# God and physics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794 "2003-01-15T19:04:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/41 "2003-01-18T22:42:07Z")
Iamthat wrote: > [@](#): > > What separates god from her/is will? > > Or an entity from its attributes? God’s will is not an attribute and is not ablative. > [@](#): > > Is there such a thing as a perfect circle? > > Isn’t “perfection" a flawed notion? A perfect circle, like any other perfect thing, is a definitive consistency. Given a point, A, in planar space, a perfect circle is the set of points all of which are equidistant from A. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/42 "2003-01-18T23:04:46Z")
I still don’t understand why the believers in a transcendent god don’t realize that they’re really pantheists and get it over with. There’s no fundamental different between “spirit” and “flesh”: it’s all the same. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/43 "2003-01-18T23:10:35Z")
Pantheism is a belief in immanence, not transcendence. From the [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/): > [@](#): > > Where pantheism is considered as an alternative to theism it involves a denial of at least one, and usually both, central theistic claims. Theism is the belief in a “personal” God which in some sense is separate from (transcends) the world. Pantheists usually deny the existence of a personal God. They deny the existence of a “minded” Being that possesses the characteristic properties of a “person,” such as having intentional states, and the associated capacities like the ability to make decisions. Taken as an alternative to, and denial of, theism and atheism, pantheists deny that what they mean by God (i.e. an all-inclusive divine Unity) is completely transcendent. They deny that God is “totally other” than the world or ontologically distinct from it. The dichotomy between transcendence and immanence has been a principal source of philosophical and religious concern in Western and non-Western traditions; and all major traditions have at times turned to pantheism as a way of resolving difficulties associated with the theistic notion of a transcendent deity or reality. Whoever says that there is no fundamental different between “spirit” and “flesh” is the pantheist. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/44 "2003-01-18T23:17:04Z")
My point is that you can’t believe in transcendence without believing in immanence. They go hand in hand. I don’t recall the name at the moment, but there was a medieval Christian sect that claimed that reality had already ended and that this entire world was merely the memory of God. Think quickly now: what’s the difference between the memory of an omniscient being and a creation of an omnipotent being? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/45 "2003-01-18T23:25:19Z")
Vorlon wrote: > [@](#): > > My point is that you can’t believe in transcendence without believing in immanence. They go hand in hand. An astonishing assertion. How can something be both entirely restricted to the universe (immanent) and be completely independent of it (transcendent)? Your take on pantheism is quite unusual. Once again from Stanford (same cite as above): > [@](#): > > Like the notions of “Unity” and “Divinity,” understanding transcendence and immanence is essential to any account of pantheism. A defining feature of pantheism is allegedly that God is wholly immanent. However, what is actually (or mostly) involved in this claim is that pantheism denies the theistic view that God transcends the world. Pantheism clearly does not claim that God in the theistic sense is immanent in the world since it denies such a God – transcendent or immanent-exists. According to pantheism it is (of course) the pantheistic “God” (i.e. the all-inclusive divine Unity) that is immanent, not the theistic one. Theists and pantheists do not differ as to whether the theistic God is immanent or transcendent, but whether the theistic God exists. So to differentiate between them on the basis of one’s affirming and the other denying immanence is utterly confused. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/46 "2003-01-18T23:30:34Z")
\*\* Libertarian\*\* > [@](#): > > God’s will is not an attribute and is not ablative. But **you** are the one using the term , **god’s will** **god** ………………+…………………god’s **will** > [@](#): > > A perfect circle, like any other perfect thing, is a definitive consistency. Given a point, A, in planar space, a perfect circle is the set of points all of which are equidistant from A. But it can’t be actualized or produced, as no example can measure up to the definition. So what does **prefect** define? A circle is a line, who’s width when viewed up close is like a line written with a pencil on sand paper; rocky mountain terrain. Plus there is no such thing as: [a] set of points all of which are equidistant from A, as A only has a general position i.e. somewhere about this **point**. It can’t be located. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/47 "2003-01-18T23:31:42Z")
If God were “transcendent” in the sense you suggest, then God wouldn’t be the ultimate form of reality: the God-Creation system (and anything else floating around) would be. “God” is simultaneously immanent and transcendent: it’s the reality that creates the illusion of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2003, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/48 "2003-01-18T23:58:20Z")
Vorlon Could you reconcile this statement… > [@](#): > > I still don’t understand why the believers in a transcendent god don’t realize that they’re really pantheists and get it over with. …with the discussion of pantheism from Stanford? Are you saying that Stanford is mistaken? * * * Iamthat I’m sorry, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/49 "2003-01-19T00:08:32Z")
Stanford accurately states the certain beliefs held by some individuals, but those beliefs are inherently contradictory. Thus, Stanford isn’t mistaken, but the position he describes is. Consider a computer that’s emulating another system. The emulator is clearly on a level of reality deeper than the emulatee, yet the two cannot be separated. God is “beyond” and “outside” the world precisely because God _is_ the world. Do you understand? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/50 "2003-01-19T00:19:14Z")
Actually, Stanford is a university. And no, sorry, but you’re way above my head. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/51 "2003-01-19T00:21:34Z")
Okay, the position “it” describes. Whatever. > [@](#): > > And no, sorry, but you’re way above my head. Soon you will understand what you do not understand. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/52 "2003-01-19T00:25:42Z")
Well, that’s a relief. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/53 "2003-01-19T01:22:42Z")
