BothAndBlog Forum

Quora question : If God made nature and nature does bad things, then isn’t God bad?
https://www.quora.com/If-God-made-natur ... -t-God-bad

My reply to Christopher Finch, "God would be indifferent" :

Yes. Evaluations of Good or Bad are made from the ego-centric human perspective. When good things happen to them, some people thank God, as-if that blessed event was specifically targeted to the recipient of good fortune. But logically, the maker of our mechanical world should also be blamed for any misfortunes that come our way in the process of cranking-out natural events. However, as the Bible says, God “sendeth rain on the just and the unjust”, hence is impartial in the dispensation of nature’s bounties and privations. So, how can you condemn God for the Evils, even as you enjoy the Goods? For Deists, God's "providence" was in the prudence and foresight to create a marvelous & challenging world for us to "strut and fret" in; not in the notion of a divine "provider" of goods & services. Beyond setting the stage for us actors, God seems content to sit in the audience and let us do our thing.

The underlying assumption of this perennial question seems to be that God is personally dealing out blessings and curses, like the ancient pagan deities with lightning spears and magical miracles. But most Deists don’t think that way. Instead, Nature’s God is viewed as the author of all natural events, regardless of their positive or negative impact on specific creatures. The theory of Evolution implies that the emergence of curious homo sapiens was an accident, and natural processes seem to be oblivious to our needs and desires. Hence, regarding quotidian human affairs, nature's God seems to be morally indifferent. Which explains why those who pray for God’s intercession in worldly affairs are so often disappointed, and mystified by his "mysterious ways". Deists are not so perplexed, because they understand that, whatever IS is God’s Will.

David Hume asserted that “you can’t derive an ought from an is”. But we can design practical moral rules & regulations based on our best understanding of how the world works, and how human societies work : i.e. what IS. Moreover, knowing Good & Evil, we have become like gods, able to foresee the consequences of our choices and actions.Then, as future foreseeing rational moral agents, we have two options : accept the status quo like amoral animals, or attempt to change it for the betterment of humankind. And that's exactly what human Culture is : a means of tipping the balance of natural systems in our favor. Not by begging God for favors, but by re-directing the indiscriminate forces of Nature, in order to create little human-friendly zones of our own.

The non-human elements of Nature — gravity, weather, animals, etc — are amoral, because they are completely subject to the deterministic laws of Thermodynamics. We don’t condemn Lions for preying upon innocent Lambs, because we understand that Life Lives upon Life. It is in the nature of predators to use living organisms as energy sources. By nature, humans are also designed to use living flesh for food. But we have a choice to accept what IS, or to modify our own nature for the better. That's why some people become selfless vegetarians, due to empathy with fellow sentients, or perhaps based on an austere Utilitarian calculus. Others become self-indulgent gastronomes, based on a more individualistic Epicurean interpretation of The Good. Within reasonable limits, both personal choices are ethically justifiable. But what's good for me, may not be good for you. So our attempts to generalize private choices into public rules inevitably prove to be bad for some of the ruled.

Unlike eternal-eyed God, humans have a short-sighted vision of the future. So our choices don't always work out as planned. We also have an imperfect understanding of What IS and Why. Hence, as the little gods of our "blue marble", hanging in the vastness of the universe, we make mistakes, lots of them. Fortunately, we also have the ability to learn from them, and to try-try again . . . to evolve and adapt . . . to try to make God's creation a better place. We were not placed in a perfect Garden of Eden, but in a jungle, red in tooth and claw. Nevertheless, as the acme of evolution, we have clawed our way out of the wilderness, and into urban jungles, made in the image of our imperfect collective notion of The Good. And as we discover the flaws in our vision, and its execution, we change and adapt.

That’s why I have concluded that the Creator didn’t intend to produce callow bipedal minions, dependent on a higher power for moral support. Instead, the whole point of the creation is to develop self-helping moral agents, who are capable of exercising good judgment in managing their own societies. God's creation was never "good" as described in Genesis, only to devolve toward Chaos. Instead, it evolves toward the ultimate Good, the Cosmos. And perhaps, whether we know it or not, that's our role, as a community of moral agents : to make it so. Hence, as products of heuristic evolution, we learn how to create a better world by trial & error, by artificially selecting Good and rejecting Evil. That's God's providence in action. We are Good or Bad, not Nature, not God.

