God and physics

Great Debates
121

Vor

Mathematics is a branch of philosophy. As is logic. As is ethics. Science. Metaphysics. And aesthetics. If you don’t know what I mean when I say that goodness is the most valuable aesthetic, then study philosophy. If you want it in logic, it is necessary existence. If you want it in metaphysics, it is objective reality. If you want it in ethics, it is perfection. If you want it in mathematics, it is infinity. If you want it in science, it is a nonfalsifiable entity. Like falsifiability. It’s not falsifiable either.

Of course, you won’t be satisfied with any of this either. Like you’ve said before, you debate just because you like debating. Therefore, with you, the argument never ends. No matter what definitons. No matter what proof. No matter what is said. You disagree for disagreement’s sake. You’ve likely already composed your response, and you haven’t even finished reading the post.

If you want to submarine me, you’ll have to come up with something like, “Oh, I see what you’re saying now. I disagree, but I can see what you mean.” Because if you come back with just more irrelevant redirection and disingenuous demands for definitions, it won’t be any surprise at all.

122

To get back to the question at hand, which is one I find particularly interesting, I think we need to deal with the question of what “God” could possibly mean.

There is a school of thought, “God in the Gaps” that tries to say that “God” is what is undefinable. This is of great comfort to those scientists who want to see a clean separation between God and the physical world (that is the world that is directly attainable to us via observation – through the interaction of our minds with the natural world… all Spencer-like, ya see). In many ways, this is a satisfying stratification because it allows for two domains that don’t have to interact except on the most superficial of terms. For example, a “God in the Gapper” doesn’t have to argue about which story is correct, “evolution” or “creation” because it seems utterly apparent that God is in the gaps and that evolution and creation do not have to be mutually exclusive. What this seems to me to be is something that says evolution and creation ARE mutually exclusive, it’s just that we can fit them together in a coherent package that makes it look nicer.

Of course, there are both scientists and religionists who don’t like God-in-the-Gaps. They tend to be a bit more vitriolic than the rest of them. Actually, it is here where the arguments get most heated.

When you ask me if God is above the laws of physics I have to decide whether God “interacts” with the “universe” in a physical way. In other words, should there be occurrences of “miracles” or “God interventions” that should be visible via scientific inquiry? If the answer is “yes” then I have to say that God must interact using the laws of physics because the laws of physics are ultimately based upon the sum total of all scientifically controlled observations taken over the course of human existence. Now, this is going to sound a bit over-zealous to the skeptics, and rightly so. Science isn’t perfect and hasn’t acheived this ultimate existence and perhaps may never acheive this. What those who buy into the scientific process submit to, though, is that science itself should be assymptotically approaching such a model.

So if God is acting in history, then we expect God to conform to the laws of physics. This only pertains, however, to God’s actions which are not the same thing as God.

I should point out here that there is also an issue of some trilemma… Is God omnipotent by defintion? Is God omnibenevolent by definition? (I might add, whence evil, but it’s probably not germane to the discussion). These questions are best left to theologians and as I am not one nor do I care to become embroiled in this particular conflict, I leave it to the reader to decide one way or another in this particular area.

It’s dealing with specific instances of incarnation that science (physics) and religion come head-to-head. These are the areas that tend to get “tiptoed” around whenever there are science-religion roundtables. They are the areas that science tends to call “mythology” while religion tends to call “fundamental”. Let’s take a basic one from Christianity…

Jesus Christ could walk on water.

Now, how did Jesus do this? There are any number of “physical” explanations for how such a miracle could occur. All of them are fairly outlandish and rather silly when it gets right down to it. Aside from the typical buyoancy problems there are all sorts of issues involving center of gravity, air-pressure, friction, surface tension, etc. Going into a detailed analysis of this “miracle” is probably not worth the time of anybody on this board, but what it illustrates is the basic conundrum of how do we decide whether to “believe” that God is outside of the laws of physics.

A God-in-the-Gapper (or what I would describe as one) would say that the story itself is what is important, that “whether or not Jesus actually walked upon the water is irrelevant.” Blah, blah, blah. What’s more interesting is the non-apologist who insists that the words of the Gospel must be true.

Then there can be two schools: one says that Jesus is able to bend the rules whenever he pleases (after all, he is God). So Jesus bends the rules and suddenly he can walk on water like it had the consistency and of pavement. Most scientists (though not all) tend to balk at this assessment. I would say the majority of “creationists” fall in this category.

