# Belief in a "Creator" is caused simply by the illusion of perspective **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516 "2003-12-02T16:10:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/81 "2003-12-05T18:16:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > What’s the opposite conclusion? One way to make way for such an entity would be to define two kinds of interactions for all matter in the universe. One is that when it is acted upon by other matter, and the second is when it is acted upon by “entity”. However arbitrary, there would be no logical way to prove this is not possible, and would solve your “contradiction”. > > Unprovable… Most probably > > Unnecessary… Not really > > If you want to support the Judeo-Christian God, such a condition might be necessary. I still don’t see a contradiction. I’m working on how God could interact with me and require a different definition than other matter interacting with me. Be patient, I am thinking on my keyboard again. Okay, he appeared before me, floating in the air, appearing to defy gravity. I can see him, so light is refracting off of him. He seems to defy gravity, but he is there, so he is by all appearances using some level of gravity. He cannot come to me without an awareness of me, so is dependent on physical matter, reguardless of his actual unknown physical makeup. Say he appears in voice or thought only, he still must be aware to do this and he is using electrical and chemical reactions in my brain, so still doesn’t require a different method of interaction. If there were no way for him to interact on a physical matter level, then he would not exist. If he affects my thoughts or my senses, he has interacted in a physical way. If God were capable of choosing whether or not **he** is affected. Choose, means aware. Aware is affected. That is still an awareness or interaction. If he were off somewhere else and he lacked awareness of us and we knew nothing of him, he would not be defined and therefore wouldn’t exist. I still believe it’s an unnecessary variable. We don’t need two kinds of interactions. Am I missing something? I still agree with TVAA. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/82 "2003-12-05T18:31:42Z")
**JThunder** Keep in mind being wrong is usually how I learn. Being right teaches me nothing more than what I already know. Could you clear up this point for me. I’m not saying God has to be a physical thing. But when he interacts with me and I become aware of him, isn’t the process of becoming aware a physical thing? Which means he is interacting on a physical level? He cannot interact with me on anything but a physical level? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/83 "2003-12-05T18:38:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\*Say he appears in voice or thought only, he still must be aware to do this and he is using electrical and chemical reactions in my brain, so still doesn’t require a different method of interaction. > \*\* If he has to remain supernatural, then he does. He has to interact with matter without getting affected in return. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If he affects my thoughts or my senses, he has interacted in a physical way. > \*\* No. He has interacted with physical matter, not necessarily in a “physical way”. Reciprocity is not required. This is where the special kind of interaction comes into play. > [@](#): > > \*\* > If God were capable of choosing whether or not **he** is affected. Choose, means aware. Aware is affected. That is still an awareness or interaction.\*\* Awareness, yes. Interaction, not necessarily the same as physical. Maybe God can sense the force fields without actually being affected or interfering with their normal world interactions The photons can pass through him (if we consider God as localised) , yet he can sense their energies and other parameters via the second type of special interaction. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/84 "2003-12-05T18:42:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\ ***JThunder** > Keep in mind being wrong is usually how I learn. Being right teaches me nothing more than what I already know. Could you clear up this point for me. I’m not saying God has to be a physical thing. But when he interacts with me and I become aware of him, isn’t the process of becoming aware a physical thing? \*\* No, because that’s not how physicality is defined. As I’ve said, physicality refers to matter and energy. Awareness has nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > \*\* Which means he is interacting on a physical level? \*\* Yes. That doesn’t make him physical, though. As I’ve said, physicality is not defined by interactions, contrary to the claims made earlier. > [@](#): > > \*\* He cannot interact with me on anything but a physical level? \*\* Of course He can. In principle, a spiritual entity could interact on a spiritual level – indeed, Judaism and Christianity teach that He does. That doesn’t preclude him from interacting on a physical level, nor does it dictate that he must interact in that way. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/85 "2003-12-05T18:44:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > \*\ ***JThunder** > Keep in mind being wrong is usually how I learn. Being right teaches me nothing more than what I already know. Could you clear up this point for me. I’m not saying God has to be a physical thing. But when he interacts with me and I become aware of him, isn’t the process of becoming aware a physical thing? \*\* No, because that’s not how physicality is defined. As I’ve said, physicality refers to matter and energy. Awareness has nothing to do with it. Now, your example shows that \*you[/i[ are affected physically, insofar as awareness does entail a physical, neurological response on your part. This does not mean that God is a physical thing, though. > [@](#): > > \*\* Which means he is interacting on a physical level? \*\* Yes. That doesn’t make him physical, though. As I’ve said, physicality is not defined by interactions, contrary to the claims made earlier. > [@](#): > > \*\* He cannot interact with me on anything but a physical level? \*\* Of course He can. In principle, a spiritual entity could interact on a spiritual level – indeed, Judaism and Christianity teach that He does. That doesn’t preclude him from interacting on a physical level, nor does it dictate that he must interact in that way. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/86 "2003-12-05T18:50:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*Not true. Physical objects are defined as those [which consist of matter and/or energy](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical). There is nothing in that definition about “interactions,” and certainly nothing which states that whatever interacts with the physical must also be physical. \*\* The definition would once have been “that which consists of matter”, things like light and such being seen as non-physical. We know better now. There’s no reason we couldn’t add another fundamental force to our current list of four, or find new and unusual “stuff” that didn’t fit into our categories of mass-energy, but it’s the interaction between something and the rest of the world that allows us to call it physical. Neutrinos are part of the physical world, even though their properties are unlike almost everything we’re familiar with. They interact so weakly that they could pass through lightyears of solid lead before hitting anything. Yet they still interact. Something which didn’t interact at all with the physical world cannot be said to exist, and it cannot be said to be physical. We can postulate something “made out of matter and energy” that didn’t interact with the physical world. Is that thing physical? Of course not. > [@](#): > > \*\*And before you complain that all things must be material, let me cite the [url=“[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=material)”]definitions for that as well. This citation specifically says materiality is “# Of or concerned with the physical _as distinct from the intellectual or spiritual_.” This demonstrates that not all which interacts with the material or physical world is automatically defined as being material or physical. \*\* Oh, please. There is no ultimate distinction between the two any more than there is a distinction between information and the world that embodies it. Without the “physical”, there is no “intellectual or spiritual”. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/87 "2003-12-05T18:52:04Z")
Nothing can interact on a “spiritual” level without interacting on the physical level. Don’t be stupid, please – our time is valuable, and we don’t like it to be wasted. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/88 "2003-12-05T18:55:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > No, because that’s not how physicality is defined. As I’ve said, physicality refers to matter and energy. Awareness has nothing to do with it. But there is literally a physical response to awareness, which makes the interaction physical. We could not be affected by God without our own physical response. > [@](#): > > Yes. That doesn’t make him physical, though. As I’ve said, physicality is not defined by interactions, contrary to the claims made earlier. I don’t believe it does either. > [@](#): > > Of course He can. In principle, a spiritual entity could interact on a spiritual level – indeed, Judaism and Christianity teach that He does. That doesn’t preclude him from interacting on a physical level, nor does it dictate that he must interact in that way. I don’t get this at all. Doesn’t interacting on a spiritual level create awareness and a physical response is necessary to create awareness. Could you define interacting on a spiritual level? I know what it feels like, but don’t know what it is. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/89 "2003-12-05T19:03:36Z")
**ILWN** , I think you’re missing the point. **YES** , there is a physical response. **YES** , there is an interaction with the physical world. Nowhere did I deny that. The point is that _this does not make God physical_. It merely demosntrates an ability to influence the physical world. There is nothing in the definition of physicality which dictates that this necessarily makes him a physical object. And **that** is the matter under debate. The question of whether God induces a physical response in _you_ is simply irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/90 "2003-12-05T19:13:13Z")
You know what, TVAA, I was in the middle of posting a detailed reply to your points when I read your most recent snide dismissal. Never mind. I do have answers to the points that you’ve raised, but I’ve got better things to do than flaggelate a deceased equine. One point you raised does interest me, though. Your response to my point about entropy was something I’d never heard before. Could you possibly suggest a good reference which offers this elaboration on the subject? Chaim Mattis Keller ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/91 "2003-12-05T19:15:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **Nothing can interact on a “spiritual” level without interacting on the physical level.** Irrelevant. **ILWN** asked if physical interaction was the _only_ way by which God could interact. It isn’t. The question of whether spiritual interaction also entails physical response is simply irrelevant. > [@](#): > > \*\* Don’t be stupid, please – our time is valuable, and we don’t like it to be wasted. \*\* Oooh. Big talk. Do you hold yourself to the same standard, pray tell? Then please answer my previous challenge. Please cite some authoritative text which supports your assertion that physicality is “defined by interactions,” i.e. that whatever interacts with the physical is automatically defined to be physical as well. Since this is the core of your argument, then please support it. Please provide the relevant definition. Otherwise, it seems to me that you’re the one who is “being stupid” and wasting our time. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/92 "2003-12-05T19:17:18Z")
