- Agora - filosofiska essäer
An Empirically Based Answer to the Question “Does God Exist”? Involving Russell’s Paradox
Spirit of Truth, Enlighten and Guide our Research
O Mary Conceived without Sin, Pray for us who have Recourse to Thee*
A recent alternative cosmological geometry transfers astronomical empirical evidence from the observed Big Bang universe to a cosmos hidden behind the observation act geometry, i.e. the light cone. This provides empirical evidence of perfect communication beyond time and space such that opposite regions in the hidden cosmos behave as reciprocal antimatter, with complete annihilation overall. The cosmos would thus concurrently be present and annihilated, in eternity. As presented at the X International Ontology Congress 2012 in San Sebastian, this empirical base necessarily implies that each one of the cosmos, its annihilation, perfect transparent communication and, in addition, the all-embracing whole, is omnipotent. As omnipotence can only be unique, each of those necessarily indentifies with an omnipotent God, concurrently inexistent in its annihilation and existent in all the other absolutes. Its empirical physical geometry provides evidence of incarnation. Russell’s Paradox would describe this and would be a name for God. The question “Does God Exist?” rather than having a positive or negative reply would require the response: “Concurrently yes and no, as described by Russell’s Paradox. This empirically based transcendental paradox implies God can be contained in itself, incarnating in observers”. Such empirical argument amends the laws of thought in the cosmos domain, and is unreachable in the universe domain where contradiction remains banned.
Key words: Metaphysics, Cosmology, Existence, God, Russell’s Paradox.
There are a number of arguments for the existence of God. There are as well arguments for the inexistence of God. The presence of such a secular debate implies the absence of a consensus on one of the two options. Extensive quality research has been done on these two alternatives. Such research is beyond the objective of these pages. The analysis is centred on another hypothesis, that of a concurrency of both the existence and inexistence of God. If such were the case, both alternative answers to the question would be incomplete. On the other hand, concurrency of both answers would constitute a contradiction while the traditional laws of thought (Russell, 1967), which can be traced back to Aristotle (2012), rule out contradiction. Such laws of thought are traditional fundamental tools in philosophical and scientific discovery. Given the large historic and millenary consensus on these laws, only empirical evidence would allow departing from them. The following pages refer to previous analysis (Benazzo, 2010b, 2011b, 2011c, 2012b) on empirical evidence for an alternative paradigm to the Big Bang. This alternative considers an additional physical entity to that of the observed universe: the cosmos. This is defined as the aggregate of the observed universe with the act of its observation. This act is considered as prior to empirical intuition and conception of the universe recalling Kant’s a priori (2003). Within this paradigm, an astronomical analysis on empirical data of Supernovae provides empirical evidence of concurrency of an eternal cosmos and its eternal annihilation. This would constitute an empirical paradox requiring that the traditional laws of thought be amended (Benazzo, 2011a). This empirically based identity is taken as fundamental tool for logical implications. These would require that such cosmos and other absolutes necessarily identify with God. The philosophical method used applies the Ordinary Language Philosophy approach (Hanfling, 2000). The mostly wide usage of words is the one that is considered the most authoritative. A specification of this principle occurs when the literal use of words and sentences would lead to paradoxes. These are considered in a different way than traditional apparent common sense, with the hypothesis that they would hide additional information underneath their ordinary use. Such additional information would be considered as logical maps that may have an important role in approaching the transcendentality of God. In addition to this empirically based philosophical approach, some considerations are made on how reported communication of Jesus of Nazareth in the Christian tradition would relate to this paradigm. The author has received Christian education and thus makes references to this religion that he knows. Concurrently the approach considers the importance of interfaith dialogue and contribution from all cultures and religions. The author is grateful for whatever useful he has been graced to receive from all of these and from the cosmos in general for proposing this research.
The observation act and Kant’s a priori
The observer scientist draws empirical data from the observed universe, which may include all the physical events, apart from the instrument of the physical enquiry, i.e. the act of observation. Some kind of logical triangulation may address that problem. This would consist of considering the act of observation in one type of science, then observing that act by using another science. For example, there could be a biological study of the observation act in astronomy. Such other science or domain would have a different observation act. This process could be extended to a multiple number of sciences. This would progressively unveil a multiplicity of scientific empirical aspects about the act of observation. It is understandable that there may be some parts of the act that are common to all types of observations, to all sciences. Such universal and permanently irreducible part of the observation act would allow empirical experience though it would always necessarily escape empirical investigation. Doubts may be posed if such transcendental part is actually present or if empirical science would uncover all aspects. The following analysis discusses on the possibility of providing empirical evidence of the presence of such irreducible transcendental part.
In astronomy and cosmology, the scientific observation act is moulded by the light cone. Its usual representation has two space dimensions and one time dimension (Davies, 1982, Benazzo, 2012b), the observer receives the light signal, i.e. the light cone. Space is intuitively inferred by the observer as the plane intersecting the light cone at the observer’s position where the downward past light cone (i.e. light from the past) tip touches the pointed bottom of the upwards future light cone (i.e. light into the future). The observer intuitively infers time as the central axis of the light cone. What the astronomer empirically verifies is the light, rather than time and space. Kant (2003) defines space and time as always necessary, as generated by pure intuition prior to the empirical data collection and interpretation of phenomena and their relations of causality. Space and time would therefore remain transcendentally unreachable by empirical investigation. Kant (2003, SS.2.1/2) indicates that space “is a necessary representation a priori” that “must already exist as a foundation” in order to allow “relations of external phenomena through experience... through the said antecedent representation” of space. Time (Kant, 2003, SS.7.b/c) is “the form of... the intuitions of self and of our internal state”. “All phenomena in general, that is, all objects of the senses, are in time and stand necessarily in relations of time.” “Time is the formal condition a priori of all phenomena” while space is “a condition a priori to external phenomena.” Space and time of the light cone are considered such Kantian pure intuitive and transcendental forms of representation necessary to define the empirical observed universe.
The alternative paradigm calls this as the irreducible part of the observation act that is common to all sciences and thus escapes empirical investigation. Considerations may be done if there would be other ways of considering space and time that are less intuitive however would apply also a priori and provide as well the possibility of empirically studying the events.
