Seven Pounds: an assault on the foundation of Judeo-Christian ethic

Last night I was fortunate enough to attend a sneak preview of the new Will Smith film Seven Pounds (trailers).  Going into it, I was intrigued by what I had seen thus far. The ad campaign has been pretty effective, engendering a palpable curiosity in the viewer: “What the heck is this movie about?”

Part of that curiosity is directly a result of Will Smith’s impressive turn as a mysterious figure engaged in some sort of enterprise involving several strangers; whether this enterprise is nefarious or benevolent in nature remains largely a mystery even until the end of the film’s first act.

It’s hard to address my reaction to the film without discussing specifics as I will do below; however for those of you who don’t like to know the details of a film, I’ll do a quick spoiler-free recounting.  This movie is, to put it bluntly, morally repugnant. It is a sneak attack on the very foundations that lead to the ascendency of western society, and sadly many people are going to fall for it. If you are a church attender, you will most likely hear Smith’s character’s actions compared to the sacrificial actions of Jesus Christ. Don’t buy into it. Go into this movie with the knowledge that it puts a very attractive face on an insidious worldview. This deceptive message, prevalent in our culture, elevates individually perceived reality as dictated by emotion coupled with (an admittedly admirable) concern for life above any transcendant principles of ethical behavior.

The central question of the film: is Will Smith’s character a hero, or a fool? To answer that, I will delve into spoilers. Don’t read further if you don’t like them.

The movie is basically as follows. Will Smith’s remorse following his negiligence in an auto accident (in which 7 people including his wife die) leads him to decide that he is going to kill himself and donate all his organs, money, house, etc to 7 people to ostensibly make up for his mistake. Also important to note is that he is in a lot of emotional pain because of what happened, and this is made clear by Smith’s look-at-me-I-am-in-pain face (of which I grew somewhat tired of within the first 30 minutes). However he doesn’t want to help just anyone, but wants to choose those “who deserve it- good people.” Although he does just want to end it all, his desire is depicted as a noble one because he wants his death to mean something. In the process of picking the person who he wants to receive his heart (he is a very rare  blood type), he ends up falling in love with a dying girl. Faced with the choice between living a short time with his new love (who is doomed to die) or allowing her to live on by sacrificing himself, he chooses the latter, and in the process also donates his corneas to a blind Woody Harrilson (who by the way probably delivered the best performance in the film), his beach house to a battered Hispanic woman and her children, bone marrow to a child, kidney(s?) to a token old white guy, pieces of his lung to his brother… the list probably goes on.

I hated it. And here is why. As I said above, the message is not merely morally questionable but a morally repugnant one: disdain for one’s own life is called virtue, and death is called life.  His ultimate selfish act of suicide, we are emotionally manipulated to believe, was a heroic act because of what he did with all his worldly possessions (his body etc). This is bullshit. To understand why suicide is so morally reprehensible in almost every situation (I withhold judgment for people in egregious physical pain that can’t be alleviated- I don’t know what I’d do in that eventuality), I defer to GK Chesterton in the chapter “The Flag of the World” of the book Orthodoxy:

Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer’s suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man’s crime is different from other crimes — for it makes even crimes impossible.

Smith’s act is not heroic, it is cowardice. He is not unusually noble; he is atypically selfish. His pain-face makes something very clear: the real reason he is killing himself is because he doesn’t want to live.  All of the other things he does in addition to taking his own life? Semantics. Rationalization. What about all the pain his suicide inflicts upon the rest of his family, and on the woman who he supposedly loves? What about all the other good he could have accomplished over the course of a long life? What about the fact that life is itself a gift given by God that is not ours to throw away? No, ultimately Smith is elevating his perception of reality through his emotional pain above any claims the world (his family, God, society) has on him, and as Chesterton makes clear, this is in a very real sense, a purely evil act.

Now you will hear Smith’s character compared to Jesus- I guarantee it. But
this is a lie. He was not a martyr, he is a suicide. Jesus was not a suicide, and the idea that he was a suicide is an ancient, thoroughly refuted heresy. As Chesterton goes on to note in his book, the line between suicide and martyrdom is one of the most important distinctions to make in Judeo-Christian ethic, and in fact in many ways it is THE defining difference between the moral codes of Christendom and all other moral frameworks, i.e., fraudulent moral systems. This movie is trying to blur those lines. I’m not falling for it, and neither should you.

Gnosticism and the Gospel of John

As I have said, I am posting anything I happen to write for my New Testament literature class, so here’s another short essay.  I expect this to be the last one on the gospels as we will soon be diving into the Pauline writings.

