You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Squeezing God into Science - a sideways interpretation

MikeL September 21, 2017 at 08:55 12075 views 45 comments
This OP makes me feel a bit uncomfortable because of the conclusion, but like most of us here, I am in the pursuit of truth and I would value your thoughts. I am pursuing a line of reasoning that has sprung up since joining this site through my own ops and discussion with other members, and has come into sharper focus after reading StreetlightX's post on ‘A Sketch of the Present’ and debating the origin of life in ‘On the transition from non-life to life’ by Javra, as well as other discussions on creativity. It is not religious but attempts to use reason to offer one interpretation of an omnipotent God and its role in society.

The scientific theory of life begins with the atoms which form into molecules, then cycles and systems, then cell groups and so on until the entire organism is formed. The bottom up way of thinking is intuitive as we can see how constrained systems at a certain point might form new, higher order systems.

It is important to put God in at this level if we wish to express our beliefs and be consistent with the current state of scientific theory. For me, I would prefer to think of God as being innate to all matter: An inherent property (perhaps in the realm of physics not discovered yet) that allows atoms to spontaneously form. Other’s may think of it as a single guiding force in the universe, or a sentient being directing actions, but even so the conclusions when followed through become a little confronting.

If we create a God model that attempts to scientifically explain life step by step, like science does: When the atoms were only atoms and that was the highest order of life, God was forming them into molecules. He was the God of atoms. Once they were constrained as molecules, God was forming them into cycles and systems and so on. There was the God of cycles and systems and so on.

Each layer had an emergent layer put upon it that constrained it. Apokrisis talks a lot of this restraint, so I don't think I need to go too much into it. With the restraint came the loss of freedom - an entropic urge was constrained. Perhaps, if you believe in the 'Old Man' interpretation of God, you could you reason that God was no longer with the atoms and molecules, but had moved on to the next level, growing that into something even greater. (Or if he is still on the level of atoms and molecules, what does that imply?)

Humans became the highest level of order in this continuum, and inherently they sensed a higher order yet again. There was none- yet. Just as at one point there was none for molecules. This higher order notion was not a passing fancy – it arose because it was fundamental to who people were and how they came to be. It was the driving force that had created them, and had created the tiers below them, and so it was innate to them. The idea of God is worldwide.

The higher order people sensed made them believe that there was something that was looking over them, enclosing them from above, just as the cells had enclosed the systems and cycles and just as the systems and cycles had enclosed the molecules that had trapped the atoms. Each level of complexity had arisen from the work of the entities on the lower tier, and God was the driving force.

Humans hunted for the higher order, as they still do. It wasn’t hard to find candidates. When they were in nature, the higher order became the heavens, or nature itself. The idea that ‘what formed people is out there’ was perhaps the innate realisation that there was something out there – even though it had not materialised itself, yet. It was the same force that was acting on the molecules, or that is inside us all (depending on your view).

Sensing this higher order, and conforming to the principles that conceived them, people inadvertently, at local degrees of freedom, without realising the larger scheme into which their own actions played, began to create a higher order: A world larger than themselves, driven by the the directionality of life.

And for a while the new order suited their purposes, there was increased security from other entities (army) and a regular supply of reactants (food) as well as convenient waste removal systems and an immune system – police force. The system allowed communication (media) and central control (government). It was easy to flow through the system (major roads are called arteries), and people began to specialise their skills so that no longer could one person be a jack of all trades.

And so humans continued to build this new order, hardly noticing the constraint that now fell upon them, and certainly not equating it with God – instead, they counted their blessings and understood that security came at a price.

And the constraint continued to tighten. In today’s western society, people are in the grip of constraint by the layers of government and big business above them that they can no longer regulate with any great effect. They are losing their entropic energy of choice and creativity, just like the bound atom had its choices constrained. Compare lifestyles today to that of the 60s and 70s in terms of what we can and can’t do in the eyes of the law, for instance.