An empirically based alternative paradigm of a hidden cosmos seen through the universe
In Previous analyses (Benazzo, 2010b, 2011c, 2012b), the empirical data applied to the Big Bang is redirected to an alternative cosmological paradigm. This considers an additional domain; the aggregate of the observed universe with its act of observation, i.e. the light cone. This aggregate is defined as the cosmos, inaccessible because comprising the act of observation, thus transcendentally hidden. Four geometrical frames of reference are found. Two represent the topology of the observed universe, another the topology of a hidden cosmos, and the last the topology of the observer’s light cone interlinking the other frames. Mathematically these four interlink the empirical observed universe with the defined cosmos. Such four interlinked topologies would demonstrate their empirical evidence by representing closely empirical data of Supernovae, in particular those of Type Ia, which are also called standard candles. Unlike common stars, these allow for measuring their distance in the depth of the universe with an additional method to the usual one. The usual measure consists in comparing the spectrum of different wavelengths emitted from the star with that emitted from a similar material near Earth. With increasing distance, the spectrum shifts gradually to longer wavelength (redshift). This is interpreted in the Big Bang paradigm as a recession from the observer, implying space expansion. As for Supernovae Type Ia, their typical characteristics allow separating the measurements of their intrinsic luminosity from those of brightness attenuation determined by distance. Such brightness measurements thus also measure distance. A discrepancy was found in 1998 (S. Perlmutter et al., 1998, A. G. Riess et al., 1998) between the measurements by redshift and those by brightness. In the Big Bang paradigm, this led to determine that such discrepancy was due to an acceleration of the recession, i.e. an accelerated expansion. On the other hand, the alternative paradigm provides a clear composite topology that explains such discrepancy with the presence of a hidden static curved cosmos, seen as virtually flat and expanding with acceleration in the observed universe, due to the flatness of the geometry of the observation act. The mathematical demonstration is in Benazzo (2010b, 2011c, 2012b). The scientific method used consists of inserting an empirically verified astronomical value parameter in the observed expanding universe frame, called frame E (Expanding). Such parameter is the Hubble length. In the Big Bang paradigm, this represents the distance at which the stars are currently receding at the speed of light. Starting from this parameter, calculations provide the measures and measurements of the geometry of the defined hidden cosmos, called frame C, and of the light cone defining the observation act, called frame O. Curvature in a static and fractal hidden cosmos is identified as determining a discrepancy between two different measurements, one for redshift and one for brightness. This discrepancy is transferred back to the observed universe frame E where it parades as an accelerated expansion. Redshift calculations from the hidden cosmos frame C also parade as accelerated expansion in another projected flat frame P (somehow alike the curved Earth is projected onto a flat map). Therefore, such accelerated expansion results as virtual in the composite topology, such that actual travel would be in the curved static cosmos frame. There is very little discrepancy between the values calculated through the topology and the empirical data of the Supernovae (Benazzo, 2012b). The hidden cosmos would embody hidden actual dynamics that would act transcendentally on events and show, through the frames of reference mentioned, as empirical data collected on a visible virtually expanding universe. The transcendental would acquire empirical evidence, even if indirectly, while the observed universe limit would be its virtuality, which could be called empirical virtuality. Both clash with traditional common understanding.
Empirically based eternity of the cosmos and its annihilation beyond time and space, by means of perfect communication
The composite topology, with interlinked flat and curved frames determines variable speeds of light in the absolute totality of the curved cosmos frame, with channels of light that travel beyond time and space (Benazzo, 2010b, 2011c, 2012b). In the three flat frames, i.e. the two universe frames and the light cone frame, the composite topology determines a fixed speed of light c in the collected empirical data, in conformity with Einstein’s (1961) relativity. While only light with the tilting angles of the space-time axes pertaining to the speed of light c are empirically directly observable through the observer’s light cone, light permeates the cosmos domain communicating all occurrences through all possible tilting angles of space-time axes. This necessarily implies that matter in the cosmos needs to be transparent to light. Matter would thus be much less material in the cosmos domain that what virtual empirical evidence shows in the observed universe. Eventually, matter itself could be composed of certain types of agglomerations of light energy, i.e. electromagnetic radiation itself.
Communication of occurrences beyond time and space means this happens irrespective of time. Distance becomes irrelevant; hence this occurs irrespective of length of space. The first implies the second and vice-versa. In addition, irrespective of time implies eternity. Irrespective of space implies perfect communication. In these pages, the mentioning of one of them implies the other three.
In the defined static curved frame, each region of the empirically based actual cosmos would have an opposite region with on average equal quantity of matter but with inverted time and space axes. Due to perfect cosmic communication channels occurring beyond time and space, thanks to the interaction between the flat and curved frames, the two regions would thus behave as anti-matter to each other in the curved frame. Any such couple of regions would thus annihilate on average, determining complete annihilation of the whole cosmos, in eternity. Empirical data would as such provide evidence of concurrency of the cosmos and its annihilation. Both would remain transcendental, i.e. hidden.
Unshakability of annihilation with empirically based omnipotence
The eternal annihilation would lead to the absence of any occurrence whatsoever. This annihilation is defined as the null set composed of the absence of any occurrence, including the absence of its own definition, of dimensions and the absence of an observer to define it. Annihilation is thus called null (recalling a null set that annihilates in itself) (Benazzo, 2011a). This better reflects absolute absence with respect to “no-thing-ness” as “thing” may controversially be defined in different ways. In many of them things are only material, excluding dreams, spirituality, etc. In such nothingness, the absence would be incomplete. For the complete absence of the null to be influenced by any occurrence, it needs to have itself at least one occurrence on which to act upon. This is contrary to total absence, thus complete annihilation remains absolutely unshakable. Eventually what would occur is that the null splits between a form and its anti-form (Charon, 1987, uses the concept of anti-form) such that the two are separated, while they communicate in eternity to concurrently aggregate to total annihilation. Empirical data provides evidence (Benazzo, 2010b, 2011c, 2012b) that an observer inside it would constitute a form who sees events in an anti-form universe, while annihilation would remain transcendental. Attribution of “form” and “anti-form” may be reversed, e.g. respectively to universe and observer. Any action or event of a form in the cosmos, e.g. of an observer, implies thus a necessary feedback involving the whole cosmos through perfect communication, such that the anti-form adapts, and vice-versa, in order to accomplish the unshakability of annihilation. An old tree that falls would change a form that would require all the rest, i.e. the anti-form of the whole cosmos to adapt hiddenly, beyond time and space, before the ground pressed flies dust in the air. Unshakability requires such adaptations to occur necessarily. It would thus make the cosmos omnipotent, resulting in a most fundamental principle. In the following analysis, omnipotence is thus considered as a characteristic of the discussed empirically based cosmos.
Perfect communication beyond time and space with empirically based omnipotence
The empirically based omnipotence of the cosmos depends on an empirically based perfect communication, as central actor in its generation. If the omnipotent cosmos and its communication were different, there could be two cases: 1) perfect communication lacks omnipotence; 2) perfect communication is omnipotent. The cosmos omnipotence would depend on either of the two, which is impossible for omnipotence. In the second case, in addition, an omnipotent cosmos and an omnipotent communication would each require the other to be dependent which is contrary to omnipotence. The only viable possibility is that absolute perfect communication is omnipotent and identical to the cosmos and its annihilation, even if seen from another perspective. In this way an omnipotent cosmos would depend on the same cosmos. This is a necessary implication from the empirically based paradigm. In other words, perfect communication both allows and conveys omnipotence, identifying with omnipotence itself.
Empirical evidence of Kant’s a priori space and time in the observation act
While perfect cosmic communication remains transcendental, the intuition of a common steady time flow and flat space allows empirically experiencing the daily life. This compels representing their axes as steadfastly straight. The Big Bang paradigm uses this traditional common sense physics, irrespective of distance from the observer, as a form for determining empirical experience and categories of understanding. In the defined hidden curved cosmos frame, time and space of the light cones emitted further and further away from the observer gradually tilt away, implying a different conception from common sense intuition. Signals arriving from those variably tilted light cones are virtually adapted to the tilting of the observer’s flat light cone. The observer lacks possibility to observe directly if a faraway light cone is parallel to the observer’s one or if it is tilted away.