What are some flaws in Deism?
https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5

Not exactly a mote in the eye of Deism, but a beam in the eye of those who might otherwise see it as a viable worldview : What good is a god who neither rewards nor punishes his creatures, but merely creates a maze-like world for them to explore at their own peril? My answer : it IS what it IS . . . get used to it. [confer Exodus 3:14 -- "I Am"]

Theists see Deism as a watered down form of religion : “having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof”.
Atheists view Classical Deism as a cop-out : substituting a do-nothing deity, for the power of mindless Evolution.

Since the 17th century religious philosophy of Deism is easy to ridicule because of its apparent pointlessness, I half-seriously propose a new term for the 21st century : BEISM. Like classical Deism, it's a sober rational worldview, that tends to subordinate Emotions to Reasons. But unlike materialistic orthodox objective Science, with its denial of subjective Qualia, BEISM views Existence (something rather than nothing) as the primordial essence, analogous to the Spirit of God. [I won’t go into the details of that alternative to Materialism here]

PS___William Blake, in the apocalyptic poem Jerusalem, directly addresses Deists :
"You O Deists profess yourselves the Enemies of Christianity, and you are so : you are also the Enemies of the Human Race & of Universal Nature". As a Romantic Expressionist, he despised the unimaginative mindset of staid Rational & Empirical thinking. Blake himself was an unorthodox Christian, and vehemently opposed to the dogmatic established religion of England. Yet his views were closer to ancient Paganism and to modern New Age beliefs of vaguely defined spiritualism, and which extol personal feelings & freedoms, such as Free Love. The beam in Blake's eye prevented him from seeing that Deism [BEISM] is both Humanistic and Naturalistic in the best sense of those terms.


*****************************************

Since the 17th century religious philosophy of Deism is easy to ridicule because of its apparent pointlessness, I propose a new term for the 21st century : BEISM. Like classical Deism, it's a sober rational worldview, that tends to subordinate Emotions to Reasons. But unlike materialistic orthodox objective Science, with its denial of subjective Qualia, BEISM views Existence as the primordial essence, analogous to Spirit. Fundamental Existence is not a thing or substance, but merely the eternal power to BE. That infinite potential is expressed in the power to Enform, EnFormAction. Unfortunately, our knowledge of that necessary but hypothetical power is limited to the real world, and to our logical & imaginary extrapolations toward an explanatory First Cause. Anything "prior" to the Big Bang is unknowable, so all we can say for sure is that the power-to-BE must logically precede actual beings. That potential is what I call BEING, or in deference to common understanding : G*D.

What is faith in reason? -- Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-faith-in-reason

“Faith in Reason” is an oxymoron, and sounds like something a religious believer might come up with to equate Science with Religion, for political purposes. Rational people do trust their own reasoning ability to discern truth from error, facts from fantasies. But they are also aware that most of our personal beliefs are acquired subconsciously and emotionally. So, in practice, critical thinking requires the reasoner to doubt some of their own feelings & beliefs, but not the proven programs for deliberately weeding out the chaff from the wheat. The scientific method of reasoning is a pragmatic trial & error process of arriving at useful conclusions from limited evidence. It's not an ideal path to absolute truths. So, placing blind faith in dogmas of Science would be irrational.

What is a term for the existence of God? -- Quora
https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-term-fo ... nce-of-God

My concept of God is philosophical rather than religious. It’s based on what we can know about the source of our own existence from up-to-date observation of the creation, not from out-dated ancient myths. About the only certain defining quality I can attribute to the First Cause is Existence, the power-to-be. That’s why my technical term for G*D is “BEING”. Not “a being” or “a creature” or "an entity", but simply “being” in the sense of “I Am!”. The natural world is becoming, but G*D simply IS.

Aside from existence, any other divine attributes may be debatable, but pure BEING is irrefutable. Miracles and dogmas are matters of opinion, but the existence of the opinionator is essential. In the Creation, Hamlet’s query makes sense : “to be, or not to be.” But, for the Creator, BEING is beyond question, and not-to-be, impossible. BEING is infinite, beings are finite.

