The Non Creator God

One of the most common questions asked of Deists who doubt divine intervention is how can a God incapable of interferring in the world "create" that same world? The short answer is God doesn't create the world.

This does not mean the world is not contingent on God. I have written before why I think a Deistic God probably exists so I won't go over it again here but I will elaborate a little on why I think it unnecessary to think of God as an active "creator".

I call myself a "philosophical idealist" because I think the world is fundamentally concept. This appears to be congruent with the way quantum mechanics describes the "physical" world. Albert Einstein demonstrated that matter is just a form of energy. Then Erwin Schrodinger showed energy is manifested as a wave. Finally Max Born proved that waves are just how mathematics distributes probabilities.

If the universe is nothing more than probability waves manifested as space/time then it could "precipitate" naturally out of what I call the "Prime Observer". Utilizing a technique first developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier complex ideas may be produced by adding together many different frequency waves making one wave with a distinctive shape. If all possible waveforms, positive and negative, are added together the resulting “shape” would be a single flat line (not no line).

As the source of all being the Prime Observer then could be thought of as a perfectly smooth self-referential concept analogous to a sphere (remember this is just a device to help us think about something far beyond our experiance). God, then, would be the simplest possible concept but contain within It all the complexities that can ever be.

Imagine a perfect sphere. "Ripples" could emerge soley by chance on the surface of such an object simply because it is possible for them to. As long as they don't occur simultaneously and cancel out such probability waves may arise unprompted. If the crest of a wave equals its trough then there is no net difference in the overall geometry of that sphere. That is there is no change in it as a whole.

Applying this to the world we see around us we could say any combination of waveforms that don't cancel out could spontaneously emerge (as long as they are balanced) simply because that which we call "God" is aware of them. Things happen because they can happen and they can happen because those things don't result in contradiction. Thus since all possibilities are already incorporated within It God does not need to "cause" anything. As long as the chance of them occurring does not equal zero they will happen all by themselves. This has the potential of solving several problems among them:

1- It shows how God can be the source of all being and remain immutable.

2- It could explain why our universe is predominately matter by saying we could have a sister universe that is mostly anti-matter.

3- Why the world seems designed for life by holding all possible worlds may emerge including those that are barren and we just happen to be in one of the few that has physical laws that allow the formation of planets that can support life. Kurt Godel pointed out the philosophical difficulties of mathematical descriptions of the world based on axioms. Why these rules? Why not others? May be those questions can simply be avoided if all non-contradictory axiomatic models, manifested as universes, are possible.

4- If Deism is true why would God would abandon It's creation? The world was not "created" therefore it was not "abandoned". You can't blame the evils in the world on God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the world is basically concept it must be observed and, therefore, God must exist but that is not the same as saying the universe must be "created". If that is true then there is no divine purpose to the world. It exists simply because it can. However that does not mean our lives are meaningless. Only that we are responsible for creating that meaning for ourselves.

My answer to ,"how can a God incapable of interfering in the world "create" that same world?", is that God isn't incapable of interfering with it. He just chooses not to interfere.

Explain what you mean by ,"This appears to be congruent with the way quantum mechanics describes the "physical" world." I've heard someone else talk about something like this before. They said that something doesn't become physical until we observe it. I don't understand this and how it is known. Also, if something isn't physical until it is observed wouldn't that show that God isn't observing anything because if he was then wouldn't everything always be physical?

Schizophretard wrote:

Explain what you mean by ,"This appears to be congruent with the way quantum mechanics describes the "physical" world."

The so called "physical" world seems to behave more like a very complex mathematical concept than a material "thing".

Schizophretard wrote:

I've heard someone else talk about something like this before. They said that something doesn't become physical until we observe it. I don't understand this and how it is known. Also, if something isn't physical until it is observed wouldn't that show that God isn't observing anything because if he was then wouldn't everything always be physical?

Not necessarily. There is a difference between an observer "in" the world and one that transcends the world.

stretmediq wrote:

As the source of all being the Prime Observer then could be thought of as a perfectly smooth self-referential concept analogous to a sphere (remember this is just a device to help us think about something far beyond our experiance). God, then, would be the simplest possible concept but contain within It all the complexities that can ever be.

Imagine a perfect sphere. "Ripples" could emerge soley by chance on the surface of such an object simply because it is possible for them to. As long as they don't occur simultaneously and cancel out such probability waves may arise unprompted. If the crest of a wave equals its trough then there is no net difference in the overall geometry of that sphere. That is there is no change in it as a whole.