Rather than proposing to substitute the Big Bang paradigm, the alternative paradigm explains how empirical data may be read in both paradigms and how the curved frame would be the actual one while the Big Bang flat one would be a virtual vision determined by the intuitive form of the observation act. In Benazzo (2010a, 2011c, 2012b) there is an empirically based analysis on how this alternative paradigm would represent a firmer and eventually simpler foundation compared to the Big Bang paradigm alone. Both paradigms need space and time forms of representation, even when the alternative paradigm provides empirical evidence of concurrency of total annihilation, where space and time are completely obliterated. In addition, the Big Bang paradigm uses flat space-time as form of representation for empirical investigation and provides empirical evidence of substantial flatness of space and time. Alternatively, the hidden cosmos frame uses a curved space-time form of representation and finds empirical evidence for a curved cosmos. Science normally dreads this particular ever inevitable circularity, which illustrates the impossibility of empirical verification of these forms of representation. In addition, empirical data provide evidence that the light cone that embeds space and time stands between the defined cosmos and the universe, thus is always necessary. The paradigm composite empirically based geometry provides therefore empirical evidence that space and time are a transcendental a priori construction of the observer’s mind, in Kant’s way (2003). They would thus constitute an irreducible part of the observation act.
Empirical evidence for metaphysics
Parallel straight axes of time flow and flat space axes, as conventional wisdom intuitive forms of representation, allow understanding the empirical observed universe, such as with the Big Bang paradigm, without contradiction. Changing to a curved space-time form of representation, the alternative paradigm provides empirical evidence of a hidden cosmos domain beyond direct empirical verification and beyond conventional physics forms of representation. Metaphysics definition of “beyond physics” would be specified here as beyond direct observation, transcendental and beyond conventional physics. Empirical evidence of such cosmos thus provides empirical evidence of metaphysics. In addition, concurrency of the cosmos and its annihilation, in eternity, provides empirical evidence of paradoxical contradiction. This would be in agreement with Kant’s analysis whereby the a priori forms of representation and categories of understanding lead to contradictions in the field of metaphysics. The consistency of all Kant’s (2003) analysis resides in the rigorous application of the principle of contradiction. Between having to discard the principle of contradiction or metaphysics, Kant needs to discard metaphysics. His analysis implies space and time are out of context beyond the observable universe. In the alternative paradigm, recent data measurements of Supernovae provide empirical evidence of the presence of paradoxical metaphysics. This requires accepting metaphysics and discarding the principle of contradiction in such domain, inverting Kant’s selection. Further analysis about contradictions in the hidden cosmos is thus necessary.
Three physical domains
In the four frames, the a priori observer’s light cone frame transforms an actual empirical hidden cosmos in a virtual, though empirically observable universe. Plato’s allegory of the cave (2008) is useful in describing such paradigm (Benazzo, 2012a). The irreducible part of the observation act with its flat light cone frame would constitute the cave; it would generate shadows of the actual hidden cosmos that would be seen as virtual observed universe. Only by learning how to reverse the distortionary effects of the observation act may the observer exit the cave; i.e. transcend the light cone flatness effect. In this way the observer may perceive (rather than see with her/his eyes) with her/his mind the defined actual cosmos. The observed virtual universe would be incomplete on its own as it would be virtual. The hidden actual cosmos would be incomplete on its own as it would be hidden. The two are therefore reciprocally useful (Benazzo, 2012a).
Since the empirical evidence of a physical cosmos is given by the aggregate of the empirical observed universe with the transcendental act of observation, this latter would then in principle need also to be considered physical. There would as such be three physical domains.
The analysis until this point considers the physical aspects related to an empirically based identity between perfect cosmic communication, the cosmos and its annihilation in the null. This first part expounds an empirically based cosmology. In the following second part, philosophical implications are derived on whether such empirical base necessarily transfers to the characteristics of God.
Identity among absolutes, founded on an empirically based identity between the cosmos and its annihilation
The cosmos, considered a complete physical domain, includes all physical events. It is thus an absolute to be compared with an absolute God. In addition, the whole in general, without further delimiting specifications, is considered a complete set that includes all possibilities, all occurrences, all ideas, all probabilities, actualities, dreams, spiritual perceptions, spirit, love, communication, etc. This is another absolute considered. This is different from a specific whole, which is determined by indicating its specificity, implicitly or explicitly, such as all the roads in a city, or all the trees in a forest.
A question may be posed if three different names, God, the cosmos and the whole would name the same concept, i.e. if the three would be identical absolutes. All possibilities about their relationship are considered:
A. God ≠ cosmos
God’s omnipotence implies God acts in the cosmos. The difference between the two could be:
God and the cosmos are reciprocally external.
God and the cosmos have only one occurrence in common (tangency).
God and the cosmos intersect (thus reciprocally).
God is included completely inside the cosmos as part of it.
The cosmos is included completely inside God as part of it.
In each case except for the first and last, when God would act in the external parts, the action is supposed either to move, change and shift the intersection, or eventually to change the determinants of the intersection while keeping the intersection completely still and invariable. In any case, the cosmos annihilation in the null would need to be kept, since the null results as absolutely unshakable. In the first (i) case also, where the two are reciprocally external, the action of God in the cosmos would need to leave the annihilation of the cosmos in the unshakable null unaffected. In case (v), God would have complete access to the cosmos as the latter would be completely included. Still the unshakable annihilation of the cosmos in the null would need to be kept, such that God’s internal conformation would have incomplete independence. In each case discussed, God would depend on the unshakability of the null. This is contrary to the idea of God, in particular of omnipotence and of independence. These hypotheses would thus need to be discarded.
B. God ≠ the whole
The whole without further specifications is defined as complete, including all occurrences without exception. This is a fixed invariability, by definition of the whole. If God were different from the whole, then God would need to be included within the whole, as part of it, by definition. God’s omnipotence would imply that God would act on all occurrences of the whole. God would need to leave the invariability of the completeness of the whole unaffected though, without adding to or subtracting any occurrence from it. Such dependence is contrary to the idea of God, in particular independence and omnipotence. This hypothesis would also need to be discarded.
C. God = the whole = cosmos (= perfect communication = the null)
The only remaining possibility is an identity among God, the whole and the cosmos, i.e. also perfect cosmic communication and the resulting null. In this way, a dependence of God on the whole and the cosmos and perfect communication and the null would mean a dependence of God on the same God.
D. The whole = cosmos
A countercheck needs to be made if an identity between the physical cosmos and the whole would hold, even without considering a relation to God.
All the occurrences of the whole are at least in potentiality. The whole would as such have omni-potentiality. The whole needs to include all occurrences, thus it would also have all elements in actuality. The whole thus also needs to include omnipotence. If the whole just included omnipotence without the whole itself being omnipotent, this would mean that at least in some occurrences such omnipotence would impede the whole to be invariably complete, contrary to the characteristics of the whole. Otherwise, if the omnipotence included in the whole would be obliged to keep the whole invariably complete, that omnipotence would be limited, contrary to the definition of omnipotence. The only possibility is thus that the whole itself has actual omnipotence.
If the omnipotence of the whole and that of the cosmos were each a different omnipotence, each one would need to obey the other omnipotence, which is impossible. Thus the two need to be an identical omnipotence lacking the plural form.
In addition, by definition, the whole needs to include the cosmos. If the cosmos would be only a part of the whole, included in it, then its empirically based omnipotence would need to abide by the invariable completeness of the whole. A dependence of omnipotence is impossible. This would mean that all elements of the whole need to be included in the cosmos, in addition to all elements of the cosmos being included in the whole.
Perfect communication and unshakability of annihilation of the cosmos in the null would make any cosmos conformation equivalent to any other. There could be as such an infinite number of different cosmos conformations. They would be concurrent in eternity and altogether would correspond to the whole. They would thus allow infinite concurrent lives for each observer. This would work as in the 1998 film “Sliding Doors” (written and directed by Peter Howitt), where two concurrent lives of the same observer occur depending on some choices. This provides freedom to the observer.
