“God Is Dead”: What Nietzsche Meant and What Came After

“God is dead” is Friedrich Nietzsche’s formula for an event that he himself explains in The Gay Science: that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable. “The greatest recent event – that ‘God is dead’, that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable – is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe”, Nietzsche writes in the fifth book (Nietzsche, 1887, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, § 343).

As a slogan the sentence stands on its own; in Nietzsche it appears in several guises, among them a short aphorism, the mouth of a figure who runs across a marketplace with a lantern, and Zarathustra’s words to himself. This essay follows the passages where the sentence stands, and what Jochen Kirchhoff and Gwendolin Kirchhoff have said in their conversations about what came after.

#Where does Nietzsche say “God is dead”?

Among other places, “God is dead” stands in Nietzsche’s The Gay Science of 1882 (§ 108 and § 125) and in the prologue of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883). To these comes § 343 in the fifth book of The Gay Science, which was added in the expanded edition of 1887. Section 108 is headed “New Struggles” and reads: “After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave – a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead: but given the way people are, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow is shown. – And we – we must still defeat his shadow as well!” (Nietzsche, 1882, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, § 108).

In Zarathustra, Zarathustra climbs down the mountains alone and meets an old saint in the forest who praises God with songs. When Zarathustra is alone again, he speaks to his heart: “Could it be possible! This old saint in his forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!” (Nietzsche, 1883, Also sprach Zarathustra, Prologue 2). In the next town, Zarathustra speaks to the people in the marketplace: “Once the sacrilege against God was the greatest sacrilege, but God died, and with him these sacrilegious ones died too. To commit sacrilege against the earth is now the most terrible thing” (ibid., Prologue 3). Jochen Kirchhoff reads this passage aloud in the conversation “Was wollte Nietzsche?” (“What Did Nietzsche Want?”) (cf. Kirchhoff, J., 2019, “Was wollte Nietzsche?”, 35:22–35:40).

#Who says “God is dead” in The Gay Science?

In the best-known passage, § 125 of The Gay Science, the sentence is cried out by “the madman”, a figure Nietzsche tells a story about; in § 108 and § 343 Nietzsche writes the sentence himself, and in Zarathustra it is Zarathustra who speaks it. Section 125 opens with a question: “Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the marketplace and cried incessantly: ‘I am looking for God! I am looking for God!’” (Nietzsche, 1882, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, § 125). Standing together in the marketplace just then are many of those “who did not believe in God”, and the madman provokes “much laughter” (ibid.).

The madman cries his sentence not to believers but to people who do not believe in God. To their mockery he answers: “We have killed him – you and I! We are all his murderers!” (ibid.). Many of his questions ask about place and direction: “What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Where is it moving now? Where are we moving?” and “Is there still an up and a down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?” (ibid.). Then he cries: “God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? The holiest and mightiest thing the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives – who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?” (ibid.).

His listeners fall silent and look at him in bewilderment; he throws his lantern on the ground and says: “I come too early”, and goes on: “my time has not yet come. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering – it has not yet reached the ears of men.” (ibid.). The ending is only report: “It is still told that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo.” (ibid.). Led out and called to account, he is said to have replied only: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?” (ibid.). Section 125 is narrated, not asserted: a figure cries the sentence, and what the figure did afterwards is something people tell.

#What did Nietzsche mean by “God is dead”?

By “God is dead”, Nietzsche means, on his own explanation in § 343, that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable, and he calls this event the greatest recent one (Nietzsche, 1887, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, § 343). Like the madman who comes too early, § 343 too holds that the news has not yet arrived: the event itself is “much too great, too distant, too remote from the comprehension of many for even the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived” (ibid.).

To the few whose suspicion is strong and subtle enough, § 343 says, “some sun seems to have set, some old deep trust turned into doubt” (ibid.). Yet the same section is headed “What our cheerfulness signifies”, and it describes the other side as well: “Indeed, we philosophers and ‘free spirits’ feel, on hearing the news that the ‘old god is dead’, as if illumined by a new dawn” (ibid.). It goes on: “at last the horizon appears free to us again, even granted that it is not bright”, and “the sea, our sea, lies open again” (ibid.).

What Nietzsche worked out about the priest is described by Gwendolin Kirchhoff in the SYMPOSIUM conversation “Nietzsche und die Große Gesundheit” (“Nietzsche and the Great Health”, 2024). The priest wants to dominate the other, Gwendolin Kirchhoff says there; Nietzsche worked out like hardly anyone else this impulse to rule and this claim to rule in the priest, “who nevertheless believes he speaks for the good or for God or for someone or other” (Kirchhoff, G., 2024, “Nietzsche und die Große Gesundheit”, 19:38; cf. 19:30–19:42).

#Where did the suspicion that God is superfluous come from?