I think we're coming at it from two different angles but our "God models" are very similar.

Aaron wrote:

I think any attributes we place on a "creator" or "first cause" like intelligence, will, or purpose are actually manifestations or "creations" if you will. It seems to me that the unmanifest would have to be formless, inclusive of everything and nothing at the same time. The unmanifest is essentially in a zero/infinite state of being.

What do you mean by the so called "physical" world seems to behave more like a very complex mathematical concept than a material "thing"? What is the behavior of a mathematical concept and how should a material thing behave? Are you saying we live in a giant calculator or what? And what does this have to do with observation? Is the universe behaving differently when we are not observing it?

In 1801 a physician (not a physicist) named Thomas Young seemed to prove Isaac Newton's pronouncement that light was composed of "corpuscles" wrong by building an instrument called an interferometer which showed it produced patterns of illumination more consistent with waves. Experience tells us that waves need a medium to travel through. Sound, for instance, cannot travel through empty space. So that naturally begged the question what was waving?

Scientists put forward the idea of an "ether" that filled all of space and it was through that which light traveled. But that model was overturned in the 1870's when two physicists named Michelson and Morley tried to measure the speed of light both forward and backwards through the relative "ether wind" that would be created if the Earth was passing through it. What they found was that there was no difference in speed in either direction. And that is contrary to what should be seen if the ether existed. Light should go faster with the "wind" than against it. Waves seem to need a medium to travel through but if there was no ether how could light be waving?

Most people would say that shows light waves don't need a medium but I disagree. It doesn't mean nothing is waving only that whatever it is isn't physical. In fact light seems to obey the laws of probability so it may be chance itself which is waving. And since probability is a branch of mathematics we can say the universe acts more like a mathematical concept than what we should expect if it behaved like what experience tells us material things are supposed to do. And since mathematics is just the rules governing numbers which are concepts that apparently only exist in the mind. (For instance I can hold 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from them? I cannot point to anything in nature and say, this is the number 9 by itself. I can only think about it.) And if that is true we could say that awareness itself, at the transcendental level (because an observer above the world has a different perspective than one in the world and so effects it differently) is that medium through which chance is waving.

Schizophretard wrote:

My answer to ,"how can a God incapable of interfering in the world "create" that same world?", is that God isn't incapable of interfering with it. He just chooses not to interfere.

Yes, being "incapable" of interfering is an incredible assumption made by revelationists, atheists and even some deists. It makes things easier for them to deceive themselves and/or their followers.

Quote :

And what does this have to do with observation? Is the universe behaving differently when we are not observing it?

The early conclusions about quantum mechanics and the effect an observer has on the reactions of sub-atomic particles is loosing credence. Wiki the "Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" for a more likely, and intuitively satisfying explanation.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Schizophretard wrote:

My answer to ,"how can a God incapable of interfering in the world "create" that same world?", is that God isn't incapable of interfering with it. He just chooses not to interfere.

Yes, being "incapable" of interfering is an incredible assumption made by revelationists, atheists and even some deists. It makes things easier for them to deceive themselves and/or their followers.

Quote :

And what does this have to do with observation? Is the universe behaving differently when we are not observing it?

The early conclusions about quantum mechanics and the effect an observer has on the reactions of sub-atomic particles is loosing credence. Wiki the "Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" for a more likely, and intuitively satisfying explanation.

LOL! I wish I had followers! And if I was going to deceive myself I would consider myself Hugh Hefner's heir apparent!

But seriously divine intervention is just an unnecessary holdover from Theism. All it does is create a confusing and contradictory idea of God which leads to Atheistic arguments about how a good God can tolerate evil.

And TI is far from satisfying. It assumes particles relaying information back and forth through time but never offers a good explanation of how this is accomplished. The only particles capable of doing that are called tachyons. But they are highly theoretical and have never been seen experimentally. Besides they are superluminal which means they travel faster than light and cannot drop to subluminal speeds. Therefore they cannot interact with subluminal particles. It is not a widely held opinion in physics not only because of its lack of supporting evidence it seems to contradict much of the evidence that is available. In fact there is only one experiment that, on the surface, seems to be compatible with it and that is controversial. For a critique of its flaws just google Bill Unruh. He's just one of a number of physicists who have raised serious doubts about it. Quantum gravity is a much better solution.

