The God of Physics
View this post on Hive: The God of Physics
6 years ago in #pantheism by valued-customer (67)
$0.36
- Past Payouts $0.36, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $0.30, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $0.06, 0.00 TRX
If the creator of the universe is limited by arbitrary laws of His own creation, then such a god is not god worth of worship. In one of the Platonic dialogues, Plato (or rather Socrates) argues against gods and moral laws. Is it gods command what is good/moral, or what gods command is good/moral?
If gods command what is good/moral, which is the type of argument you present here, then why bother obeying or worshipping gods? If gods are limited by set of principles and laws, then man can bypass the mediator and access these laws and principles directly. As Leibniz once told Napoleon regarding God: we do not require that variable to make my theory work. If God is limited by principles of creation, then such a God is no God at all, but merely a superfluous variable within the working laws of the universe.
The theistic argument must by necessity accept the premise what gods command is good/moral. In other words, what God commands is what God commands, and mere mortals created by the supreme being must obey. Theistic perspective centers principles, laws, and morality eminating solely from God and not from mortal whims. It seems that your argument is an argument against theistic universe, and thus, against God.
I hadn't heard that Leibniz quote before, and completely agree with him. It seems to exemplify the differences between he and Newton admirably as well.
While I also completely agree with you that we are necessarily compelled to obey the laws of physics, I do not grasp why this is an argument against God. I will confess that my arguments against God are generally not regarding physics, but tend to occur after some excessive optimism regarding whiskey and mortal whims.
Indeed, much of my arguments against the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics is regarding arbitrary whims, and not I alone, but anyone that finds the ontological consistency and consilience of classical physics and all other science both reasonable and necessary.
I have resolved the dilemma regarding Schrodinger's Cat by waiting long enough for the poor thing to starve to death. I know it's dead. Recently I read discussion of a paper that proposed resolving Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in part by measuring the state of particles entangled with particles being considered.
It seems that is mathematically superable, which those fluent is the idiom find compelling.
In a sense, this may confirm a scientific grasp of quantum mechanics must be contrary to any theistic principle, while the Copenhagen School asserts what Einstein called spooky action. I quite agree with Leibniz that arbitrary whims aren't required for my theory to work, and fail to see any reason God would be supposed to have made the universe because of them.
While I may be too dull and simple to be expected to understand rocket scientists, I note that quite recently I have read mathematics called the 'language of God', and I reckon such heady expectations regarding the understandings of scientists is hubris. Math has fatal flaws (or our understanding and use of it) such as it's incapacity to divide by zero. Everything is divided by zero all day, every day, in the real world, and this hardly recommends math as the language of God to me, when expressing that reality in math causes math to become unusable.
This is why I don't find the possibility of things happening in the universe that aren't explicable by our understanding of physics either improbable or disconcerting. We just haven't reckoned those variables in our theories, and the problem is with our understanding of physics, not demonstrable events. Hubris, in other words, decries the existence of God, not physics.
Thanks!
If the creator of the universe is limited by the arbitrary "laws" of His own creation, such circumstance begs the question: is He the creator, or merely another variable? if He is subject to the arbitrary whims of his own creation, then is His creation greater than the creator?
Those who have such unfailing faith in the "laws" of the universe are anti-theistic by boxing God into a set of arbitrary rules of His own creation. Mathematics is not the language of God; mathematics is convenient fiction that helps man model reality into comprehendible packets of information. A supreme being, or even those with superior intellect, would not need to resort to fables, such as mathematics, because such being will be able to perceive the universe as whole without reducing it to compartments, components, and division.
Ah! Thanks for the elucidation. I completely agree about maths.
However, I now understand that you may have missed my central point about why God follows the laws of physics. Given my thesis that no good person (or God) creates laws that don't apply to them, but only others, I contend that God only made physics He would certainly follow, not that somehow constrained Him.
I'm not trying to make an argument that God could, or did, make a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it, but that He would follow the rules He made, because He's not a slimeball overlord/politician, but plays fair.
You are limiting God by attributing human moral sentiment unto Him. Why must God "play fair" by creating laws that binds Himself for the sake of some moral sentiment in his creatures? If God is bound and limited in action by sentiments of his creatures, then He is a slave of His creation and not its master. Do men worship slaves? Are slaves worthy of worship?
From theistic perspective, God is the first and final principle of morality and physical "laws" that constrain mortals. Attributing mortal sentiment unto an infinite being would be erroneous. Do we as men concern ourselves with the pathetic mewling of ants' sentiments and tendencies? Fairness is a human construct that does not exist in natural creation or human reality. That men attribute "fairness" to their creator to limit His actions is hubris itself. Justice is not fairness, and master need not follow the rules for slaves, in order to be just.
There is always so much depth in your comments =)
The first I will address is your continued miscategorization of choosing to act in a given way as some kind of bondage. Being able to act as we choose to is rather freedom.
I posit a God that has freely chosen not only to act as He will, but to potentiate all to do so. In view of the demonstrable contraindicated actions of many, we see that we are not held in some kind of bondage philosophically, but indeed may act within the constraints of physics at our sole option.
I refute your contention that God is His own slave, as silly.
While attributing to anyone my personal morals is indeed erroneous, it is factual that everyone has morals. The particulars of their 'brand' of morals are variable, yet we see that physics is not variable, and my using the physical laws extant to derive the morals of a creator God does not seem unreasonable to me, albeit certain to result in imperfect understanding insofar as my understanding of physics is imperfect, amongst other reasons.