PS__ The mathematical Singularity, proposed by Big Bang cosmologists, is by definition super-natural, since it necessarily preceded the emergence of space-time. The “hot dense state” of TV’s Big Bang Theory was not the Singularity, but a product of it. Natural Empirical Science begins at the hypothetical Planck Time. Anything prior to that Time Zero is beyond the scope of Science, and falls under the purview of Philosophical speculation or Religious myth-making. Scientists who claim to believe in a Singularity or Infinite Multiverse, are transgressing beyond their own defined limits, hence are believing an “illusion” equivalent to gods, angels, and demons. I prefer to call it a reasonable, but un-provable, conjecture. The concept of a definite First Cause puts our evolving world of secondary causes in perspective : bracketing Nature with not-nature, space-time with eternity-infinity, evolving with existing, becoming with being. Anyone who denies Existence is self-refuting.

Are thoughts outside of the physical universe? -- Quora
https://www.quora.com/Are-thoughts-outs ... 3477360627

The question seems to assume that “thoughts” are some kind of substance (ectoplasm?) that floats around in a heavenly never-never-land. That might be true in the poetic sense that *Love* is a goddess. It may also be true in the philosophical sense of Platonic *Ideas* or eternal *Forms *that exist in some ethereal sense outside space & time, yet become embodied in the material *Things* we perceive in the natural world. But in a more down-to-earth sense, *Thoughts* & *Ideas* & *Minds* & *Souls *can be more accurately described as “Metaphysical”. They are all imaginary, yet important and meaningful to physical humans. *Love* may not actually be a goddess, but as an ideal, it is essential to human society.

Aristotle was a more pragmatic philosopher than Plato, so his encyclopedia of current knowledge was divided into two volumes, labeled by others as “Physics” describing real tangible objective things (Science; Matter), and “Metaphysics” discussing ideal intangible subjective aspects of the real world that are not composed of Matter (Philosophy; Mind). This invisible subject matter includes human concepts & opinions *about* the physical world. So *Thoughts* are certainly immaterial, but they definitely depend on a material substrate for their existence. For example, we can imagine disembodied *Spirits*, but only by using our physical brains to conjure-up cartoons of see-through bodies. Unfortunately, we can debate forever, which came first : Mind or Matter, but for all practical purposes Mind is a function of Brain — Thoughts are generated inside the skull.

“Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind.” Moreover, “ Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is.”
Logos . . . . Metaphysics (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html)

How would God be distinguishable from the programmer(s) of a simulation in which we live in? What would be the difference if lived in a simulation compared to a creation of God?
https://www.quora.com/How-would-God-be- ... ion-of-God


11/10/2108
I sometimes describe my Deist concept of G*D as a computer Programmer. This is similar to traditional notions of the “Great Architect”, except that it is more appropriate for the Information Age. Since Quantum theory has drawn a fuzzy picture of the fluffy foundations of the physical world, it seems that what we perceive as real things may be imaginary, in the sense of a concrete interpretation of abstract codes on the sub-atomic level. Quantum fields are not composed of classical Atoms (discrete particles), but of a continuous “fluid” of statistical potential. That immaterial mathematical information can be measured in digital terms of ones & zeros, something or nothing. Like the dots & dashes of Morse code, a string of such abstract information can be decoded into a meaningful message, that we interpret into classical objects and real things. Some physicists have taken this counter-intuitive conclusion to mean that our “reality” is more like a computer simulation. Which means that the creator of our model world is a Cosmic Programmer.

Simulated Reality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si...

Cosmic Programmer :
http://bothandblog2.enformationi...


11/13/2018
“A programmer doesn't understand everything about his own creation … at least if the creation is of any appreciable complexity.”

I ended the reply above before I got around to the point raised by CR. The Cosmic Programmer of my god-model didn’t create a perfect world in seven days. Instead, S/he is currently creating an autonomous world by means of a process similar to Evolutionary Programming (Google it). That method for finding a solution does not require that the Programmer know the final answer before running the program. So, I agree that the Cosmic Programmer is Omniscient only in retrospect. That’s because our world is so complex that the only way to know the ultimate state is to explore all possible intermediate states. Which is what Evolution is doing. This is discussed further in the link above.

"What would be the difference if lived in a simulation compared to a creation of God?"

The difference between reality and simulation is nil, if the simulation is our reality. Our evolving reality is different from God’s creation, as related in Genesis, in the same sense that real life is different from a fairy tale.