E. The whole = the null
Identity of the whole with the cosmos also identifies the whole with the cosmos annihilation in the null. Such absolute may be called null-whole. The whole would thus include all occurrences in potentiality and in actuality, all their opposites and all their absences, such that they altogether aggregate to annihilation in the null, beyond time and space. This empirically based paradox constitutes a valid and justified exception to the traditional laws of thought. The laws of thought are established as tools to make scientific sense of the empirical sciences in the observable universe, already when Aristotle (2012) discussed them. When applied to an empirically based hidden cosmos and its corresponding identical definitions discussed here above, they would need to be reconsidered, to be adapted to such different, metaphysical, domain (Benazzo, 2011a).
Given the five absolutes, God, the whole, the cosmos, perfect communication and the null, the cases described above can be combined. In such combinations, the considerations above apply to any pair of absolutes. The only solution that would endow God with independence and omnipotence would consist in an identity among God and each of these other absolutes.
Would such identities necessarily imply other characteristics of God and which could be a formalization of the identified null-whole paradox?
F. An empirically based solution to Russell’s paradox as a name for God
Russell’s paradox (Russell, 1903) is defined considering how the definition of a set determines which elements are included in the set. One possibility is when its definition is itself also an included element. An example is “the set of all sets defined by a sentence of 14 words maximum”. Another possibility is when its definition is excluded from its elements. An example is “the set of all single words”. Russell’s Paradox concerns an overarching set that includes any set of this second type. Then a question is posed if the (definition determining this) overarching set is included in or excluded from its elements. If the overarching set is excluded from its elements, then its characteristic matches with that of the elements, therefore it is included in itself. If it is included in itself, then it loses that match with the elements, therefore it excludes itself from its elements (Russell, 1903). In the flow of time of the observed immanent universe, the concurrency of an occurrence and its opposite, characteristic of Russell’s Paradox, expresses an impossibility. In the cosmos domain without time and space, the set defining the paradox may be said to concurrently include and exclude itself.
The cosmos, with its concurrent annihilation, would constitute a set called the null-whole. The cosmos is derived above as the complete whole, without possibility to add any occurrence whatsoever. A contained cosmos is impossible because it would add doubles. Thus the whole excludes itself from its elements. Considering it as the null, since the null is also included in any set (Russell, 1903), it would be included in itself without adding any occurrence. The null-whole, God, the cosmos would thus concurrently include and exclude itself. Such empirically based definition of the cosmos is identical to Russell’s Paradox. The cosmos of the alternative paradigm would thus constitute an empirically based solution to Russell’s Paradox amending the traditional laws of thought (Benazzo, 2011a). In addition, Russell’s Paradox would constitute a name for God.
G. An empirically based central role of perfect communication as a fundamental indispensable feminine side of God
Perfect communication generates Russell’s Paradox. If a person wishes to contribute to other persons so that they may communicate perfectly amongst themselves, then the person annihilates her/his subjectivity, desires, while communicating such that the others’ communication passes without distortion. The person forgets her/himself, gifting her/his action for the good of others, while communicating thus allowing perfect communication, transparency. This behaviour of annihilation of the self in a living communication is also called love. The person communicating in such way has also complete information.
The cosmos annihilates itself in a living omnipotent transparent communication that gets to know all and would thus provide omniscience, i.e. perfect wisdom of God. If omniscience would just be inside the cosmos, without the cosmos being omniscient itself, then the empirically based cosmos omnipotence would be limited, which is impossible. Such type of action, such love would be perfect without failure. Sin concerns a failure. The cosmos would have characteristics corresponding to love conceived without sin(*). Communication is a trait of each gender’s character and requires emotional intelligence, which is usually seen as more a feminine, rather than masculine, characteristic. Perfect communication would thus represent a feminine side of God (Benazzo, 2012a).
H. Empirical evidence for feminine and masculine incarnation
The null set is contained in any set (Russell, 1903). The empirically based null-whole, considered in its null aspect, contains thus itself. This implies that God is contained in itself. Instances, and among them observers, may behave in certain manners as indicated by religions or other appropriate behavioural codes, i.e. with a correspondence to self annihilation in living communication, such that they (Benazzo, 2011a, 2012a) would identify with the null-whole cosmos, incarnating God. Observers who endeavour to have recourse to loving perfect transparent communication would have more chances to have some access to omniscience, for example. As the observer is both female and male, then the same God needs to concurrently be female and male. Potentially, an infinite number of incarnations may occur. For Christians, Jesus would remain an incarnation that provides words of wisdom to others, guiding those who wish to imitate his path. For Christians, his mother Mary, having humbly annihilated herself in love, would have activated the omnipotence of perfect communication and the null and would need to be considered an incarnation of God as well (Benazzo, 2012a). An observer incarnating God would identify also with the whole, the null, the cosmos, Russell’s Paradox and perfect communication.
I. Empirical evidence of humility as a fundamental way to incarnation and interfaith dialogue
In annihilation, God would totally renounce to show itself, hiding the action of its omnipotence, reaching absolute humility. Annihilation enables God to contain itself, constituting a fundamental principle allowing for incarnation. A vital observer’s attitude to incarnation would thus be to search for humility. With its infinite conformations, God, even if within its general principles and laws, would conform to each observer as personal God’s manifestation in the observed universe. A group of observers that meet together imply they share the same universe spot. Given cosmic omnipotence, the intersection needs forcibly to be harmonised. A person imposing the ego and self would be forced to renounce to any given universe spot where she/he would be inharmonic with the immediate surroundings, experiencing a limited infinity of possible liveable cosmos conformations, a limited independence. Humbled ego and self in living communication, renouncing inharmonious aggressive imposition, would allow selfless love preventing friction of intersection with other observer’s cosmos conformations. It would allow action of cosmic love without sin, i.e. perfect communication. Its full achievement would allow harmonization with the rest, the observed universe and the others, in all infinite possible liveable conformations providing incarnation. Each observer, as a potential God’s incarnation, may be invited to approach this. The imposition or championing of a religion or belief in comparison to others would constitute an imposition of one’s or a group’s self and ego on other people. This would impede incarnation.
The observer’s gratitude for the gifts received, with acceptance of personal defeat, in the sense of defeat of the self and ego, would be a step in humbling, in order to help open to the possibility for the cosmos finding a way to manifest its grace through the observer, gratifying the observer with gifts from the cosmos, rather than gifts from the universe. While in the universe there needs to be competition for acquiring noticeable material gifts in presence of limited resources, in the cosmos domain, charitable cooperation would be a way to acquire cosmic gifts. In the infinite cosmos conformations, there would be at least one in which all observers of the universe incarnate God.
All these identified names of God, as investigated in Benazzo (2010a, 2011a, 2012a) provide characteristics of God. The absolutely humble and unshakable null is independent, it provides omnipotence. Perfect transparent communication of the cosmos provides omniscience. The null and perfect communication allow the freedom to chose one among infinite concurrent lives. The beyond time and space provides eternity. The hiding behind the observation act provides transcendentality. The Russell’s Paradox contained in itself formalizes an empirical base accounting for incarnation. These are characteristics of the idea of God such that the name God would be a redundant name of the others, even if it helps summarising them all.
How would existence in relation to God fit in such a paradigm?
Three domains for existence
The cosmos, the observed universe, and the observation act, would have three different dynamics, different characteristics, different laws. Existence needs to be considered severally in each domain.