P.S. Paine a "revelationist" is someone who believes in revelation and that assumes intervention because even if all God does is implant a thought in someones head It is still intervening in the cognitive processes of the brain. So a person who doubts divine intervention cannot be a revelationist.

stretmediq wrote:

P.S. Paine a "revelationist" is someone who believes in revelation and that assumes intervention because even if all God does is implant a thought in someones head It is still intervening in the cognitive processes of the brain. So a person who doubts divine intervention cannot be a revelationist.

Of course. The point being that revelationists use the same argument as atheists against laissez faire deism, misrepresenting deists as saying that God is incapable of intervention. In fact it was most likely them that made the association, just as they did about deists believing that God abandoned the universe or isn't concerned with it.

Quote :

LOL! I wish I had followers!

?

Schizophretard wrote:

Is the universe behaving differently when we are not observing it?

Well if God exists the universe would always be observed by It. But how a transcendental observer relates to the world would not be the same as an observer in the world.

Imagine God as the ocean and the world as a wave traveling through it. Now imagine secondary observers (like us) as ice bergs. With no obstacles a wave would travel unhindered through the water. But if it encounters an ice berg it will be deflected. The ice berg is made of the same stuff as the ocean water and when it melts it will return to it. But while it is solid it can influence the wave in a way the water in a liquid state can't. So while we can say that because the ice berg is made of water that comes from the ocean and is therefore contingent on it, it does not have the same effect on the waves it encounters (observes). So while the liquid ocean is the source of the solid ice berg the ocean (God) has no powers of intervention and the ice berg (us) does but only in an extremely limited way.

The question then would be is there something intrinsic to the ice berg (specific gravity, shape, etc...) that determines how it deflects the wave or is it just a matter of chance? Personally I think its a little of both.

I kinda get what your saying but I'm skeptical about the true existence of chance. It sounds like you think of the universe like a game of Yahtzee. You roll the dice and you pick which dice you keep. Yahtzee seems to have chance mixed in with your choices of which dice you keep but really it just appears to be chance because if you understood all the physics that are going on when you roll the dice you would be able to know what the dice are going to land on before they do. Maybe it is the same in quantum mechanics. Maybe it just appears to have chance in it but if it was completely understood then you would see that there is no chance involved at all. I'm not saying your wrong about how quantum mechanics works and I'm to ignorant on the subject to debate you on it. I'm just saying that from our ignorant perspective we see chance in quantum mechanics but from God's all knowing perspective he sees predetermined events just like we do in things we understand. I think of chance the same way atheists think of the God of the gaps. I believe that whenever someone blames something on chance it is just chance of the gaps. Once we understand something our understanding fills in the gaps that we once placed chance.

You maybe completely right that reality is made up of mathematical concepts but chance isn't required for it to be so. I think you make a good point about the 9 coins and 9 stones. We use mathematics in science. So, the math must of already been there to find out the things we have in science. Like with the equation E=MC2. E=MC2 must of existed before it was written down because if it didn't it would of never been discovered.

Did God mean to create the universe?

Maybe.....

God had a dream. Being omnipotent, his thoughts became reality.
Then God woke from his dream and forgot what he was dreaming.

But the reality his thoughts manifested continue to exist.

And we're stuck on this rock, wondering what God was thinking.

this is what he was thinking... lol

Slightly off-topic, but I have to explain my Avatar:

It's a picture of a character (Dr. Daniel Jackson) from Stargate SG1. The significance, for those of you who never watched the show, is that he was such a "good guy" that the gods allowed him to "ascend". Now, with the power and wisdom of a god, he looked down on the universe and, seeing an injustice, wanted to intervene. But the gods told him that was not allowed. He could only observe, but could never intercede in the actions of mortals.

His response was something like, "Then what's the point of being a god?"

Since he just couldn't get with the program, he was "un-ascended" - they turned him back to a mortal again.

I am a Deist, but I confess I sometimes wonder, what is the point of a god that doesn't step in and fix the mess we create?

Whoa, pretty heavy stuff for the boob tube. Sounds like something to project the atheist point of view, and failing that, paganism. But then I didn't see it and probably more was said.

In any case, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the reason for non-intervention is the maintenance of natural/logical order and thus, above all, free will.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

In any case, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the reason for non-intervention is the maintenance of natural/logical order and thus, above all, free will.