What do you believe existed before God created the Earth? Was there just an abyss?
https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-belie ... t-an-abyss

In my personal concept of what existed “before” the Big Bang, I have concluded that nothing existed except Existence per se. My name for that timeless spaceless something is G*D, which I define as BEING. That unlimited potential can be described metaphorically as the “Abyss” like an unfathomable ocean of possibility, or as “Chaos” which is literally emptiness, or a random undefined unformed state of Potential (capacity to become). Other than those generalities, I know nothing about G*D, except it’s not the superhero humanoid cloud/mountain-dwelling miracle-working king of the scriptures.

BEING : Being . . . . BothAnd (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html)
CHAOS : Chaos . . . . Dualism (http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html)

How could the universe create itself from nothing?
https://www.quora.com/How-could-the-uni ... om-nothing

Marty Frolick
“The universe does not come from nothing - it is nothing. It’s just a nothing made of two opposite somethings and you think its something because you are only aware of part of it. There is no difference between these two “nothings”.”

This sounds like an ironic oxymoron, but I happen to agree that our universe was caused by a union of oppositions : 1 & 0, something and nothing. However, I believe there is an essential difference between them. In the words of Gregory Bateson, its the “difference that makes a difference”. He was referring to Information, which I interpret as EnFormAction.

EnFormAction
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html


Gregory Hart
“Before the Big Bang, nothing would have moved. There would be no change to measure. Nothing. This would mean there is no time. However, SOMETHING must have triggered the change. If nothing ever changes, then nothing can ever happen. No matter how one tries to describe it, the Big Bang would resolve to require an “event” of some form. “

I agree with the analysis. The creation of our universe, by means of Big Bang or by Fiat Lux, logically requires a First Cause. However, in my Information based theory, the “trigger” of that Cause was a Change of Mind : a decision, an intention, a will. Yes, that implies a Deity, but not a humanoid super-king in the sky. The enforming deity would simply be All Mind All The Time, i.e. eternal mind.


PS—The trigger for the BB was a Measurement, in the sense that Greek root “mens-” of “measure” means Mind — a change of mind, a difference in mental state.


Kevin McDonnell
The current Physics answer to the “something from nothing” conundrum seems to be saying that a supernatural (i.e. existing prior to our space-time nature) Field created our world on a whim, for no good reason. Absent a Cause-for-the-Effect, or a Reason-for-the-Being, it’s a matter of blind faith.

Your formulation is that the universe “created itself” which is a paradox to be accepted on faith. Even autopoiesis in biology assumes that something (with the potential for self-reference) is pre-existent. A more complete explanation requires a First Cause that is self-existent.

I prefer biological anthropologist Terrence Deacon’s “theory of everything”, “that doesn’t leave it absurd that we exist”. In INCOMPLETE NATURE, the cause of everything is “absence”; Zero; a something-that-is-not-a-thing” which has physical consequences. For the “how”, you’ll have to read the book. Or the condensed version in Jeremy Sherman’s NEITHER GHOST NOR MACHINE, which explains the “mystery of purpose”.

I too think in terms of Metaphysics instead of Mysticism. But in any complete scenario of Creation, the Prime Mover must have super-natural properties that have traditionally been attributed to God or gods. To avoid the pitfalls of pre-scientific doctrines, I prefer to spell that super-something as “G*D”.

G*D
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html


Randy Dykstra
“The only logical conclusion is that the cause of the universe cannot be the universe or anything that exists within it. This cause must exist beyond and independently of all these things -- it must be timeless, space-less, immaterial, and extremely powerful.”

Precisely! The First Cause or Prime Mover must be both self-existent (i.e. eternal) and infinitely powerful (omnipotent). Even a physical Field of potential meeting these logical requirements would be essentially equivalent to God.


Preston Tuchman
“ The universe came from something and that something is existence. Another term for existence can be the multiverse.”

I agree. But I use metaphysical terminology to describe concepts that go beyond the limits of physics (i.e. beyond the beginning of space-time). The hypothetical eternal Quantum Field or the self-existent Multiverse are not referring to empirical things, but to imaginary concepts. My term for eternal existence is BEING, and for the infinite ground of being is G*D.