The people know it’s happening, that order is being imposed from above and that’s why, across the world, they are trying to choose different leaders and governments who might break the constraint. But, the layer has closed in above us. Is it too late?

So how could we look at this in terms of God, what does it all mean? If you can nod a 'maybe' at the contention so far, you can probably do better with its interpretation than me, but here are some ideas.

If you buy the assertion, then perhaps this is all happening like the building of the tower of Babel. Maybe it is the urge to reach God that is in all life, making it climb, and like the tower of Babel it may all collapse upon itself. Maybe that is God’s will. We will, as Apokrisis has reminded me, consume all the reactants in the bowl of earth.

Or, perhaps the idea of God is merely the sensation in life that there is a higher structure, as that is true of all lower tiers of life, and maybe the notion of God, the feeling of God being present only lasts for only long enough for the next layer to be built and then God moves into that. How are today’s beliefs fairing in western society, where hope is harder to come by? If so, where to next and what’s coming?

OR as a last thought - is society a false God?

Thoughts?

Comments (45)

MikeL September 21, 2017 at 21:00 #106916
In summary, we can define God as a Creative or building force innate within us all, that causes life to grow itself and enclose itself within higher levels like stacked Russian dolls, ultimately causing a reduction in free will and choice.
Rich September 21, 2017 at 23:28 #106940
Quoting MikeL
In summary, we can define God as a Creative or building force innate within us all,


No reason you can't use the word God, but you might as well just call it Mind, after all it is your mind and all of our minds that are doing it all, so might as well take credit for it. It was your mind that created the post. We are all basically that creative impulse.
BC September 22, 2017 at 02:05 #106971
Reply to MikeL You are (of course) not the first person to assign God the task of supervising the atoms so that they eventually become the Acme, Zenith, and Crown of creation.

The question of where God stands with respect to Creation is unsettled; some people want to do what you propose; some people want God to be apart from matter, but altogether sovereign over it. Some place God outside of nature altogether, and then quite a few just eliminate God's position altogether.

It seems to me that the mainline Judeo-Christian approach is the second one: God isn't "in" nature (no tree-dwelling for God), God is sovereign over matter -- all matter -- over the whole universe, God being its sovereign creator. The writer of the Genesis story didn't have this concept at hand, but just as God hovered over the face of the deep, you are proposing that God also hovered over the hot vent at the bottom of the deep and willed atoms and molecules to bind together in the desired way, over time.

During the 6 days of creation God repeated His benediction on creation "and it was good". What God makes IS good.

Oddly enough, some fundamentalists / evangelicals / pro-apocalypsists are quite indifferent to the "good creation". To them all that matters is Jesus and heaven. Whatever happens to the world--to nature, creation--is irrelevant. Polluted, creatures going extinct left and right, dead oceans, filthy rivers -- It's all going to go down the drain anyway when Jesus pulls the chain and flushes all the sinners down the sewer into hell.

It seems to me that the mainline Judeo-Christian view is the best one for Western civilization. It yokes us with responsibility to care for and about the world--not just humans, but all of creation. Humans - eastern, western, northern, and southern - are too short-sighted to leave us to our own devices. We all need some kind of prompt to take care of our only world.
MikeL September 22, 2017 at 06:15 #107014
Reply to Rich Is that your definition of mind, Rich? How would you describe mind in your own words?
MikeL September 22, 2017 at 06:22 #107015
Reply to Bitter Crank Hi Bitter Crank, I guess you're right about the idea of God as a creative force being out there, but where I change the story a fraction is by suggesting that the force entombs us within a larger structure.