Give me an example of a non-physical thing that interacts with the physical world. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/93 "2003-12-05T19:22:26Z")
“Spiritual” interaction requires physical interaction. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to think about, remember, discuss, or be aware of it, and it couldn’t be said to be a part of the universe. Any interaction with the physical world is physical, because the label “physical” is how we reference the set of interactions that makes up the world. Texts are irrelevant if you can’t apply basic logic to the problem. Any entity that wasn’t part of the system that the physical world exists in couldn’t affect it, because “affecting part of the system” is how we determine whether something is part of the system. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/94 "2003-12-05T19:25:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmkeller \* > \*\*You know what, TVAA, I was in the middle of posting a detailed reply to your points when I read your most recent snide dismissal. \*\* Then your good deed for the day was sparing us from further exposure to your points. > [@](#): > > **One point you raised does interest me, though. Your response to my point about entropy was something I’d never heard before. Could you possibly suggest a good reference which offers this elaboration on the subject?** Any decent text on probability, thermodynamics, or the Theory of Eternal Recurrence? Sheesh. How we can enlighten the ignorant if they’re ignorant of their ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/95 "2003-12-05T19:30:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\* The definition would once have been “that which consists of matter”, things like light and such being seen as non-physical. > > We know better now. There’s no reason we couldn’t add another fundamental force to our current list of four, or find new and unusual “stuff” that didn’t fit into our categories of mass-energy, but it’s the interaction between something and the rest of the world that allows us to call it physical.\*\* And I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide an authoritative cite which shows that this is how physicality is defined. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’re dodging this question. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Neutrinos are part of the physical world, even though their properties are unlike almost everything we’re familiar with. They interact so weakly that they could pass through lightyears of solid lead before hitting anything. Yet they still interact.\*\* Which is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Let me remind you that _you are the one who is saying that **by definition** , interaction with the physical world automatically renders something physical_. All this talk about neutrinos is simply irrelevant. You have yet to cite _any_ definition which supports your claim. > [@](#): > > \*\*Something which didn’t interact at all with the physical world cannot be said to exist, and it cannot be said to be physical. \*\* Nonsense. This is simply an assertion on your part. “Proof by assertion” is not a valid form of argumentation. Moreover, it’s (again!) irrelevant. Yes, something which never interacts with the physical world cannot be called physical. However, the converse its not true; it does not mean that anything which \*_does_ interact with the physical must be physical as well. > [@](#): > > **We can postulate something “made out of matter and energy” that didn’t interact with the physical world. Is that thing physical? Of course not.** Nonsense. You are postulating a self-contradictory condition, whatever is made out of matter or energy _is part of the physical world_, according to the definitions which I cited. > [@](#): > > \*\* Oh, please. There is no ultimate distinction between the two any more than there is a distinction between information and the world that embodies it. \*\* Mere empty assertion, devoid of substantiation. I have already cited the revelant definitions, and you have yet to substantiate your claims in response. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Without the “physical”, there is no “intellectual or spiritual”. \*\* [ A completely unproven assertion. _Please prove that it is impossible to have a spiritual being with no mass or energy_. You have yet to do anything of the sort, apart from the empty, unsubstantiated claim that “whatever interacts with the physical must be physical as well.” ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/96 "2003-12-05T19:36:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **"Spiritual" interaction requires physical interaction. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to think about, remember, discuss, or be aware of it, and it couldn’t be said to be a part of the universe.** Which, as I’ve pointed out several times already, is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Any interaction with the physical world is physical, because the label “physical” is how we reference the set of interactions that makes up the world. > \*\* Again, an unsubstantiated (yet oft repeated!) assertion on your part. You claim that this is how physicality is **defined**. I am asking you to cite the relevant definition. Merely repeating this claim _ad nauseum_ does not make it valid. Would you care to count how many times I’ve asked you to cite the relevant defintion which supports your case? Or shall we take this as a tacit admission that you have no such definition, apart from having cooked it up yourself? ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/97 "2003-12-05T19:39:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Give me an example of a non-physical thing that interacts with the physical world. \*\* Wait a minute. YOU are the one who said that only physical objects can interact with non-physical objects. The burden of proof rests on you, especially since you have repeatedly insisted that it’s true “by definition.” ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/98 "2003-12-05T19:40:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > \*\*And I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide an authoritative cite which shows that this is how physicality is defined. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that you’re dodging this question. \*\* I don’t have a cite. The point requires you to put two and two together to make four. > [@](#): > > \*\*Which is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Let me remind you that _you are the one who is saying that **by definition** , interaction with the physical world automatically renders something physical_. All this talk about neutrinos is simply irrelevant. \*\* There are no other grounds for deciding whether something is physical. “Physical” is just a conceptual set that we put “things that interact with each other” into. > [@](#): > > \*\*Moreover, it’s (again!) irrelevant. Yes, something which never interacts with the physical world cannot be called physical. However, the converse its not true; it does not mean that anything which \*_does_ interact with the physical must be physical as well. \*\* If it interacts, then it follows the same rules that the physical world follows. If it follows the same rules as the physical world, _it is physical_. The rules determine what we label as physical. > [@](#): > > \*\*Nonsense. You are postulating a self-contradictory condition, whatever is made out of matter or energy _is part of the physical world_, according to the definitions which I cited. Not at all. Physicists can think about “dark matter” which interacts with normal matter only through the gravitational force. It interacts with the physical world, thus it is physical. By your reasoning, we can consider matter that doesn’t interact with our universe at all – it’s “matter”, right, so that means it’s physical! But of course you’ll claim that matter isn’t really matter, so the question them becomes “what is matter?” And it’s stuff that interacts in certain ways – physics no longer distinguishes between energy and matter any more. It’s matter-energy. Just as water and ice are both collections of molecules with certain properties. > [@](#): > > \*\*A completely unproven assertion. _Please prove that it is impossible to have a spiritual being with no mass or energy_. \*\* What do you mean by “spiritual”? Perhaps some stuff can be found that is neither matter nor energy in any meaningful sense. But if it interacts with the material world, we conclude that it’s a special case of something even more basic that makes up the world. When we found that matter could become light, we realized that light was material – we didn’t claim that we’d found a way to make things nonmaterial. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/99 "2003-12-05T19:49:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > **ILWN** , I think you’re missing the point. I’m going to agree with that. > [@](#): > > **YES** , there is a physical response. **YES** , there is an interaction with the physical world. Nowhere did I deny that. > > The point is that _this does not make God physical_. It merely demosntrates an ability to influence the physical world. There is nothing in the definition of physicality which dictates that this necessarily makes him a physical object. I don’t think God is necessarily literally physical, although I don’t have that information yet. I’m not arguing this point, but if he is some sort of benevolent energy or whatever, I’m not sure we can totally take him out of the physical realm anyway. Since there is no real true definition of God, I don’t think we can argue whether he _is_ or isn’t physical. Anyway, I didn’t perceive that to be the real point. I may have missed something else.☹ I thought the real point of this was because he is interacting with us on our physical level, he can in some way be considered physical. Not literally, but in order to deal with us, he is approaching us on our physical plane, in a physical manner. > [@](#): > > And **that** is the matter under debate. The question of whether God induces a physical response in _you_ is simply irrelevant. I do see it as relevant. The part I don’t see as relevant is defining whether or not the literal God is physical. His actions are physical, so on some level he is in effect physical. I think I’m still siding with the **infidel** :eek:, but then again I am several posts behind, so that could change. You guys are too fast for me. I still have to muse and ponder things. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516/100 "2003-12-05T19:53:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > **If we presume that God interacts with human beings, and human beings are part of the universe, then God is part of the universe, because the universe is merely the set of all things that interact with each other.** Not so. [That is not how the term “universe” is defined.](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=universe) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/belief-in-a-creator-is-caused-simply-by-the-illusion-of-perspective/216516.md?page=6)