BEING
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

G*D
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

11-20-2018

Kevin McDonnell
“Regardless, self creating universe it is not. More like, conscious realization that the possibility of non existence in nothingness is not a possible thing. “

My reply was directed toward “the current physics answer”, including quantum fluctuations and infinite regression of Multiverses. When scientists attempt to extend Physics beyond the space-time boundary of the Big Bang, they are practicing Religion or Philosophy, not Science. But, if you are not talking about a Self-Creating Universe, how is your reply relevant to the initial question? Ultimately, something must be self-existent.

The closest approach I’ve seen to the “possibility of non-existence in nothingness” may be Terrence Deacon’s notion of “Absence” as discussed in his 2012 book INCOMPLETE NATURE, How Mind Emerged From Matter. He doesn’t attempt to explain how a universe emerged from nothingness, but the creative power of Absence (Zero, Teleology, Attractors) might be a clue. This is not a materialistic Physics concept but a mathematical Metaphysical notion — more appropriate for looking beyond the limits of Physics. Statistically, it is a “possible thing”.

PS__no need to continue this sub-thread, my comments are addressing the notion of “self-creation” as-if it’s a reasonable philosophical question.


Randy Dykstra
I was referring to the current notion in Quantum Physics that the fundamental element of reality is not a material particle, but a statistical field. Such an immaterial field of possible numerical values is “physical” only in the sense that it was proposed by physicists.

Quantum Fields are defined mathematically as absences from material reality. Yet physicists invented the notion of “virtual particles” to suit their materialistic intuition. Similarly, Theists invented the notion of “ghosts” to suit their spiritualistic intuition. Put them together, and a pre-Big-Bang Quantum Field providentially fluctuating a universe into existence would be equivalent to God speaking our world into being.

Terrence Deacon’s notion of “Absence” may be able to reconcile those opposing worldviews. See INCOMPLETE NATURE, How Mind Emerged From Matter.

11/21/2018
Randy Dykstra
“Do you believe the "universe" encompasses all time, space, matter, and energy and that it had a beginning?”

Yes. But the Big Bang theory implies that something or somewhat caused Space-Time to emerge from where-or-when? The hypothetical Singularity could not be encompassed by the Universe it gave birth to, could it? So I use the term “pre-big-bang” in a conceptual or causal sense, not the temporal sense. It’s not like saying “north of the north pole”, but more like saying “where did the notion of a north pole come from?” On which side of the Big Bang does the “fluctuating field” exist, north or south, before or after?

In my understanding the Universal Quantum Field consists of No-Things, which is another term for Virtual Particles. Those Potential Particles are “things” only in the sense that Ghosts are things. The QF is not a physical thing, but a metaphysical concept (see link).

My comments are not inspired by religious doctrines, but by recent developments in our understanding of the causal power of Information, or as I like to spell it : EnFormAction. The Terrence Deacon book is primarily biological, but it’s notion of the power of “absence” applies across the board of all sciences. For example, the Strange Attractors of physics are "Absences" : no-things not-there that seem to pull stuff toward themselves. This may sound like non-sense, until you grasp the power of EnFormAction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics


Kevin McDonnell
“ You are too eager to close the book using the tools that are borne of this universe”

Apparently you missed the point of my post. I’m not closing the book of science, I’m opening the book of Physics up to include Metaphysics (the immaterial contents of the human mind). It took humanity centuries to come grips with the counter-intuitive notion of Zero, of “absence”, of something that is not a thing, of non-existence as a meaningful concept. Zero is by definition, a non-physical notion, that has revolutionized the world in the Information Age. The ubiquitous computers of this century would not be possible without acceptance that “absence” is a useful tool for science : the unit of Information (bit) is the distinction between 1 and 0, something and nothing. Does Zero exist in our space-time universe? If so, where and when?

Regarding “possibility of non-existence in nothingness”, I direct you to Charles Seife’s eye-opening book : Zero, Biography of a Dangerous Idea
Charles Seife (https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field- ... mozilla-20)


Stephen Colbourne
“The universe is simply a set of rules under which a calculation is performed. It does not exist but the concept of the universe ( under that set of rules) does exist.”

This notion is compatible with my own hypothesis that the world-creating Singularity was essentially a mathematical Program defining the computation of a space-time world based on a finite set of rules (laws) and initial conditions. But who programmed the Singularity? Whoever it was, was not-a-thing. Let's call Her “Nothing”. Or maybe Eve : the mother of all things.


NOTE : This is a popular thread. Seems as it everybody has a theory on paradox of Something from Nothing.