In the universe domain, the observer experiences the immanence of only one of the infinite cosmos conformations. In that one observed universe, time flows and space extends as forms of representation, as mentioned by Kant (2003). In a specific time and space, the observer sees only few occurrences as present. These may be said to exist for that observer, while all the other occurrences are inexistent. If a whole life of the observer is considered, then the observer would have encountered numerous different occurrences. For that observer, these have existed while all others would have lacked existence. If all occurrences that may happen to any observer of the same universe are considered, these may be said to exist in the sense that they are viable occurrences that may happen in such universe, while the others would remain inexistent. Considering thus all the possible universe conformations, any considered occurrence may in some observer’s universe conformation exist, in other remain inexistent. In this observed universe domain, what is present to an observer or to humankind, either in a given time span or as a viable possibility, exists, while the rest lacks existence. Traditional thought and common sense from experience in the observed universe provide evidence (which the alternative paradigm specify as virtual empirical evidence) that all empirical occurrences change their condition, in different time and/or space coordinates, between existence and inexistence. This would also apply to the universe, ever present i.e. ever existent for the observer who can though imagine cases of its inexistence. This is the domain of empirical science where paradoxes are to be discarded, and where the traditional laws of thought would apply. This could be said to be the domain where Aristotle’s philosophy (2012) and the Aristotelian legacy apply. It entails that a God would either act if existent or lack any influence whatsoever if inexistent, either one or the other, in eternity.
In the cosmos domain, the whole consists of the aggregate all possible cosmos conformations. In a part of these, an infinity of different lives concurrently occur for each one among infinite observers with their respective observed universe. Another infinite number of conformations would consist in a null set subdivided in form and anti-form, without internal observers as known to us. An example is the barber’s paradox (Falletta, 1990), the popular representation, i.e. mode, of Russell’s Paradox, consisting in the question: Who shaves the male and only barber in a remote village who shaves only men who avoid shaving themselves? As the physical cosmos would constitute Russell’s Paradox, then the barber’s paradox description would be a cosmos, where the barber would concurrently shave and avoid shaving himself, in eternity. There are as such some of the cosmic conformations of the whole that may present to a defined living observer without apparent internal physical forces. Definitions within the whole and physical forces of the whole would have their opposites on average depending on their aggregations, bringing altogether to infinite annihilating cosmoses and to total annihilation. A single occurrence lacks existence only by aggregating an appropriate group of occurrences in a form and annihilating this with its anti-form, such that its inexistence may be achieved only concurrently with existence by a Russell’s Paradox conformation, i.e. by God. Otherwise, the simple absence of an occurrence in the universe is just absence from an observed part of the cosmos, while the occurrence exists in eternity in another part. A cupboard exists even in an empty room, in the sense that there is at least one cosmos conformation in which a cupboard is present in that room. Just in the room of that specific observed universe, the cupboard is absent. Only the absence from the cosmos is considered as inexistence, and this may occur only to the null set, because null occurrence is outside the whole, i.e. only the null is outside the cosmos. In other words, only the side of God pertaining to inexistence is outside the existent side of God. It is impossible to define the null directly as in the null there would be absence of words to define it. Speaking of nothingness should be avoided for Parmenides (Thanassas, 2007) as nothingness and only nothingness would lack any existence. In the alternative paradigm of these pages, the null is the only inexistence in Parmenide’s way.
Still Parmenides speaks about nothingness, which means it has some connections with existence. The above empirically based argumentations allow defining this complete inexistence with reference to the whole, in three concurrent ways as: a) its opposite; b) its complete absence including absence of an observer to define it; and c) itself in identical determination even if approached from a different perspective. In this way, the null participates somehow of existence, in the sense of Plato (1993), when occurrences are defined as what is different from another (one or a set of) occurrence(s) (Benazzo, 2012a). In the cosmos domain, only God would have access to both existence and inexistence, while each single occurrence and each form that groups some of them would only have access to existence. In the cosmos identified with the whole, existence may thus be characterised as whatever may be derived by means of a definition, or may be thought of in potentiality, in the Parmenidean (Thanassas, 2007) way. The whole is defined by the use and association of any possible word in any way possible. In this domain, existence is determined by the omni-potentiality of the use of words, what in ancient Greek may be called logos.
In the Bible (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002), John the evangelist wrote, 1,1-5
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
3. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4. through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5. the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Ottaviano (2008) translates directly and literally from the Greek New Testament (Nestle-Aland, 1979) into Italian. When multiple translations are possible, Ottaviano leaves them all in the text. Here only the translation options which are compatible with the discussed paradigm are taken. The Italian is translated into English here below:
1. In the beginning was the logos-word, and the logos-word was among the God, and the logos-word was God.
2. This was in the beginning among the God.
3. All things were made through him, and without him not even one thing was made. What was made, in him [the logos-word], was life
4. and this life was the light of the human race;
5. and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not stopped it.
Light in the alternative paradigm allows for perfect transparent omnipotent communication and permeates the cosmos passing through all angles of the tilting space-time axes. All but those of the observer’s light cone tilting angle are darkness for the observer (Benazzo, 2010b, 2011b, 2011c, 2012b).
In Ottaviano’s translation, with the options chosen, “him” may be identified with the “logos-word”. Within the paradigm of these pages, thus the introduction by John in the Bible could be translated as the following. In brackets are interpretations related to the discussion above:
1. In the beginning was the whole, constituted of words, and the whole was among the God, and the whole was God.
2. The words of the whole were in the beginning among the God.
3. All occurrences are made through the whole, and without the whole, null occurrence is made [i.e. null occurrence is outside the whole]. What was made, in the whole made of words, was life
4. and this life has the form of light [i.e. perfect transparent communication, i.e. love conceived without sin] for the human race,
5. the light [i.e. love conceived without sin] permeates also darkness, and the darkness lacks possibility to stop it.
Perfect transparent communication, i.e. perfect love as the feminine side of God relates words among them, and it is defined as life here. The verb is the principal language tool associating words. “the Verb” would therefore be relative to the paragraphs 4 and 5 rather than the paragraph 1. The use of “the Verb” in the in paragraph 1 for the Latin countries tradition would interpret giving a different flavour than the literal translation of the original Greek text as from Ottaviano (2008) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2002).
Any observer of any religion or any alternative belief (atheism for example) communicates words and thus has access to the path for approaching God, in her/his own way, allowed by embedding her/his life experience in the guiding words of the environment and religion or other belief that she/he worships. For example, the atheists who believe in the inexistence of God, would worship the null side of God in the cosmos domain, that which would concurrently be principle of freedom and of generation of God’s omnipotence, manifested as observed universe. They believe in practically the same way as those that believe in a humblest being, so perfectly humble as to reach inexistence in the omnipotent null and leave freedom to the observer. The author is grateful to Jesus of Nazareth, his church and his humble mother Mary for the words he has received and in particular expresses ignorance and insufficient knowledge of other religions or beliefs and therefore shall avoid mentioning them.
In the observation act domain, the definition of existence needs always to use the concept of existence, generating circularity. This concept is always needed in any scientific observation or logical definition. Kant (2003) defines this irreducible transcendental part of the observation act as an a priori conception, a category of understanding. Existence is thus indefinable with respect to the observation act since it constitutes this transcendental act itself. To mention existence is to mention the observation act as well as to mention space and time is to mention the observation act.
In which of these domains could observational data provide empirical evidence on the category of existence in relation to God?
Possibility for an empirically based answer to the question “Does God exist?” in each of the three domains
The question “Does God exist?” is present in ordinary language thus, in Ordinary Language Philosophy, this is a legitimate question. It may be posed in the three different domains analysed above, starting from the cosmos domain in this section.