Enjoy the break from political and economic rants.

The Gospel of John is called the “spiritual gospel”, and a difference is maintained among scholars between it and the synoptic writings. The spiritual nature of the book lends itself to a variety of interpretation, and one of these historical interpretations has been from the standpoint of Gnostic thought and theology. There are many aspects in which John can be seen as a Gnostic book, however at the same time John is very hostile to Gnosticism in some ways as well.

The fundamentals of Gnostic thought rest on the basis that the material world inhabited by humanity is, by definition, a dark place, and the spiritual world is a place of light. Knowledge of this spiritual light through the overcoming of the material world- an idea from which the word Gnosticism derives- becomes the goal of existence. This understanding of the nature of reality can be stipulated from the mainstream of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or other monotheistic theologies; whereas in these traditions the material world was at some point “very good”- or at the very least, amoral- a Gnostic understanding of the world avers that the material world is either a product of error or evil in itself, not created directly by the light or “God”. The world was either crafted by the light force non-ex nihilo, i.e. out of materialistic parts that happened to be lying about, or the monadic deity had no involvement in the material creation whatsoever. Instead, the world is a product of a second, lesser deity known as the demiurge.

The opening of the Gospel of John perhaps provides the seminal example of the ability for both a Gnostic and a non- Gnostic (such unfortunate alliteration) interpretation of a segment. The passage discusses an understanding of God as the light, and of Jesus as the Word having its origination from the light, and “the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not overcome it.” What clearer picture of spiritualized knowledge- the very basis Gnostic thought- could be painted than to describe Jesus as “the Word”, or logos (in Greek thought, that which links the human mind to the mind of God)? Not only this, but the darkness of the world is separate from the light, and in various translations is capable of neither overcoming nor understanding the light. Indeed, John continues to tell that the mission of the light itself is to “enlighten the world”, and here we find the Gnostic idea of knowledge coming only from an experience with the source of the light. The light was coming specifically to interact with the world and impart knowledge. At the same time however, in this same passage there are explicit contradictions to Gnostic rumination, beginning with the statement that “All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being,” and continuing with “the Word became flesh.” This is clearly an assault on one of the tenants of Gnostic theology, and there may be no more effective way to state for the reader, “the material world was not created by a demiurge; the material world has the logos at the impetus of its existence. Even the Word itself did not find material existence so abhorrent as to abstain from coming to live as part of it.” Continuing on, John the Baptist is sent to “testify to the light, so that all men might believe through him.” Indeed, this statement constitutes another shot across the bow of Gnosticism in that knowledge of the light is specifically delineated to be based not on experiential knowledge, but propositional knowledge. The only way to learn about truth, from a Gnostic perspective, is not to be told about it from another party- as John himself is doing, and as his character John the Baptizer is doing- but through experiential, participatory knowledge. Indeed, if John were a character of Gnostic provenance, he would not have said- TWICE- “I myself did not know him” (1:31, 33), and “testified that this is the Son of God”. He would have invited others to come experience the Son of God for themselves.

Continuing on from the introduction, there is no shortage of other places for Gnostics to find fertile ground for their beliefs to take root. Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus, in which Jesus instructs him to become born of the spirit as opposed to being born of the flesh, is an example. Jesus likes to say about himself that he is not of this world, but is “from above”, and the “light of the world”- leading the reader to surmise that he is drawing an unfavorable comparison between material and spiritual existence. In addition, the wording of remaining in him, and Jesus prayer that all of his followers be one together (17:22) indicates a very spiritualized understanding of the mechanics of Christian practice. However, there is one glaringly obvious point with which the Gnostic reader of John much struggle; the bodily resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John seemingly throws a wrench into the idea that the goal of religious life ought to be to overcome and eventually leave behind the material, which is by definition a dirty and undesirable state for the light to debase itself. Already mentioned before was the untenable notion (from a Gnostic perspective) that the eternal logos may debase itself to a fleshly existence, yet this might be forgivable if the story culminated in a throwing off of that existence as an example to humanity; but the Gospel concludes with the exact opposite event. The tomb, we are told, is empty; to underscore the fact that Jesus’ resurrected body is fleshly in nature, Thomas is told “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side”, and again we find the evangelist actively engaged in fending off the roots of Gnostic thought.

Ah, that’s the question isn’t it?

Or rather, these are the questions:

People have been wrestling with these same questions for centuries, and I of course don’t claim to have all the answers. There are volumes of books written about them, and I suppose all explanations would be called “rationalizations” by the maker of the video. After watching it, I suddenly realized that I only had a vague idea of what, exactly, a rationalization is. So I did what all “college educated professionals” (yuk yuk yuk) would do. I looked it up:

ra·tion·al·ize

v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es

v.tr.

