.

Look up ontological inertia.

[FinalEnigma]

An anti-god is the reverse of a god, as in it is as powerful, but is evil... unless the god in question is evil, then it would be good.

I never specified the christian god, I was merely using the holy trinity as a metaphor to describe the three classifications of gods.

And I didn't research any of that for that argument, I'm a science major, and a regular in a religious forum... I did the research independently of the argument, I just answered bernee51's question using it.

Also, most of it was copied off of wikipedia.

alright, but if you care this much about your post, and are willing to argue this much about it, I'd really recommend doing the research so that you know what you are actually trying to kill.

If a god exists then balance dictates that an equal but opposite being must also exist

Says who?

, if you have located one god, it shouldn't be too hard to find it's counter-point.

again, says who? what if the opposite one is hiding? say you find odin. the opposite being Loki maybe? Loki is in Hel, with a giant serpent dripping venom on his head. I'd like to see you find him.

The reason that god A doesn't kill god B using it's ultimate power is because god B, AKA the anti-god, is also in possession of ultimate power.

and this becomes absurd. If they can snap their fingers and do literally anything they want(which is necessitated my ultimate power), then whichever God snaps his fingers first wins - or they are both immune to one anothers powers and can't kill each other, making the anti-God useless for killing the God.

and might I note that it would rather tough to 'sic' an 'anti-God' on anything, since it has ultimate power, and you don't.

Killing all the christians will not kill their god, if you're going by "the belief makes it real" system, because once something exists it tends to get rather stubborn about existing.

Think of it like shooting at someone who shot at you: Killing them would only serve as revenge, because the bullet is still flying at you.

Look up ontological inertia.

I wasn't going by such a system, I was going by the system that. using the christian God for example, he has no discernible effect on this world, except, arguably, trhough his disciples. if that were the case, and you killed his disciples, he would no longer have any effect.