The belief that something is there inadvertantly directs us to create it, and in doing so to change us into the tools of a system away from being individuals with individual freedoms.
Wayfarer September 22, 2017 at 14:13 #107115
New Advent Encyclopedia entry on 'Logos'

It is in Heraclitus that the theory of the Logos appears for the first time, and it is doubtless for this reason that, first among the Greek philosophers, Heraclitus was regarded by St. Justin (Apol. I, 46) as a Christian before Christ. For him the Logos, which he seems to identify with fire, is that universal principle which animates and rules the world. This conception could only find place in a materialistic monism. The philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries before Christ were dualists, and conceived of God as transcendent, so that neither in Plato (whatever may have been said on the subject) nor in Aristotle do we find the theory of the Logos.

It reappears in the writings of the Stoics, and it is especially by them that this theory is developed. God, according to them, "did not make the world as an artisan does his work, but it is by wholly penetrating all matter that He is the demiurge of the universe" (Galen, "De qual. incorp." in "Fr. Stoic.", ed. von Arnim, II, 6); He penetrates the world "as honey does the honeycomb" (Tertullian, "Adv. Hermogenem", 44), this God so intimately mingled with the world is fire or ignited air; inasmuch as He is the principle controlling the universe, He is called Logos; and inasmuch as He is the germ from which all else develops, He is called the seminal Logos (logos spermatikos). This Logos is at the same time a force and a law, an irresistible force which bears along the entire world and all creatures to a common end, an inevitable and holy law from which nothing can withdraw itself, and which every reasonable man should follow willingly (Cleanthus, "Hymn to Zeus" in "Fr. Stoic." I, 527-cf. 537). Conformably to their exegetical habits, the Stoics made of the different gods personifications of the Logos, e.g. of Zeus and above all of Hermes.


Note the reference to Hermes, the 'messenger of the Gods' and inspiration for Hermeticism, which has remained an alternative current in Western culture throughout history. The notion of deity as a pervading intelligence, rather than a supervising architect, has therefore been an aspect of the Western theistic tradition all along, although formal Christian doctrine is hostile to it, and on that account it has generally been an underground movement. But I think there are many resonances between the Greek 'logos', some forms of the Indian 'dharma', and the Chinese 'Tao', as being like innate, ordering intelligence or principle which regulates growth and development from within, so to speak.

MikeL September 22, 2017 at 14:27 #107119
Reply to Wayfarer Thanks Wayfarer. I love this forum. What a breeding ground for new ideas when we have so many experts in so many fields all blending their knowledge!

Is there any more specific information on Logos and his role in life as you have shown above? Or any other of the religions, that might guide our ideas here? Any reference to self-encapsulation and loss of freedom through this force?
Wayfarer September 22, 2017 at 14:37 #107121
'Logos' is not a person so much as a principle. It's the root of 'logic' and also of the suffix -logy, as in the various branches of knowledge - biology, psychology, etc. So, as such, logos is one of the foundational concepts of all philosophy and indeed science; another being 'ratio', which is the ground of 'rationalism' and indeed 'reason'.

In terms of understanding the background and development, you could do worse than listen to the series, The History of Philosophy Without any Gaps, Kings College, London, https://historyofphilosophy.net/. Adamson gives recorded talks on the subjects, starting with Miles of Thiletus and the other founders. They're about 20 minutes each and quite approachable. The talk on Heraclitus goes into the idea of Logos.

Material on hermeticism is a bit harder to access. There's a popular writer called Gary Lachman who writes on esoteric and alternative philosophies, his books are a reasonable starting point.
MikeL September 22, 2017 at 14:40 #107122
Reply to Wayfarer Thanks, I'll check it out. 20min sounds a good length for me.
Rich September 22, 2017 at 15:21 #107142
Quoting MikeL
Is that your definition of mind, Rich? How would you describe mind in your own words?


Mind is the active force of the universe that is observing, creating, learning and evolving.
MikeL September 22, 2017 at 15:25 #107147
Reply to Rich That sounds like a good definition. Learning and evolving implies directionality. What do you think of the entombing ourselves idea?
Rich September 22, 2017 at 15:29 #107151
Reply to MikeL Not clear on this idea. Can you elaborate?
MikeL September 22, 2017 at 15:43 #107156
It comes down to the mind, the creative force, God, whatever it is that drives life.
Life is built like Russian stacking dolls.