In the cosmos domain, the empirical foundation of the answer to the question is discussed above and the answer is as follows: “God concurrently exists as the whole, the cosmos, perfect communication and lacks existence as the null, beyond time and space, in eternity, and Russell’s Paradox would name such paradoxical God”. God’s transcendentality would consist of a paradox, inaccessible physically to the observer who can only perform physical actions without paradox, even if the observer may mentally devise paradoxes. God’s transcendentality is empirically based through the four frames of reference that mathematically interlink the cosmos with the empirical evidence of the observed universe. The characteristics of such empirically determined cosmos correspond to the widely accepted characteristics of god and resolve a number of contradictions and puzzles (Benazzo, 2010a, 2011a, 2012a). God would constitute a very particular paradox and paradoxes would be legitimate in the cosmos domain.
In the observed universe domain, the traditional laws of thought banning contradiction apply. God the cosmos, by manifesting as observed universe, as nature, would be widespread enough for the observer to apply in all empirical cases. God would always remain there, ever present. An empirical search of a proof would need to compare cases of presence with cases of absence of God, though absence of God provides total annihilation which is undetectable in the universe domain. In addition such cosmic annihilation provides freedom to the observer, which in other words means absence of directly observable empirical traces in the universe. If the universe exhausted within itself all occurrences, such absence of empirical proof of God’s existence could be considered a proof of God’s inexistence. There are though occurrences beyond a beginning of the universe and there is empirical evidence discussed here that detects an irreducible and transcendental part of the observation act. Thus an empirically based answer to the question whether God exists or lacks existence would be impossible in the observed universe domain, i.e. a daunting task, as shown by the open debate. Proceeding instead in the sphere of logic without considering empirical evidence, an existent God in the universe domain would need to lack access to inexistence. This would, however, contradict omnipotence, whereby God would have access to all occurrences and their absences. Existence applied to God and metaphysics in the traditional universe domain as such leads to contradictions. Kant found contradictions in metaphysics, whereby both a thesis and its antithesis have a valid proof, generating antinomies (Kant, 2003, chapter 2, section 2). In compliance with the principle of contradiction that applies in the empirical (discussed here as virtual) universe, Kant’s conclusions need to hold: The a priori forms of space and time and the a priori categories of quantity, quality, relation, existence can only be applied to the observed universe. The question about God’s existence would thus be illegitimate in this domain.
In the observation act domain, existence is an ever necessary a priori conception, irreducible to empirical study, while it is an ever necessary instrument for providing empirical proofs. Existence thus constitutes the unobservable observation act. To investigate within this domain whether God exists would require that the observer observes the unobservable, which is impossible. In the cosmos domain, the observer may try to experience God by foregoing or detaching from the observation act, in order to subjectively feel rather than see God. Some may describe compassionate charitable meditation or meditative compassionate charity as two possible ways of doing that. Are there any options for discussing God without renouncing the act of observation, without renouncing the a priori category of understanding constituted by “existence”? Russell’s Paradox naming God as both existent and lacking existence would counterbalance existence with inexistence, neutralising the interference of the observation act (of this category of understanding), while at the same time would allow using the category of existence for describing God. This allows coordination of language between the discussion about God and empirical evidence from the alternative paradigm, as needed to perform scientific and philosophical investigation.
In summary, in the cosmos domain all occurrences exist in eternity, while only God would have access to inexistence, i.e. to supreme humility, in concurrency with access to existence. The alternative paradigm thus almost totally inverts the observed universe perspective where only God would lack access to inexistence, which is difficult to reconcile with the concept of omnipotence, while concurrency of existence and inexistence would be impossible.
Does the cosmos perspective also imply an alternative paradigm of finite versus infinite?
An alternative paradigm on infinite and finite
Pavlenko (2009) analyses how cosmology in European history has led to the introduction of infinite values that invalidate “cosmology as a natural science”. In fact, they bring about what modern science of the observable universe is forced to consider unverifiable, such as the concept of multiverse. Pavlenko points out that Einstein’s static universe provided for a finite quantity of matter and of space, which would be finite even if boundless. This meant that the universe could be considered as an “integral whole that may become the subject of exact science”. In the alternative paradigm, the cosmos domain has characteristics like those of Einstein’s static universe, as in a best scenario defined by Pavlenko. These finite values are subject to empirical verification indirectly through the discussed virtual observed universe that has characteristics of infinity.
The whole is complete, as null occurrence may be added to that, while it also includes the null set. The whole as such is finite. In parallel, null occurrence may be subtracted from the null that already lacks all occurrences; therefore also the null is finite. Concurrently, the null may be decomposed in concurrent form and anti-form, beyond time and space, in an infinite number of ways. This corresponds to an infinity of concurrent different cosmos and universes conformations. This would empirically justify the multiverse; and some main characteristics may be considered for alternative universes. The perfect transparent communication provides for an infinity of different interactions among an infinite number of possible occurrences. God the cosmos would thus concurrently be both a finite absolute and an infinity of different aggregate manifestations. On the other hand, in the observed virtual universe domain, God’s virtual empirical manifestation to the observer would only be infinite, transcendentally hiding the aspects of finitude. In each universe, the process of change of an object would be finite. It would have finite existence. In the cosmos, the object would participate in eternal perfect communication and in different ways in each observer’s observed universe. This would occur beyond time, in eternity, with infinite existence.
In summary, God would be infinite in the observed universe, and concurrently have both finitude and infinity in the cosmos domain. Any event would have finitude in the observed universe, while in the cosmos it would have infinite existence.
An empirically based reading about the soul
Finitude and infinity of any event would also apply to the Observer. Only one of the possible lives of the observer in the infinite possible cosmos conformations will represent the observer relative to an observed universe. This life in both the universe and its cosmos conformation would be consisting of a finite number of events. Its empirical however virtual existence in the universe domain is finite, perishes. Its actual and hidden cosmic existence fully and eternally participates in the interactions of the identified cosmic and living perfect transparent communication, defined also as love conceived without sin. Such transcendental and empirically based living existence remains thus imperishable in eternity, beyond time and space. It may thus be read by means of the concept of soul. Further analysis on the soul is beyond the scope of these pages.
In addition, observers who would happen to incarnate God would participate in both the cosmos infinite immortality and its absolute finitude during the finite lifetime in the observed universe.
Some questions may be raised at this point:
How could an identity between the whole or the null and God have been unappealing historically?
Issue on omnipotence
How can omnipotence be a characteristic of God, if God annihilates in the null? Within an ordinary language philosophy approach, null is used also for worthless, or in legal documents when they are called “null and void”. How would worthlessness be useful for God, the most often called omnipotent, highest, greatest? What is the degree of separation between omnipotence and worthlessness of complete annihilation? The alternative paradigm provides an answer that worthlessness of God in form of absolute humility reaching annihilation would constitute God’s unshakability providing God’s omnipotence.
Issue of freedom
How can God perfectly know all occurrences and still grant freedom to the observer? By way of the eternally annihilating infinite cosmos conformations of the empirically based alternative paradigm, there would be an infinity of concurrent lives for each observer in an infinity of different universes that would correspond to the idea of multiverse. The cosmos/God would see and actuate with omniscience all the possible lives of each observer, in eternity. The observer would see only the one life resulting from all her/his free choices. The annihilation into the null is thus a most fundamental principle that allows the omniscience of God to live together with freedom of the observer.