I agree with that. I just think free will is a consequence of non-intervention not the reason for it. But that's a minor point really. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Uriah wrote:

this is what he was thinking... lol

I actually had that on my refrigerator years ago.

I agree with Paineful, in that I do not want to sound like a broken record either, but there is no such thing as free will.

stretmediq wrote:

Waves seem to need a medium to travel through but if there was no ether how could light be waving?

Most people would say that shows light waves don't need a medium but I disagree. It doesn't mean nothing is waving only that whatever it is isn't physical.

Your analysis of the wave medium is close to the idea I'm still working on. According to my understanding of Quantum theory, Information is what matter and energy are made of. But Information is only sensible to a metaphysical Mind until it takes the form of matter or energy, which are sensible to our physical senses. So my working definition of the wave medium is simply variations in Information density.

This concept won't cut the butter with most scientists though, because we haven't yet figured out how to measure information density apart from a physical medium, a la Shannon. So for now, it's just a hypothesis. But it works with my overall Deist worldview.

Schizophretard wrote:

My answer to ,"how can a God incapable of interfering in the world "create" that same world?", is that God isn't incapable of interfering with it. He just chooses not to interfere.

As Aaron likes to point-out, this non-interfering deity concept is derived from dualistic thinking. God is an outside observer, like the United Nations nuclear program observers, who watch impartially and refrain from interfering in the business of a sovereign nation like Iraq or Iran.

However, my concept of the Deist deity is that G*D is ALL, so we can think of He/r as a separate entity only via the reductive, analytical method of science. From a Holistic viewpoint though G*D is us, G*D does what we do, G*D knows what we know, S/he feels what we feel. So the question of outside interference does not apply.

However, like any Whole, G*D is more than the sum of us. So, in that sense, you could say that G*D is like a parent who "chooses" not to interfere when her children participate in potentially dangerous activities. How else can they learn to make their own choices?

The following website may be of interest to some of you. It proposes a "Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter" theory.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

Gnomon,

The way I envision it is that God is both an outside observer and an inside observer. He sees everything as a whole from outside and he sees everything we see on an individual level from our point of view. He's all knowing so he sees everything from every point of reference.

To make my self clear by what I mean by God choosing not to interfere. I do believe in divine intervention and providence. I just don't believe it the same way a Theist does. I believe God did it all at the beginning. He created the universe in such a way that it will follow a basic plan. I believe God planned on the universe evolving the way it did and he planned on life evolving. I also believe God punishes good and rewards evil by the way he set up the consequences of our actions. Good actions have good consequences and bad actions have bad consequences. I also believe that we are being tested and that evil is destined to destroy itself. When we pass tests we evolve and when we fail tests we go extinct. I believe all the intervention he does is though natural processes instead of supernatural miracles and that is the greatest miracle of them all.

stretmediq wrote:

The Paineful Truth wrote:

In any case, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the reason for non-intervention is the maintenance of natural/logical order and thus, above all, free will.

I agree with that. I just think free will is a consequence of non-intervention not the reason for it. But that's a minor point really. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Doesn't non-intervention speak to maintaining free will as well as to the motivation behind creation in the first place? Why would God evolve creatures to know good from evil and to be able to think and act on our own?

Uriah wrote:

I agree with Paineful, in that I do not want to sound like a broken record either, but there is no such thing as free will.

I understand, you had no choice but to say what you did. But I did.
Such is the irony of subjective objectivity.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

I understand, you had no choice but to say what you did. But I did.
Such is the irony of subjective objectivity.

I said there was no free will, but there's always freedom of choice.

It's just that what you choose out of any given set of options is a product of a myriad of factors and stimuli that are outside of your control.

For instance, that you so assiduously believe in free will is just as much, if not more, due to your physiology and genetic predispositions, as it is based on your own ideas. As well, the ideas you have, and the logical conclusions you come to, from your singular perspective, are affected by the knowledge you possess (which is limited), the vagaries of your unconscious self (which you cannot control), the basic psychological profile that you and you alone possess (which operates outside of your will), and finally your 'free will'. In effect, whatever the human will may be - whether soul or mind - if you were to make a pie chart of "What Controls The Self?", the 'will' would really only be in direct control of a very small portion of the self.

Therefore, free will - the classical concept - is wrong.

And saying that doesn't make me a hard determinist.