There is a small minority of folks that hold that Jesus was “toying” with the apostles to get them to believe him. This is sort of the “aliens are God”-types who hold that technology and science are so amazing to the ancient world that incredible knowledge could make one look like they were a God. Jesus might have known something about plexiglass and built a plexiglass bridge out to the boat, for example (far-fetched to me, but believe me, there are all kinds of ideas floating around). Unable to describe it any way other than “Jesus walked upon the water” that’s what gets recorded. Then it’s a matter of God (Jesus, in this instance) interacting with the world using the physical laws to his advantage.

So which is it? Is it God in the gaps? Is it supernatural incarnation with God bending physics? Is it super-technological incarnation with God using physics? Is it all mythology? Those to me are the four “schools” of thought on the issue and of course mixtures of the four are perfectly allowed (with the first and the last being the most closely allied among those who adhere to a religion). It’s just sometimes easier when you have some differentiated ideas to tackle the situations.

123

I didn’t say it was easy…

If you can’t explain what the argument you’re constructing is about, I fail to see how you can be offended when others keep arguing against it.

For example, can you show that the mathematical concept of infinity is related to the scientific concept of nonfalsifiability, or the ethical concept of perfection, or the metaphysical concept of objective reality?

124

Additional note:

You wouldn’t be nearly so tiresome, Lib, if you simply admitted that you’re using philosophy to justify religious beliefs that you prefer. I’m certain that you feel you understand the relationship between infinity and perfection and objective reality, but I don’t think those ideas are actually coherent enough for them to be turned into explicit arguments.

125

What?

Show me a operationalization of “goodness”.

126

Most people that I know understand those concepts quite well and communicate to each other about them all the time. I get a feeling here that it is you who lack the understanding and seem to be in confusion.

Love
Leroy

127

Well, one way of operationalizing “goodness” would be to define it as anything I have a pleasurable emotional response to.

We could define it as anything we liked, but I’m choosing to limit the definition to things not particularly inconsistent with the general usage of the word.

Yes, lekatt, people use many words in non-precise ways. There’s understanding and agreement only when two people happen to have the same concept referenced by the word.

If you can’t explain something, you don’t understand it, no matter how much you think you do. The inability of people to make clear their basic assumptions leads to the vast majority of the moral and ethical problems in the world.

Consider the example of abortion. The inability to define what life is (and therefore, when it begins) is one of the core problems at the heart of the abortion debate.

People use the word “life” all the time, lekatt, but they don’t understand it.

Disagree? Offer a definition and we’ll see if it matches the general sense.

128

Interesting point, and one based in the Epicurean ethic. But I’d substitute as “that which works towards one’s long-term benefit, as defined by the beneficiary after that long term.”

Example: as a small child, you no doubt attempted to do something dangerous, out of impulse. And were stopped and disciplined by an adult caregiver (parent or family member, babysitter, whatever). The discipline was not pleasurable – but was “good” in that it prevented you from doing harm to yourself through immature impulse. And today as an adult you are grateful to the caregiver for having done so back then.

129

Quite right, Polycarp. But then the question becomes: what do we mean by benefit?

I’ve started a new thread, per your request. Your presence would be appreciated, if you choose to share it.

130

I do think that’s not as self-recursive as it sounds at first glance –
there’s a consensus of opinion among adult humans as to what constitutes “long-term benefit” in this regard. E.g., I am only morally authorized to use coercion on you when your capacity to make rational decisions is diminished past a point where you are incapable of providing due diligence towards your own well-being (such as, “you’re too drunk to drive safely,” “you’re suicidal because you’re depressed,” “your use of those particular drugs has gone to the point of addiction, and is drastically changing your personality”).

131

Vor wrote:

Well, that’s ridiculous. May we not speak of force in a context of physics as mass times acceleration, even though it has a different meaning in ethics?

Please explain why we not speak of goodness as an aesthetic in a discussion of philosophy.

Besides, the so-called “general usage” is broader than a barn door: “The quality of being good in any of its various senses; excellence; virtue; kindness; benevolence; as, the goodness of timber, of a soil, of food; goodness of character, of disposition, of conduct, etc.” — Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998

:smiley: That’s the thing with you, Vor. Every definition becomes a question about the terms it uses. Of course, although you make these silly and disingenuous demands of others, you yourself balk at providing definitions of the terms in your terms, as is proved in this very thread at the top of this very page.

You don’t debate. You just play games of rope-a-dope.

132

Life is created by God, moving, breathing, reproducing, creatures, I think when someone uses the word life, others know what they are talking about.

I doubt there is ever any precise use of words. Words are symbols only, for thoughts, and there has never been anything precise in thoughts. They arise from our beliefs, these thoughts, and our beliefs have never been known to be precise either.

Using math as expressions of thought is no more accurate than words, it is simple like another language, which has never been known to be precise. If you have something to offer, then just say it, we will understand if it is important or not.