Issue of contradiction
How can God be a paradox, when it is impossible for the observer to physically live a paradox? If men resemble God, how could God itself be a contradiction (even if a very special one)? On the other hand, a paradox is transcendental, in agreement with the transcendentality of God. The addition of the physical cosmos domain and the observation act allows concurrency of the absence of contradiction in the observed universe with particularly structured contradiction in the cosmos. The contradiction of Russell’s Paradox that contains itself is discussed as the principle allowing God/cosmos to incarnate in an observer. It thus provides such a close resemblance between God and the observer to allow for infinite possible incarnations.
Issue of evil
The cosmos as well as the whole include each both good and evil. How could a God identified with them be perfect goodness? How does goodness relate to God in such a case? This poses a challenge to God: “Why God do you allow evil?” is a common question. The observer seems to have a wholesome desire that God avoids evil and to be free at the same time. If God would prevent evil, the observer would lack freedom. So the category of Goodness to God is controversial. Could the category of love resolve such an impasse? God considered as perfect love would allow freedom and thus also freedom of choosing evil, or of falling into evil, or being without sufficient grace to withstand the evil temptations. At the same time love is that action that forgives evil and gives a new chance, which brings about goodness healing evil.
If God would allow good and evil, would also an incarnation be both good and evil? What would be the benefit of such an incarnation? Incarnation as discussed in these pages would require the observer annihilating her/his self and ego in living communication, thus embodying perfect love, allowing a harmony between the observed universe and the observation act, thus replicating the cosmos perfect communication that humbles any selfishness into complete annihilation in the null. An evil person would certainly avoid both renouncing the self and trying to find harmony with the observed universe and within the cosmos. An observer needs to be only goodness in order to act lovingly and incarnate God, even if God as cosmos lovingly embraces both good and evil.
A reading of “parousia” of the Christian New Testament
Perfect transparent communication would make the eternal cosmos ever present to an observer annihilating her/his ego and self during her/his living communication. In this respect Mathew 24, paragraphs 27 and 31 allow a unique literal translation according to Ottaviano (2008), retranslated here from Italian:
27 For just as lightning comes from the east and shows itself as far as the west, so will the presence of the Son of Man be...
31 And he will send his messengers with a big trumpet, and they will gather his elects from the four winds from the top of the skies until their borders.
Ottaviano considers “presence” as the unique literal translation of “parousia”, while the “coming” used by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2002) version and many others would interpret freely. That it “will ... be” “as lightning comes” could be read literally as a functioning of the presence, rather than the way the presence arrives. In particular, “lightning” may recall cosmic feedback; “messengers with a big trumpet” may recall supernovae and other empirical information about a hidden cosmos received through the trumpet shape of the light cone; the “four winds from the top of the skies until their borders” may recall the alternative paradigm four frames of reference of the sky. This is an interpretation which fits with the alternative paradigm. Another interpretation is the second coming of Jesus himself. This interpretation though shows contradiction with what Jesus is reported saying in Mathew 24, 23-24 (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002):
23 If anyone says to you then, 'Look, here is the Messiah!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.
24 False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.
This may be read as Jesus saying that he would return invisible and felt in spirit by graced observers. This would make his presence a subjective experience, humbly invisible to others. This could mean Jesus of Nazareth (Mathew 24, 23-24) would have already said all that is needed to approach his presence in spirit, for those who believe in him and Christians. As each observer is in the same cosmos-God-logos, other religions or other beliefs are considered to have their own valid system of wordings, values and behaviour for approaching the living of God’s presence in their personal lives; some of them with their messiahs and prophets.
A triple reading of “end of time”
The Earth is threatened by the possibility of catastrophic meteorites impacts or nuclear disasters. In a large number of the defined infinite concurrent universes, this would be completely spared, prevented. Within the paradigm, a cosmic wide end could rather be that of time, in three different ways:
After the observer’s physical death in the observed universe, the observer would live the cosmos perfect communication, perfect love, remaining ever present, beyond time;
A popularization of an empirically based recognition of the illusion of time. Einstein (1961) found that two simultaneous events in one observer’s frame are instead the first future to the second in another frame and the second future to the first in another observer’s frame, such that time in the universe is relative, illusionary, rather than absolute. In addition, the alternative paradigm provides empirical evidence of virtuality of time, that would actually be completely absent in the totality of an eternal empirically based hidden cosmos;
While living in the universe, graced observers would reach an ever presence of the cosmos beyond time, provided by a spiritual parousia as discussed above. For Christians, this could be read as leaving behind egoism and selfishness that deny Christ, i.e. that impede the presence of the actual cosmos during life in the universe. In Mathew 28, 20 (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002) a resurrected Jesus is reported saying to his disciples “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age”, implying he was already ever present to them, before the other two (a) and (b), which both also imply ever presence of God, i.e. Christ for Christians, beyond time.
In the second (b), reason reaches a logical recognition of an ever presence based on science. The other two ways would be spiritual experiences of the defined empirically based cosmic ever presence.
Further research is possible on the first physical and the second philosophical analyses. Examples could be: concurrency of the cosmos and its annihilation, difference between the universe and the defined cosmos, empirical measurements in the cosmos domain, mathematical or logical formalizations, set theory, statistical significance checks, analysis of argumentation landmarks, possible additional alternatives, the aspect of the soul, possible relations with specific religions or other beliefs, with other empirical or philosophical research.
The forms of representation of time and space and existence as a category of understanding are considered Kant’s a priori, implicitly or explicitly present and necessary in any empirical and logical definition. These are identified with the irreducibly unobservable part of the act of observation. They remain transcendental to empirical evidence. The aggregate of this observation act with the observed universe is called cosmos. Four frames of reference allow transferring to such hidden cosmos empirical evidence derived from the observed universe. These empirical data provide evidence of a transcendental cosmos, of its fulfilling perfect transparent communication and its concurrent, complete annihilation beyond time and space in a null set. Such annihilation is defined as complete absence, including that of an observer to describe the null set, the null. This is unshakable as there is absence of any occurrence on which to act. This unshakability requires that each action generates a necessary cosmic wide feedback, thus providing omnipotence to the cosmos. Its perfect transparent communication perfectly conveys omnipotence identifying thus with it. In comparison, the invariability of the completeness of the whole makes it omnipotent. If God differed from the cosmos, from its perfect communication, from its annihilation and from the whole, then God would depend on them, thus the only possibility is that God is identified with them. In addition, when relating the whole with the cosmos, without considering God, each of them would need to be omnipotent, thus they need to be identical, confirming their identity with God. This entails also an identity between the whole and the cosmos annihilation in the null, providing a null-whole. Since the null is contained in any set, the null-whole contains itself as the null, while it concurrently excludes itself as the whole, likewise Russell’s Paradox set. This paradox would thus be an empirically based name of God, the cosmos, that could contain itself as incarnation; both in women and men. God would therefore have both genders. God, as cosmos, results as a transcendental empirical aggregate of the observed immanent empirical universe plus the observation act. The question on the existence of God may be analysed in each one of these three domains, whereby the complete answer would occur in God’s domain, i.e. considering the cosmos domain. In this case, the empirical evidence discussed would imply the answer that God would concurrently exist as the whole, as the cosmos, as perfectly transparent communication, as incarnation, and concurrently would lack existence as annihilation of the cosmos, beyond time and space, in eternity. Russell’s Paradox precisely defines this empirically based paradoxical existential condition and would require amending the laws of thought when discussing about the cosmos and God. In the eternity of the cosmos domain, each occurrence and each act of the infinite possible observers and universes exist concurrently in eternity, without having access to inexistence. Only God would have access to both existence and inexistence, and concurrently. By comparison, in the observed universe domain, the existence would work as traditional commons sense, rejecting contradiction, where (a manifestation of) God would need to be considered without access to inexistence, and occurrences would either exist or lack existence. In this domain, existence would be a Kant’s a priori category of understanding and would lead to contradictions in metaphysics, such as contradicting God’s omnipotence and impeding empirical evidence about either existence or inexistence of God. By comparison, in the observation act domain, concurrency of existence and inexistence of God would allow neutralising the a priori of the observation act and discussing God’s existence. The approach for helping the observer to receive graced inspirations for discussing the nature of God would include the acceptance of self defeat, in the sense of detachment from the self and ego. This would mean defeating the supremacy of the observation act, and thus opening channels for the grace of the cosmos to inspire the observer. If these pages provide useful insights, then it would mean the author’s self and ego, in spite of the author’s sins and mediocrity, have been sufficiently graced of defeat in this research (at least for sufficient time) in order to allow such channel of grace to be sufficiently open.