Each layer begins with freedom. Atoms kicking about on a nice summer's day find themselves bonded into a molecule and suddenly with limited mobility.

The molecules flitter about in the Great Soup of Creation :) but then find themselves constrained inside cycles - good food to eat.

The cycles become entrapped in cells. Useless parts are discarded. Everything serves a purpose or is gotten rid of. It's streamlined efficiency. No freedom to just flitter about anymore.

The interesting thing though is that each level entraps itself. The molecules end up forming the systems. It is their creation and their captor.

Humans too, with this intrinsic drive inside to create, end up creating this world around us. Government, Big Business (Big Pharm - I know you'll like that one). But they have entrapped themselves, no different to the molecule. Same force, same feeling inside.
Rich September 22, 2017 at 15:51 #107160
Reply to MikeL No need to think of it as entrapment. All living things (minds), at various levels or layers, are cooperating in the evolution of the mind (universe).
MikeL September 22, 2017 at 16:01 #107163
Reply to Rich I use the word entrapment because there is a loss of personal freedoms. The entropy has been constrained. We have been constrained. Creative expression is driven out by bureaucratic thinking which demands to see the paperwork on everything you are trying to do.

Government decrees we can no longer walk our dogs along the beach, or picnic by that river. Big Business insists you pay back twice the money they lent you. Rents go up, bills go up, wages fall. You are replaceable in the workplace so you had better conform. The layer we create does not see us. It sees the commodity they can use.

Rich September 22, 2017 at 16:07 #107165
Reply to MikeL Yes there are constraints. It adds problem solving and interest to life.

Dreams have no constraints.
BC September 22, 2017 at 18:31 #107203
Reply to MikeL A god, or logos, some kind of transcendent spirit is wanted. When one contemplates the immense complexity going on in 1 cell, never mind the biosphere and the universe, it seems to many of us just too damned complex to have happened without guidance. This isn't a scientific reaction, of course. On an intellectual level, I'll say "Yes, life did self-assemble, but it had a very long time to work out the details. Life has self-assembled on many planets in the universe. Matter can self-assemble into more complex forms, and it does--inorganically as well as organically. Mind is not beyond the capability of matter." On an emotional level, given the faith I received as a child, a God-directed biosphere and universe beyond is preferred.

That's where the tension comes in: Does one go with the intellectual approach of science, or the intellectual approach of religion? I don't hold them irreconcilable; we can accept that God was the primum mobile -- the first mover. But combining scientific and religious thinking doesn't resolve the tension entirely, because "how God was the first mover" still has to be resolved.

We've been stewing over this pot for a long time.
BC September 22, 2017 at 19:59 #107232
Quoting Wayfarer
The History of Philosophy Without any Gaps


Thanks. It's philosophy instruction just the way I like it: Short and to the point. Audio only is an underrated media style.
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 01:27 #107338
Not meaning to be a party pooper, but I really have a lot of trouble humoring propositions originated in effectively broken premises.

It seems to me that you're trying to conciliate your version of a deistic god, or maybe pantheistic, with the universe as we know it. While I'd consider those concepts of gods to be the most "compatible", I can't help but remain stuck on a few problems.

Basically, how I describe the deistic god is: pick the very first thing that existed, and slap the name god on it. Problem is, god was not really defined, and now it totally lacks meaning. It's just a name you attributed to the first thing that is currently known to science.

Your concept sounds maybe more pantheistic, more complex than the above, but it still seems to suffer from similar problems.
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 01:35 #107340
Reply to Sephi Hi Sephi,
You're right. A lack of a singular definition for God has both rendered it both disprovable AND brought it under great scrutiny.

I'm not quite following your logic in relation to this OP though. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you mean, for instance when you say it is just a name I attributed to the first thing that is currently known to science? What problems can you see?
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 03:47 #107381
Reply to MikeL
I would say the lack of a definition (among other things) has rendered it unfalsifiable, rather.