1. To make rational.

2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.

3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one’s behavior): “Many shoppers still rationalize luxury purchases as investments” Janice Castro.

Now it is obvious which definition of rationalize is meant by the video (#3), however let me point out something here which has some bearing on the whole affair: a rationalization is in the eye of the beholder. What is rational to one person may be complete nonsense to another, and the only way to determine whether an argument is a rationalization is to base this determination on the things one already knows to be true, or one’s presuppositions. By labeling all arguments contrary to his assertion that “God is imaginary” as absurd, the video creator is involved in circular reasoning of the following variety: essentially he is saying it is absurd to give an answer to the question “Why won’t God heal amputees?” because all such explanations are rationalizations. He is presupposing that God is imaginary before announcing his conclusion- something a “college educated professional” (translation: if you don’t agree with me you’re stupid) ought to know will lead to error. Observe the following syllogism:

1. All arguments based on rationalizations lead to invalid conclusions.
2. Any answer to the question “Why won’t God heal amputees?” other than “God is imaginary” is a rationalization.
3. Therefore, “God is imaginary” is the only valid conclusion.

This is the logical fallacy of Begging the Question, or assuming your conclusion is true (statement 2) before reaching it (statement 3). In addition, statement #1 is not even true on its face: an argument’s validity is dependent on its truth value, not on from where it came.

Now gentle reader, please humor me and have another look at definition #1 for rationalization. Since we have established that the video maker’s reasoning is decidedly IRRATIONAL, shall we proceed with some rationalization (definition 1!)?

I stated before that rationalization is in the eye of the beholder, and based on presuppositions. I am more than willing to admit my relevant presuppositions before I begin an argument. They are:

1. There was a man who lived in 1st century Israel called Yeshua (Jesus) who was unjustly executed by the Roman authorities.
2. There is overwhelming historical evidence that the gospels of the NT ought to be considered as accurate depictions of his life and words.
3. There is overwhelming evidence even independent of these gospels that he rose from the dead.

I’m not going to bother addressing each of the 10 questions raised in the video. I have my answers of course, I mean every “college educated professional” (blah!) must think about these things. I will point out again that the video maker is not being honest. This is not because he has presuppositions, but because he is pretending that his reasoning is completely independent of these presuppositions.

No, instead I would simply like to ask in regard to those presuppositions: what does the maker of the video do with Jesus? How does a man rising from the dead after 3 days in a grave square with the statement “God is imaginary?” If you can answer me that, then I will tell you why God does not heal amputees (even though he did- lepers and so forth, with fingers missing, etc. In front of people. It was written down. By 4 men, all 4 of whom were tortured over and over because they wouldn’t admit they made it all up).

A quick note about the “college educated professional” stuff: I am convinced nowadays, having spent time among the college educated and the non college educated, that a college education by and large actually has a deleterious effect on one’s center of reasoning.

Big Bang Badda Boom

Be warned that this post gets a little heady. If you skip to the end, there’s a really interesting, general-population oriented video explaining what is meant (at least by one scientist) by ’10 dimensional string theory’. It’s a fun, short video. Skip to the end and watch it if you want.

If I may be allowed to put on my nerd hat (which begs the question: do I ever remove it?), it may surprise some that this idea actually makes sense to me (I’ve butchered the article text into a smaller form):

For decades, physicists have accepted the notion that the universe started with the Big Bang.. (but) physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model… Turok theorizes that neither time nor the universe has a beginning or end… According to Turok, …the Big Bang represents just one stage in an infinitely repeated cycle of universal expansion and contraction…

Within a school of string theory known as m-theory, Turok said, “the seventh extra dimension of space is the gap between two parallel objects called branes. It’s like the gap between two parallel mirrors. We thought, What happens if these two mirrors collide? Maybe that was the Big Bang.”

And now the most interesting part:

Turok’s proposition has drawn condemnation from string theory’s many critics and even opposition from the Catholic Church.

Ah, nothing like crack-pot physics theorizing to bring together string theorists and the Catholic Church.

Now, I say that it may surprise some that I, a religious Christian theist, find this to be an acceptable idea because it seems to fly in the face of the traditional Christian view of creation; a view which dictates that God created the world ex nihilo. I’m sure this is precisely the reason the Catholic Church is upset. Yet it is short sighted, oh my dear fellow religious devotees, to react to this sort of theory with animosity and distrust toward science and scientists.