In the cosmos domain, finitude and infinity also need reconsideration, with God being finite as absolute, while having an infinity of possible conformations. In it, each observer has infinite eternal existence. The observed universe with its finite lives would constitute a common empirical intersection with other observer’s cosmos conformations. Approaching incarnation would require living with the self and the ego while renouncing their unhealthy desires of supremacy over other observers.
The cosmos omnipotence occurs thanks to an empirically based perfect transparent transcendental communication. This latter would allow transcendental eternal flow of all information, would constitute cosmological perfect love conceived without sin, would allow omniscience and would represent a necessary fundamental and feminine side of God. Without this, omnipotent eternal concurrent cosmic annihilation would be unfeasible and an identity of God with other absolutes would lose its fundamental base.
ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, English trans. by W. D. ROSS, The University of Adelaide, web edition, 2012, 30 June 15:18
P. BENAZZO, Cosmology Revisited within a Holistic Approach, with a Particular Role for Harmonious Living by the Observer, Conference Proceedings – International Conference A Holistic Approach to Human Existence and Development, Department of Philosophy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, 22-24 November, 2010a
P. BENAZZO, Curved Cosmos Seen as Virtually Flat in the Universe: A Scaling Agreeing with Empirical Evidence, in Tidningen Kulturen, Stockholm, www.tidningenkulturen.se, week 51, 2010b (http://www.tidningenkulturen.se/artiklar/ess-mainmenu-57/riga-mainmenu-130/7880-curved-cosmos-seen-as-virtually-flat-in-the-universe-a-scaling-agreeing-with-empirical-evidence)
P. BENAZZO, An Evidence Based Solution to Russell’s Paradox, Grounded in Cosmology, in Tidningen Kulturen, Stockholm, www.tidningenkulturen.se, week 13, 2011a (http://www.tidningenkulturen.se/artiklar/ess-mainmenu-57/agora-mainmenu-232/8564-an-evidence-based-solution-to-russells-paradox-grounded-in-cosmology-)
P. BENAZZO, Some Empirical Evidence for a Static Cosmos, Towards a New Paradigm for Future Research: a Reconciliation between the Big Bang Expansion and Einstein's Stationariness, Conference Poster – International Conference The Dark Universe, Transregional Research Center TRR33 and Institute for Theoretical Physics, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 4-7 October, 2011b
P. BENAZZO, Superluminal Neutrinos and Empirical Evidence of a Static Cosmos with Beyond Time Interactions: What if Neutrinos Fly Concurrently both in a Curved Static Cosmos and a Flat Expanding Universe? in Tidningen Kulturen, Stockholm, www.tidningenkulturen.se, week 48, 2011c (http://www.tidningenkulturen.se/artiklar/ess-mainmenu-57/riga-mainmenu-130/10734-superluminal-neutrinos-and-empirical-evidence-of-a-static-cosmos-with-beyond-time-interactions)
P. BENAZZO, An Empirically Based Definition of God, with Feminine and Masculine Incarnation, in Tidningen Kulturen, Stockholm, www.tidningenkulturen.se, week 16, 2012a (http://www.tidningenkulturen.se/artiklar/ess-mainmenu-57/agora-mainmenu-232/11829-an-empirically-based-definition-of-god-with-feminine-and-masculine-incarnation)
P. BENAZZO, Supernovae as Empirical Evidence for a Curved, Static and Spatially Closed Cosmos, in Tidningen Kulturen, Stockholm, www.tidningenkulturen.se, week 46, 2012b (http://www.tidningenkulturen.se/artiklar/ess-mainmenu-57/riga-mainmenu-130/13369-supernovae-as-empirical-evidence-for-a-curved-static-and-spatially-closed-cosmos)
J. E. CHARON, Le tout, l’esprit et la matière, Paris : Albin Michel, 1987
P. DAVIES, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Touchstone, 1982
A. EINSTEIN, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory: A Popular Exposition, tr. R. W. LAWSON, New York: Crown Publishers, 1961
N. FALLETTA, The Paradoxicon, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990
O. HANFLING, Philosophy and Ordinary Language: The Bent and Genius of our Tongue, London and New York: Routledge, 2000
I. KANT, The Critique of Pure Reason, English trans. by J. M. D. MEIKLEJOHN, The Project Gutenberg EBook, July, 2003 [EBook #4280]
P. OTTAVIANO, New Testament, Italian literal trans. by P. OTTAVIANO, 2008 web print, didaskaleion.murialdo.org/mi_trlet.htm, from the Greek, ALAND et al., Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th edition, Stuggart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979
A. PAVLENKO, Why Cannot the Theory of the Infinite Universe be Realized? in Ontology Studies 9, p.65-78, San Sebastian: International Ontology Congress, 2009
S. PERLMUTTER et al., Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the Universe, Nature, 391, 51-54, 1998
PLATO, The Republic, translated by B. JOWETT, produced by Sue ASSCHER, Project Gutenberg EBook, 2008
PLATO, Sophist, translated by N. P. WHITE, Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing Company, 1993
A. G. RIESS et al., Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant, in The Astronomical Journal, vol.116, n.3, 1998
Bertrand RUSSELL, The Principles of Mathematics, Vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903
Bertrand RUSSELL, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1967 (1980)
P. THANASSAS, Parmenides, Cosmos, and Being: A Philosophical Interpretation, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2007
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, The New American Bible, www.vatican.va, 2002
These argumentations were presented at the X International Ontology Congress 2012 in San Sebastian, Spain (www.ontologia.net/en/x-edition/blog and www.ontologia.net/docs/Program_X_Ontology_Congress.pdf).
Gratitude is expressed to: Guido Zeccola, editor in chief of Tidningen Kulturen; to the X International Ontology Congress organisers, coordinator, organizing and scientific committees and advisory council; to Gerhard Vollmer, Andrey Pavlenko, Tatiana Romanovskaya, Mathieu Guillermin, Pavel Baryshnikov, Giampaolo Ghilardi, Andrés Rivadulla and Jan Pociej for comments about the conference presentation; and to Sim Smiley and Deepak Kotak who have edited the text. Any remaining issues are the author’s alone.
This submitted version shall remain in the public domain without possibility forever and in eternity to change such decision.
(*)The second invocation below the title was reported by Catherine Labouré as given in vision by Mary the mother of Jesus. The analysis relates it to empirically based argumentations.