About the deistic god thing, I'm just saying it's an arbitrary decision, to attribute the name God to a thing, when there's not a clear definition from where to determine what kind of thing it ought to be attributed to in the first place. And besides that, it's a decision that will likely be revealed to be wrong, since the first thing that existed is only the first thing until science finds something else that existed before it.

Now, your concept is different, but also seemed in a way a bit arbitrary. It sounded like you attributing gods will to the natural "flow" of physics (the formation of molecules and so on, which science explains through the forces of physics and other things). I must admit though that I haven't read the posts you mentioned.

The relation to the OP is that I was reading it and constantly getting that warning in my head that the premise (God) was not quite justified... (and yea, I don't believe in god and all that, but I don't mind humoring these concepts)

To give you a quick example of what was going on in my head: if I was telling you a story about how hunters are stupid for hunting birds with spoons... you'd be listening to me with amusement and thinking "but... no one ever hunts birds with spoons!". :)
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 04:07 #107387
Reply to Sephi Hi Sephi, you are right. I am exploring the theme of god and offering possibilities that can be reconciled with my understanding and observations of the world. I am not trying to define god outright, but rather take this tangental view of a creative force. To do this I am trying to marry some concepts together. Namely:
1) People of faith believe in a higher power
2) Life is stackable and with each new stack freedom is lost from the things that created the next level.
3) Society is like a next level beyond people, and it too is reducing our freedoms.
4) So the link I am proposing for thought is:
Society is a continuation of the stackable nature of life, which reduces freedoms. Because the stacks are built by the underlying factors, and because people believe in a higher power, perhaps the higher power is the force that is causing the stacking.

Do I actually believe this? No. But I want to run the logic through people such as yourself and see how it comes out in the wash.
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 07:02 #107415
Quoting MikeL
Compare lifestyles today to that of the 60s and 70s in terms of what we can and can’t do in the eyes of the law, for instance.


This sounds like a very regional issue of your home country.
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 07:17 #107418
Reply to Sephi That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined. First, the definition does include "the first being that existed", but not "the first the first thing known by science to have existed". Second, there are other definitions for God, which vary between religios and persons, but often include such things as being sentient and being responsible over the creation of the World.
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 07:32 #107421
Reply to BlueBanana I've seen that 70's Show on TV. Regional and global issue I would say. They are different worlds with different degrees of freedom.

My definition of a God being a sentient force and presiding over the creation of life is not too far off track. As to being the first thing that existed, the creation of the universe caused the creation of the atoms that were imbued with the sentient force for assembly and system layering. God can still be the first.


BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 07:40 #107423
Reply to MikeL Could you present some examples of the freedom that we've lost in the last decades? Even being somewhat familiar with the show, I can't think of any.

As for the definition, that comment was a reply to Sephi. I don't (think I) have any problems with your definition.
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 08:07 #107428
Reply to BlueBanana I'll give you an example Blue Banana. Business. It used to be that if you wanted to start your business, you could open a fruit shop, or a milk bar, even a coffee shop, and you could do alright at that.

But now, big business has closed off those options. If I want to open a fruit shop, I am not competing against massive corporations that have merged and taken each other over and can now buy an apple for 2c and sell if for 10c while you cannot buy it yourself from the grower for cheaper than 12c.
So too, the milk bars have been sucked into the malls, the small takeaways are now global franchises, and there product is good. Better than your product.

It's not to say you can't open a successful business, but the degrees of freedom to do so successfully have been restricted.

Take 'Shark Tank' the show for example. Venture capitalists wanting to turn a buck invest in new ideas. Sounds great right? So someone comes in with an idea for a gym. The capitalists agree it is good and throw a couple of million dollars at it. Now, everybody in that space who has been trying to build their gym from the open garage to the small outlet is displaced. Who will go to their junky gyms when there is a nice shiny one with better equipment opening just down the road?