I have my problems with string theory and much of modern physics, but I do not run from it. Indeed I consider it a healthy, Biblically sound attitude to lend equal weight to faith/scripture and science, and Turok’s theorizing is a case in point. If he is correct, then it must be admitted that instead of the Stephen Hawking position where the world suddenly comes into existence, the universe has always been and always will be. And this is where the Christian theist gets the last laugh.

One critique of Christian theism from a purely materialistic world view, whether it is steeped in a humanistic or Nihilist approach, avers that faith in an infinite God is an untenable position. It has been much more tasteful (and I don’t mean emotionally- for most materialists, the non existence of God is emotionally distasteful) for the materialist’s intellect to be able to say that the universe had a definite beginning in and of itself, and that it will have a definite end. Inexplicably- and I honestly have never entirely understood why- Christians have come to embrace the concept of the Big Bang, on the basis that it establishes that the universe did indeed have a beginning, as scripture teaches; and not only a beginning but a Beginner, since logic implies such things like the Big Bang can’t happen on their own. Christian theists and the Stephen Hawkings of the scientific community have found themselves in a sort of odd agreement about this theory, each for their own reasons. Unfortunately most Christians do not realize that as a result of this unholy alliance, they are victims of a recondite fraud; the entire point of the Big Bang theory is to allow physicists to postulate a framework where the universe could have a beginning on its own, without a Beginner. Philosophical afterthoughts by amateurs are of no import- they are not at all scientific.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating wholesale abandonment of Big Bang theory based on this one Wired article, neither for Christians nor for physicists. For one thing, Wired’s reputation (at least with me) is sketchy at best, and for another, I am suspicious of string theory and think the whole idea is a bunch of metaphysical claptrap anyway. And as I said before, I am very comfortable with the idea of harmony between science and faith: they are not mutually exclusive. However, if Turok is right and the materialist is forced to admit the universe is an infinite entity past and future, it is hard to ignore the scientific implications this would have on belief in God. As things stand, the materialist can ascribe to a finite universe based on credible scientific theory and at least try to make himself appear on a higher intellectual plane than the theist, who must have faith in an infinitely existing God. There are answers to this riddle, though they are complicated. If this situation were to change- if the infinitely existing universe were an established principle of scientific observation- the materialist no longer has a leg on which to stand. He must evaluate a body of evidence that leads him to have faith in an infinitely existing universe, exactly as the Christian theist evaluates a body evidence (some of it the same evidence) which leads him to faith in an infinitely existing God.

The materialist will complain that his idea is based on scientific observation, and that this theory of metaphysics (defined as the mechanics of first cause) does not necessitate an infinite God anymore than the Big Bang necessitates a Big Banger. I have no argument in response except to say that he is correct, but the point is not that it proves the existence of an infinite God. The point is that the classical critique against Christian theism, viz, that Christian theism demands a step of faith which is not insisted on by materialism, is rendered moot. We are now both on the same page.

And now as promised, here is the fun video:

It’s hard not to hate people like this

I’m totally serious. To me, this perfectly illustrates all of the very worst things wrong with the world today.  I really struggle with not indulging in full-blown outright hatred toward people who think like this:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni – who works for an environmental charity – “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.

It just goes on and on from there.

This woman may be simply tragically mistaken or brainwashed- and I sincerely hope that is the case, since that is the best case scenario for her.  However, the viewpoint she is espousing- and that of PETA and related organizations- is evil. And I don’t use that word lightly.

God the celestial computer geek

I was having a discussion about this article over email with some friends of mine. A quick excerpt for those who can’t be arsed to click (don’t worry- Dante says there’s a special place in the afterlife for the lazy):

I hadn’t imagined that the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the heavens and earth could be an advanced version of a guy who spends his weekends building model railroads or overseeing video-game worlds like the Sims. But now it seems quite possible. In fact, if you accept a pretty reasonable assumption of Dr. Bostrom’s, it is almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation. <snippity snip> It’s unsettling to think of the world being run by a futuristic computer geek, although we might at last dispose of that of classic theological question: How could God allow so much evil in the world? For the same reason there are plagues and earthquakes and battles in games like World of Warcraft. Peace is boring, Dude.

This may be an interesting idea to a certain class of people. However as intriguing as it may be, it does nothing with regards to answering any theological questions whatsoever, as I shall show. Yet at the same time, it does serve to illustrate an important theological truth which people often miscalculate; a truth which is fundamental to how God ought to be viewed by those who love and revere Him.