Oh. Well I was saying that perfection doesn’t exist, as such. But perhaps it is a side issue. I think what \*\* The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide\*\* is putting forward is similar to nondualism. > [@](#): > > from The Lotus Sutra translated by Burton Watson and The Threefold Lotus Sutra translated by Bunno Kato, et. al. > > “The concept, often described in English as “nondualism,” is extremely hard for the mind to grasp or visualize, since the mind engages constantly in the making of distinctions and nondualism represents the rejection or transcendence of all distinctions. The world perceived through the senses, the phenomenal world as we know it, was described in early Buddhism as “empty” because it was taught that all such phenomena arise from causes and conditions, are in a constant state of flux, and are destined to change and pass away in time. They are also held to be “empty” in the sense that they have no inherent or permanent characteristics by which they can be described, changing as they do from instant to instant. But in Mahayana thought it became customary to emphasize not the negative but rather the positive aspects or import of the doctrine of Emptiness. If all phenomena are characterized by the quality of Emptiness, then Emptiness must constitute the unchanging and abiding nature of existence, and therefore the absolute or unchanging world must be synonymous with the phenomenal one. Hence all mental and physical distinctions that we perceive or conceive of with our minds must be part of a single underlying unity. It is this concept of Emptiness or nonduality that leads the Mahayana texts to assert that samsara, the ordinary world of suffering and cyclical birth and death, is in the end identical with the world of nirvana, and that earthly desires are enlightenment.” ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/54 "2003-01-19T01:30:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Well said, Quitesane. From His eternal reference frame, the universe does not yet exist, is ongoing, and is finished — all three simultaneously. \*\* Just to add some of what I have been told. God is made up of conscious energy units, these units are smaller by far than anything our scientists are working with. God is the sum total of these units, and uses these units to create universes. He also creates us. We are like children to Him and need to grow in our knowledge of Him and ourselves. Our subsequent growth will produce co-creators with God, as we grow so does God adding more and more units, and we will keep populating the void eternally. Conscious energy units have the characteristics of curosity, and of course consciousness, These units are held together and attact each other by a unilateral force called love. Anything can be formed from them that consciousness thinks up. Thoughts are the method of creation. There is no space or time in the spirit world, and everything happens simultaneously. The physical was created out of the spiritual and will eventually return to the spiritual when its usefulness is finished. The above explanation in our written language is as close as can be done. You have to use your spiritual senses to interpret it. Love Leroy ---
**Author:** ![jass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c77e96/32.png) [@jass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jass)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/55 "2003-01-19T02:00:30Z")
I think that this “God” is something beyond any human mind. I mean that it is completely beyond us. Why do I think that? Because, if you think about it, humans have never been able to create something beyond their human state, i.e. transcend their humanity, therefore I think if we can’t even do that, then how can we understand something that is otherworldy? The best I can offer on “God” is an oxymoron: God is perfectly defined as that which is undefineable. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/56 "2003-01-19T02:31:36Z")
> [@](#): > > God is perfectly defined as that which is undefineable. I like that!! May I quote you at some point in the future? And I offer in exchange a book by J.B. Phillips, 150 pages devoted to explaining the title, which really says it all in five words: _Your God Is Too Small_. No matter what conception you may have of who God is, it’s inadequate – He’s more than that. ---
**Author:** ![o42cDeadBeef](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3be4f8/32.png) [@o42cDeadBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/o42cDeadBeef)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/57 "2003-01-19T03:18:11Z")
When we consider who we are today and where we think or presume we came from, everything that makes us who we are is defined by us, our humanity. Therefore, our ability to consider or define things outside of our own humanity (e.g. Spirituality or an omnipotent god) is still only defined by what our conscious allows us to understand - to comprehend. Therefore, until we can experience a realm, world, or being outside of our own, we can only define that which we do not know or understand by the very terms we’ve created ourselves - thereby producing a limitation. More to the point; we attempt to define and eventually to understand things that have been foretold to us through ancient writings (e.g. the bible) et al, using our own terms, definitions, thoughts, theories etc which only proves nothing because we can only understand that which we have experienced or that which has been told to us. Even then, we can only prove these things using laws, theorems, conditions, etc., but again a limitation because these ‘rules’ are man made and not something to judge with outside of our ‘world’ or our humanity. We are deficient because we cannot define what we cannot explain or prove due to our lack of experience or understanding of something outside of our ‘human’ grasp. Will someone please die and then come back and tell us what you saw, felt, touched, etc. Oh wait, those tests are again based on our ‘human’ conditions and experience. Oh what are we to do? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/58 "2003-01-19T11:41:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*I like that!! May I quote you at some point in the future? > > And I offer in exchange a book by J.B. Phillips, 150 pages devoted to explaining the title, which really says it all in five words: _Your God Is Too Small_. > > No matter what conception you may have of who God is, it’s inadequate – He’s more than that. \*\* Ugh! “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.” — Jesus (Matthew 11:25) ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/59 "2003-01-19T15:15:21Z")
**Lib** , you mentioned Fa-tsang’s **Chin shih-tzu chang** in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=155928). I’ve been wondering if The Golden Lion Essay captures, at least in part, **IamThat** ’s reference to nondualism, and **Vorlon** ’s :“My point is that you can’t believe in transcendence without believing in immanence. They go hand in hand”, and _your_ “… spirit is not made of atoms”. It seems to me that transcendence must be neither entirely restricted to the universe nor completely independent of it. If we’re each in a _physically-embodied_ morality play, wouldn’t transcendence be _dependent_ on, as well as foundational to, immanence? Picasso without his paints would be as mute as the paints would be without Picasso. The lion (atoms) gives form to the gold as much as the gold (spirit) gives form to the lion. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2003, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794/60 "2003-01-19T15:19:53Z")
I suppose all of that if possible, Other-wise. Every moral agent might see God in a very different way, given the nature of closed reference frames (subjective consciousness). For me, what is real is what is eternally alive. Atoms decay. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-physics/148794.md?page=4)