Webster said, “thoughts fly like eagles, while words plod along in pursuit,”

Love
Leroy

133

Lekatt wrote:

That’s exactly right, and Vor knows that. That’s why he engages in his jejune word games. He just enjoys yanking chains for yanking’s sake. He knows that he can demand definitions for every term you use to define the terms he demands definitions for, and so on ad nauseum. He just won’t let you play, too. It isn’t fair when you play.

134

So things that don’t breathe aren’t alive?

Are viruses alive?

Your cells consume nutrients, exchange substances with their environments, reproduce, and move. Are you a living thing, or hundreds of billions of living things?

You’re using the word, but I can’t honestly say I know what you’re talking about.

If thoughts have no inherent precision, then why is it that sometimes, you can have a thought that you can’t find an appropriate word for (the “tip of the tongue” phenomenon). More importantly, how can you think at all if your thoughts have no nature? If they have a nature, why can’t they be precisely described?

Lib: Mass and acceleration have very precise definitions in physics. Can you offer a definition of goodness which is 1) as precise as definition of mass or acceleration, and 2) applicable to all uses of the term “goodness”?

Au contraire, mon ami. Thoughts are incredibly complex, but they’re just information, and information can be transferred from one format to another.

The natural languages are notoriously imprecise. Reducing them to their basic meanings is extremely difficult, but that does NOT mean that it cannot be done.

Try this, explaining in your own words: what does the following sentence mean?

“I understand nothing.”

135

Vor (unbelievably) wrote:

Force doesn’t mean mass times acceleration in every context. In law, for example, it means legal validity. It has more than a dozen other meanings as well. There is no one meaning applicable to all uses.

Was that something you did not know?

When I use “goodness” in these discussions, it is the aesthetic that is valued by God. Now that I have said that for the fifteenth time, do you yet understand? Do you understand what an aesthetic is? Do you understand that aesthetics is a topic of philosophy? Are you anywhere near caught up on this?

Please state once and for all whether you are being deliberately obtuse or whether you are just ignorant.

136

Oh please.

Just because the same letters of the alphabet and the same sounds are used to describe two very different concepts doesn’t mean they’re the same.

Do you think “anathema” and “anathema” are the same because they’re spelled correctly?

On the other hand, without a context, can you tell me which definition of “anathema” came first in the previous sentence?

What do you mean, “valued by God”. Isn’t valuing something done by a mind/consciousness/entity? How can existence itself value something?

When you talk about “goodness”, you claim you’re making a statement in a specific realm of inquiry… but the statement ceases to be meaningful unless it’s attached to more meaning. If you’re not referencing “goodness” in the standard sense, what’s the point of naming the thing that infinity values? Do you make further claims about “goodness”, or is this just a label you’ve made up for reference’s sake only?

137

I gave you the dictionary definition of goodness. In fact, I’ve given you a veritable litany of definitions. The fact is, as you yourself have already admitted, you have no interest in definitions or how they apply to an argument; rather, you enjoy argument for argument’s sake. It doesn’t matter to you whether you make any sense. It doesn’t matter to you whether you shift around like quicksand from non sequitur to non sequitur. It doesn’t matter to you what your debate opponent says. You have already decided that you will summarily ignore it, obfuscate it, rephrase it to suit yourself, and pick at it like a booger stuck to your nose hair. Logic is of no interest to you. You have no command of it. You just like having the appearance an association with it. You’ve never studied theories of truth nor even the fundamentals of philosophy. That would not be a big deal except for the fraudulent way in which you present yourself: as knowledgable about matters of philosophy and logic when you are doing nothing more than masturbating inside your head. Your intent is to make your debate opponent the pivot man in your private jerk circle. Now that I understand your modus operandi, I know how to deal with you. My only regret is that I wasted so much time giving you the benefit of the doubt.

138

[sigh]

The term “goodness” exists in countless philosophies, fields, and theories, but we both agree that it doesn’t mean exactly the same thing in any two of them.

If goodness is that which is desirable, what’s desirable? Do any two people agree on what they desire? If a given person doesn’t desire a particular thing, how can we determine if they’re wrong or right?

If goodness is that which most benefits a creature, what’s benefit? How do we determine if a given thing has benefitted? Do we rely upon its opinion or our own? If I believe something is beneficial, and I force it upon another who believes it’s harmful, am I acting correctly or incorrectly? How do we determine benefit or harm in general?

I could repeat this for other meanings of “good”, but it would be redundant. You have demonstrated no means of actually determining whether anything fits within any definition of “goodness”, and I see no reason to assume that you have such means. Without a way to apply the terms to something, anything besides the definitions we make, those definitions are without content.