Jochen Kirchhoff places the suspicion that God is superfluous in the late eighteenth century: at that time, he says, “a peculiar suspicion” very gradually arose that Newton’s celestial mechanics basically made God superfluous (Kirchhoff, J., 2019, “Was wollte Nietzsche?”, 10:53–10:55; cf. 10:42–11:01). He recalls Jean Paul’s “Speech of the dead Christ from the edifice of the world, that there is no God” and Napoleon’s famous question to Laplace, where God might be in Newton’s world system; Jochen Kirchhoff renders the answer like this: “We don’t need God.” (ibid., 11:04–11:08; 11:20–11:21; cf. 11:02–11:24).

Then, Jochen Kirchhoff says, things gradually began to tip: “the self-assurance of modern cosmology began to waver”, and in this context the word nihilism appears, he says (ibid., 11:28–11:32; cf. 11:24–11:37). The concept is explained in the entry Nihilism. The madman’s questions about up and down and about empty space can be set beside this account; Jochen Kirchhoff himself does not refer to § 125 in this conversation.

#Was Nietzsche only the philosopher of the death of God?

To anyone who takes Nietzsche for nothing but the philosopher of the death of God, Gwendolin Kirchhoff commends his poem To the Unknown God: “Anyone who believes he was only the death-of-God philosopher should take the poem to heart”, she says, and names the title (Kirchhoff, G., Everlast AI, 2026, 2:22:38–2:22:43; cf. 2:22:38–2:22:44). She quotes a line from it and says: “That is this inner altar that is still there.” (ibid., 2:22:49–2:22:52; cf. 2:22:38–2:22:53).

She says this in the Everlast AI debate with Joscha Bach. Shortly before, Bach had said that Nietzsche was at odds with God, observed him very critically, diagnosed his end and his history, and that this was where his value lay (cf. Bach, J., Everlast AI, 2026, 2:22:05–2:22:18). After Gwendolin Kirchhoff’s interjection, Bach says that Nietzsche was not a nihilist; he was searching for God, Bach says, but did not find him in religion and did not find him in mythology (cf. ibid., 2:22:57–2:23:11). The whole of his thought is presented in the entry Nietzsche; what he wanted is examined in the essay What Did Nietzsche Really Want?.

#What came after the death of God?

After the death of God, on Nietzsche’s account in § 343, a collapse lies ahead: what was built on the belief must now fall in, “because it was built upon it, leaned on it, grew into it: for example our whole European morality” (Nietzsche, 1887, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, § 343). Jochen Kirchhoff renders Nietzsche’s dictum as saying that the modern world is basically “nihilistic in its basic substance”, even if the values, taken by themselves, are still more or less upheld (Kirchhoff, J., 2019, “Was wollte Nietzsche?”, 07:25–07:28; cf. 07:01–07:37).

Gwendolin Kirchhoff speaks of coldness too, in the conversation “Nietzsche als Wissenschaftskritiker” (“Nietzsche as a Critic of Science”, 2022). She asks what nihilism is, then, other than “being stranded, as it were, in the coldness of the world”, and says: “And there, literally, contact is missing, when God is not there as a counterpart I can have contact with.” (Kirchhoff, J., 2022, “Nietzsche als Wissenschaftskritiker”, 1:43:58–1:44:01; 1:44:02–1:44:08; cf. 1:43:55–1:44:08). Through one’s own forces of will, though, and through what in oneself is nature-like and exists just as nature-like outside oneself, one is in contact, she says, and this sensing, feeling, living being-in-contact can “develop an incredibly sustaining quality” (ibid., 1:44:23–1:44:26; cf. 1:44:08–1:44:26).

In the fourth part of Zarathustra, Zarathustra connects the death of God with the overman: “God died: now we want – the overman to live.” (Nietzsche, 1885, Also sprach Zarathustra, Part Four, “On the Higher Man” 2). What is meant by this is pursued in the entry Übermensch.

In the Everlast AI debate, Gwendolin Kirchhoff puts forward a thesis of her own for discussion. Bach had said that discovering God is not easy if one does it as a single autonomous individual who is at odds with the world and with himself (cf. Bach, J., Everlast AI, 2026, 2:23:12–2:23:22). Gwendolin Kirchhoff adds that such an individual then develops above all thoughts of power, and that she sees the core in this, the “foundation of the materialist project” (Kirchhoff, G., Everlast AI, 2026, 2:23:27–2:23:29; cf. 2:23:23–2:23:29). Something took place in the minds that think this way, she says; she believes it is a deeper disappointment, “a wound of the heart”, and that this is a theory she would like to put up for discussion (ibid., 2:23:37–2:23:40; cf. 2:23:31–2:23:44). Bach objects: he believes, he says, that such a description does not in the end even capture the psyche of a single person, that he comes to strive for power out of spiritual frustration (cf. Bach, J., Everlast AI, 2026, 2:24:44–2:24:54).

#Must we become gods ourselves?

The madman asks this question himself: “Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” (Nietzsche, 1882, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, § 125). Beside this question, this essay places what Gwendolin Kirchhoff said about transhumanism in a 2025 conversation with Everlast AI; in that answer she does not mention Nietzsche.