When you think of governments and laws and by-laws, you have to ask yourself for every new law they bring in, some fine, some no parking space, are they also repealing an old law? Or is it just another law in the web of laws that control your life.

I am not arguing the necessity of the laws. Indeed no parking zones are critical for access to certain areas etc, but they are, nonetheless, laws that did not exist before. For every law no matter how much it is for our own good, for every big business providing high quality cheap goods, no matter how much the consumer benefits, it is a degree of freedom that is lost.

The choices to move in those directions are restricted.
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 08:22 #107429
Reply to BlueBanana And to further the point, those people who cannot make it in business now are forced into the workforce as employees. And what are employees but the workers of much larger businesses. From being in control to being the grunt.
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 14:10 #107481
Quoting BlueBanana
That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined.

I haven't defined god... But what you're saying makes no difference. As you said each person has their own definition, so I generalized their applications. And yes, I know of other definitions of gods, but I was referring specifically to the Deistic one, and only as basis to illustrate my reasoning.
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 14:15 #107485
Reply to Sephi That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world.
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 14:27 #107495
Reply to MikeL Do you have statistics on the success rate of entrepreneurs?
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 14:28 #107496
Quoting BlueBanana
That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world.

None of what I said implies that god didn't create the world. Ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway.

Mind you that the deistic god is not the god of the bible. There's not just one concept of deistic gods, but even in the most involved ones, we're not exactly talking about the god that's described in Genesis. We're talking about a god that planted a seed, so to speak, and then let things run their course. Now take your pick for the concept your like, the one that sits back and enjoys the show, or the one that intervenes and guides things, or a variant in between.

And "the thing that first existed" is supposedly the "seed". And what I was saying is that "the thing that first existed" is only ever such to the best of our limited knowledge, thus any such attribution has to be arbitrary.
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 14:31 #107498
Quoting MikeL
But now, big business has closed off those options.

I think I would point that finger more at the remnants of socialism and whatnot. Bureaucracy, gov interventionism, among other things, is what really gets in the way of small entrepreneurs. They strangulate the market in favor of monopolies.

Not that monopolies are the good guys or anything. Just that in a non strangulated market they wouldn't have such an easy time because small entrepreneurs would have better chances.
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 14:37 #107503
Quoting Sephi
None of what I said implies that god didn't create the world.


It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false.
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 14:38 #107504
Quoting BlueBanana
It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false.


Quoting Sephi
Ultimately that's implied in any concept of god, anyway.


The one thing in common between every single concept of god is that god created everything. Obviously, "everything" includes the world. ;)
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 14:48 #107508
Reply to Sephi What if someone defines god as a being that didn't create the world? Are they correct because "ultimately that's [that god created the world] implied in any concept of god, anyway"? The definitions you gave are that god is a thing that did not create the world, so that is exactly what you're doing.

Quoting Sephi
Basically, how I describe the deistic god is: pick the very first thing that existed, and slap the name god on it.


Quoting Sephi
the first thing that existed is only the first thing until science finds something else that existed before it.
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 14:59 #107513
Reply to BlueBanana Afraid I have no evidence to back up the claim other than the observation that small businesses are going out of business and big businesses are growing huge.

You don't need a degree in maths to see that with the economies of scale if I can buy 10million apples off you, I can offer to pay you half a cent for each apple and ensure you sell your entire crop. Of course it has to be to me and nobody else. As the grower you could go the other route and sell your apples at 10c each to small businesses and hope to get better profit, but its more stress trying to move that crop.

It's the same with clothing or any other product. I will buy a massive amount from the supplier as cheap as chips, sell it through a massive chain outlet at massive margins that are still cheap,and demand high quality from my supplier. With my astronomical profit I will do it again, only larger this time, or expand into different product categories. What small business can survive in that market?