As to ants and men, I commend to you the work of E.O. Wilson, one of the most brilliant biologists that has ever published, and who spent most of his life studying ants.
Fairness is not a human construct at all. Dogs, octopi, even savage cats consider fairness, and to a far greater degree than is strictly profitable in terms of sustenance. Do research the topic, and profit yourself by revealing the limitations mere economic considerations proscribe.
Justice... Ah! that discussion is beyond me presently. I appreciate your stimulations to give it more thought.
Thanks!
What is pantheism? According to Dictionary.com, among other things “it involves a denial of God’s personality”. Personally I have a hard time believing God doesn’t have a personality. How many times have you experienced some series of events and just said to yourself, or out loud, “Is this some kind of joke?” To me that very concept implies I believe that God has a personality. True or not is irrelevant. The belief is what matters and negates me excepting pantheism.
More interesting to me is believing in a God who is not so fragile that when his creation debates his very being, does not just smot the entire lot of us.
Please allow me the following comparisons , dogs and humans, to humans and God.
Dogs and humans both have personalitys. We both have some concept, of value, what is and isn’t acceptable. But what does a dog know about the every day dealings of a human? Some may argue, quite a bit. But no in there right mind would say a dog understands, fully, the complexities of man. So how is it that we humans try to compartmentalize, quantify, define and tell God who he is?
I completely agree with you on this, and would point out that I do say 'Pantheism, or something like it.'
In my reply to @soo.chong163's comment I state my position that it's not physics that argues against God, but the hubris of physicists. I think that's also your point, and I agree. Who are we to define God? We are merely competent to define our understanding of God, not God Himself.
I also refer to mathematics being called the language of God, and in the post I am referring to there is a lengthy interview with Leonard Susskind, who postulates the Holographic Universe and developed String Theory. I consider both of those theories examples of how mathematics is no more precise nor useful than any other language, and Susskind's maths quite mastubatory and expressions of hubris.
Just because a thing can be said, even with math, doesn't make it true. This is one of the flaws of our use of maths, and I point out the problem that it can't be used to state some things that are true, such as division by zero. I reckon the work of Susskind is a kind of corollary to that flaw, in that maths can also be used (in ways we currently accept) to say things that aren't true. String Theory can prove pretty much anything you want it to, and IMHO, a lot of that is just dividing by zero.
Thanks!
Really enjoying the conversation here. It’s interesting to read and ponder the thoughts of others about God, science and math. But in the end it helps cement my own beliefs and convictions. That’s not to say others views are wrong, just different. I wish peace to all who read.
With great power, comes great responsibility.
That's why I used the tags 'be' and 'nice'.
I reckon that's what we're responsible to do.
Thanks!
Those anomolies are a direct result of our poor understanding of these laws. GOD has agreed to self limit, by covenant, and will observe all those laws he made; because it suits him to do so!
Some things are just coincidental, and others will make sense when we finially understand all.
BUT it does means that life is never boring, LOL!
:) :O :)Well, I sure reckon He wouldn't make laws that didn't suit him. Just wouldn't make sense.
I do believe in coincidence, but I am also convinced spoopy things happen.
BUT I like boring =)
Abiding by exsisting laws, instead of just adding whatever is convienent; takes a lot of intestinal fortitude! It would be hard to avoid just zapping a little on the side, LOL!
Boring can be great!
:)There are things we as of yet do not understand; so yes, oddities do arrive often!
I think that's the first time I ever wondered what "spoopy" was let alone ever heard it. Once I seen that I was sure this was going to turn into some sort of play on religious vs gay rights article.
If you didn't grasp the meaning of spoopy from context, it's kinda like HODL, a misspelling of spooky that just went viral. No play on rights at all, but wondering what folks think about the concept of Pantheism. Have you thoughts on it?
The closest I ever came to Pantheism was as a teenager when the lady upstairs from us use to take me to Unity Church. It's not listed as Pantheism but the concepts are somewhat close.
(I did look up that word....everyone wants to know if they see a strange word if it's real or not, yup it was misspelling on a Halloween poster that went viral)
Could it be possible that the personification of the concept of "God" comes from a lack of understanding of forces of energy greater than ourselves?
Is it possible that God is these forces (or laws) you speak of and the anthropomorphism of the concept is only means to understand a cause?
Could the religious worship of such forces be a perversion of greater understanding by the profane? (A great example of this is the handshake. We see successful people shaking hands and assume it is a customary greeting. As such, all common folk have adopted this, while to those 'in the know' it is a way to identify fellow associates secretly.) Possibly some aspect of religious practice is missing, including the actual purpose of such rituals.
Is it possible? Of course. Everything is possible. However, some things are more likely than others, and each of us can see but a fraction of what is. As things are variously dependent on other things, such as photons being emitted by sources, we can know that if one thing is known, things it is dependent on for it's existence must therefore also exist - even though we don't know them directly.
Profanity exists without a doubt. Consider then, that profanity can only exist as perversion of the sacred, and the existence of profanity is dependent on the existence of what is sacrosanct.
In my considerations of the above, I have chosen to be aware of the profane, in order to be able to guard against it, but to delve intentionally and as deeply as possible into the sacred, because that is what I personally seek.
May you find it everywhere you look, because it is there.
Thanks!