The interviewer renders the transhumanist view as holding that dying and illness are a fault that can or should be fixed technically, and asks what she would say against it (cf. Everlast AI, 2025, 25:02–25:52). Gwendolin Kirchhoff answers that behind it lies the wish to become God: “apotheosis, a becoming-God” (Kirchhoff, G., 2025, Everlast AI conversation, 25:56–25:58; cf. 25:53–25:58). Death, old age and illness she calls “very old questions” (ibid., 26:02–26:04), and the question of suffering “a real question” (ibid., 29:53–29:55). From a deeper philosophical or spiritual point of view, as she puts it, something is being confused here, she says: the search for all of this in the body and the search for all of this in consciousness; these are two levels, she says (cf. ibid., 27:31–27:46).

The idea that one could upload oneself to the internet and would then be free of the body is not a form of life either, she says, because life is bound to the body and with it to transience (cf. ibid., 28:53–29:03). “Transience is what gives life its preciousness and a goal.” (ibid., 29:04–29:11). The technological world-salvation she speaks of she sums up in one sentence: “We are to be redeemed by technology from everything, literally.” (ibid., 30:08–30:11). The theosphere becoming a technosphere is examined in the essay Ray Kurzweil and the Singularity, and the idea of pathogenesis, not progress in an entry of its own.

#What does Gwendolin Kirchhoff set against technological salvation?

Against technological salvation Gwendolin Kirchhoff sets a world we did not make: “we live in a divine world, in this sense a world that is carried by thoughts we did not make” (Kirchhoff, G., 2025, Everlast AI conversation, 31:02–31:08). To the wish to move out of this world into a world of the human intellect, which she says can only be a sketch, she answers with a question: “How is that supposed to be a redemption?” (ibid., 31:31–31:33; cf. 31:15–31:34). That is not to say, she adds, that new kinds of hearing aids are not good for people who can no longer hear; one just need not necessarily fall for the pull of technology (cf. ibid., 31:34–31:49). Technology, she says, is “considerably smaller and considerably less of the world than we think”; what is really interesting and deep arises, she says, from the space of feeling and from the felt connection with the vastness of the cosmos (ibid., 31:50–31:54; cf. 31:50–32:08). The tradition in which nature is thought of as alive is described in the entry Natural Philosophy.

Following her thesis in the Everlast AI debate, she asks what other space of experience could be opened, and says that the machine cannot do this for us: coming into deep contact with other people, sharing in the fate of other people, “this real becoming-human” (Kirchhoff, G., Everlast AI, 2026, 2:24:23–2:24:24; cf. 2:23:45–2:24:24). In her view, she says, that is the real project, because systems will not save us (cf. ibid., 2:24:24–2:24:32).

For a conversation about this essay, a question can be drawn from this that concerns you yourself: with whom and with what are you in contact when the old faith no longer carries you? The old saint in the forest, in Zarathustra’s words, has not yet heard that God is dead. What you have heard, and what follows from it for your life, is a question that can be thought further in conversation.

#Sources

• Kirchhoff, J. (2019). “Was wollte Nietzsche?” [Video]. Philosophische Gespräche mit Jochen Kirchhoff, Episode 21. YouTube, 14.04.2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EcVGcw8LlI (in conversation with Gwendolin Kirchhoff).
• Kirchhoff, J. (2022). “Nietzsche als Wissenschaftskritiker” [Video]. YouTube, 05.11.2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP9zNqZG5pI (in conversation with Gwendolin Kirchhoff).
• Kirchhoff, G. (2024). “Nietzsche und die Große Gesundheit – Ein Gespräch mit Jochen Kirchhoff – SYMPOSIUM” [Video]. YouTube, 19.10.2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS8vCl4BkvI (in conversation with Jochen Kirchhoff).
• Kirchhoff, G. (2025). “Sie BELÜGEN dich über das WAHRE Ziel von KI!” [Video]. Everlast AI, YouTube, 17.07.2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ktkeUNHeaM
• Kirchhoff, G. & Bach, J. (2026). Streitgespräch: „Der Mensch soll abgeschafft werden!“ Wohin steuert uns KI wirklich? [Video]. Everlast AI, YouTube, 21.05.2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwmJDMw4xY
• Nietzsche, F. (1882). Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (The Gay Science). Chemnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner; expanded edition with the fifth book 1887. Cited from zeno.org, http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Nietzsche,+Friedrich/Die+fr%C3%B6hliche+Wissenschaft (§ 108, § 125, § 343). English renderings our own.
• Nietzsche, F. (1883). Also sprach Zarathustra. Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen (Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Parts One and Two Chemnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner, 1883; Part Four as a private printing Leipzig: C. G. Naumann, 1885. Cited from Projekt Gutenberg (Zarathustra’s Prologue 2, 3; Part Four, “On the Higher Man” 2). English renderings our own.