One must admit that it seems very neat and tidy to hypothesize such a picture of God; not only is such a God more palatable to the human psyche, doesn’t it also go a long way in solving many theological conundrums, namely, the problems of evil and first cause? Perhaps God is only eternal with regards to our universe, and there is no need, then, to be dogmatic about His transcendence as it is commonly taught by the Judeo-Christian view of God. He may, in a sense, be but a distant descendant of humanity- what the article calls a “post-human”. And if the world is but a computer program or the equivalent, as the link goes on to point out, it does not necessarily follow that we are any less real or important than we were before. Our universe remains just as real to us, and surely such an advanced level of computing could fulfill the promises of artificial intelligence we have learned to anticipate through science fiction. We need not be dust in the wind.

Yet the speciousness of such an idea is readily apparent when it is fully considered. Laying aside for a moment the Christian theological considerations themselves, there are plenty philosophically damning non sequitars in this exercise to render it completely impotent. It does not begin to solve even one of the Great Questions. Assuming all of it were true, from beginning to end, the question would still arise as to the nature of this creator, whose title I will no longer capitalize for reasons that will become quickly apparent. Is this creator itself a created being? If it is so, as the thesis of this theory seems to teach, we are back where we started! By removing ourselves one extra rung from the top of the existential ladder, we have not answered the question “on what does the ladder rest?” Similarly, the problem of evil is just as confounding as ever. If we are indeed beings who matter- as we must assume since the alternative is not an idea that allows us to continue to have ideas- the Metacreator would be just as responsible for the evil in our world as the sub-creator’s world which He created directly. Why would the creator’s Creator have created a creator with a penchant for World of Warcraft over, say, Left Behind: Eternal Forces? Well other than the fact that Left Behind: Eternal Forces is probably really, really lame.. but then, so is Warcraft.

Christianity itself has much with which to inform this debate as well. It is clear from scripture the God whom we worship is the transcendant God, the God who created all, and by Him all things subsist, that in Him we live and move and have our being. We may very well discover that we exist in a computer program, but this would have few- or no- implications for Christian theology. It would just make things odd. Not even more interesting. Just odd.

One might push back, countering that the scriptural ascribtions (is that a word? it is now!) of transcendence to God as it is commonly understood might simply be metaphor. This is mere double talk, though. Metaphor presupposes two things. First, that the one to whom a metaphor is given has it within their cognitive faculty to understand the metaphor. Otherwise, it would not be a metaphor, it would just be gibberish. The second underlying assumption: metaphor is only useful if it points us in a direction of truth. Metaphor is useless if it is simply meant to be enigmatic and teach the opposite of what the metaphor seems to say. If the truth about God is closer to the picture of the post-human computer nerd than to the transcendent Creator and Sustainer of all, the metaphor would point in the direction of the truth, not the opposite direction which it currently points. There are numerous references to god’s uncreated nature in the Bible, both direct and indirect. Could these references be metaphor for something we don’t understand? They almost certainly are. However, they cannot mean the opposite of what they seem to be saying, or they would cease to be metaphor and simply be confusing or worse, completely misleading. And suddenly all Christian belief- the trustworthiness of the Bible along with the nature of God and everything connected to them- are no longer certain. No, we don’t go down that road.

Even more fundamental, though, is the following, which is relevant to even the non religious and the non Christian. We must ask the question here, what makes God God? What characteristic or characteristics are the essential ones, the ones where we must begin if we are to have a throughly constructed picture of His constitution? There is actually one very basic characteristic on which all theology must rest- God is uncreated. He is the Uncreated Creator. Unlike the computer programmer, there is no problem of first cause when it comes to God’s existence. It is the most simple and obvious answer to this Great Question. The very notion of God precludes any possibility of the designer being anything other than the original Undesigned Designer- otherwise, you would have an infinite regression of causes with no first cause at all. Both ideas seem absurd in their own way, but the idea of God the Uncaused Cause has a ring of truth to it that cannot be dismissed.

Here’s the crux of the problem. It is a common misconception that we worship God because He created us. We do not. We worship God because He is intrinsically valuable, and He bestows all value by his choice; not random choice, but according to His character. We as human individuals are only valuable because He has Valued us. Freedom is only valuable because it is consistent with His character, as is Love. Money is only valuable because we take the bit of value He has given us and in turn bestow it upon money. Even more fundamental: a god who is created is not deserving of worship. We ought not worship the great computer nerd in the sky; it would even be binding upon us to resist the urge worship “the created thing rather than the Creator, who is forever praised. Amen.” He is deserving of gratitude, but not worship.

What makes God God is that He is uncreated, in the most literal, metaphysical, and basic sense of the concept. A created god is no God at all.