I watched a show called "The Profit" where someone wanted to open a gym, so he took them to rebel sport and put something like $50,000 worth of product on his credit card. How can small gym owners compete when people like that come onto the scene. Even 24hr swipe card gyms - its not about the guy that always wanted to open his gym, its about a guy who's trying to flip a quick profit.



MikeL September 23, 2017 at 15:00 #107514
Quoting Sephi
But now, big business has closed off those options.
— MikeL
I think I would point that finger more at the remnants of socialism and whatnot. Bureaucracy, gov interventionism, among other things, is what really gets in the way of small entrepreneurs. They strangulate the market in favor of monopolies.

Not that monopolies are the good guys or anything. Just that in a non strangulated market they wouldn't have such an easy time because small entrepreneurs would have better chances.


You're making my case here Sephi.
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 15:27 #107523
Reply to MikeL
I got the impression you were blaming it on big businesses, rather than the strangulation of the market by the state. Well, the difference is not that great at this point, since corporate sharks have had a hand in the state for quite a while anyway. So yea, I probably am still making your case. :)
Navid September 23, 2017 at 15:32 #107525
I'm not sure but I think Karl Popper once said that "God exists" is not a statement because it can neither be proven nor falsified. That's why, in my opinion, any argument about the existence of God is futile.
MikeL September 23, 2017 at 15:37 #107526
Reply to Navid Hi Navid, we're not arguing God's existence, for the sake of argument we are accepting it and arguing its nature.
Sephi September 23, 2017 at 15:43 #107527
Reply to BlueBanana You failed to realize, even though I already told you, that I didn't define the deistic god. What you quoted was a simplified description of what I think it essentially boils down to. Big difference.

And the second quote is just the problem that any Deistic god always seems to have.
BlueBanana September 23, 2017 at 16:08 #107537
Quoting Sephi
What you quoted was a simplified description of what I think it essentially boils down to.


Then that description is a very incorrect one.

The problem doesn't exist because the premise (first quote) is icorrect.
Navid September 24, 2017 at 01:45 #107711
Reply to MikeL

Though I really don't understand the necessity of this argument, to ruminate, circulate or redefine god, I should tell you the story that humankind wanted to survive, so they started to think about death, and consequently dangers: the things which kill us. When we reached the level of causality, the question was what's the cause of an earthquake, rain, volcano and so on? So we came up with many goddesses of which the Abrahamic god is the common denominator.
So far, we've just named the cause as you did: "It is important to put God in at this level if we wish to express our beliefs and be consistent with the current state of scientific theory. For me, I would prefer to think of God as being innate to all matter" and there's no problem with it. At this level, there's no harm to define the existence of something. It becomes dangerous when we try to anthropomorphize it, not like the Greek Gods or the idea of the old man, but when as you said we "hunted for the higher order" which is assuming that god has intention or purpose. So, we thought that since humankind reaches the ultimate cause which is planning and purpose, the nature or god must have a/the purpose too. That's where, in my opinion, we went wrong and this idea has caused more harm than benefit.
This is gonna be a long story that I am telling in my blog. So, to wrap up here, I should say that there's no problem with defining god as the cause of formation of molecules or the whole universe, but this definition is barren because with which we can't predict anything. The difference between the two statement, God changes everything and force changes everything, is the second can be formulated, hence be applied to predict the moment when the Mars Rover would land on Mars.
MikeL September 24, 2017 at 04:49 #107773
Quoting Navid
It becomes dangerous when we try to anthropomorphize it, not like the Greek Gods or the idea of the old man, but when as you said we "hunted for the higher order" which is assuming that god has intention or purpose. So, we thought that since humankind reaches the ultimate cause which is planning and purpose, the nature or god must have a/the purpose too.


I agree, but I only anthropomorphized humans, which I think we can both agree is OK.

It is human kind that is assuming purpose, in this OP I am only assuming a directional force acting on matter in such away that self-assembly occurs and then is enclosed as another layer starts above it.

The OP suggests that as this force acts on us we become 'aware' of its presence although not its effect. As the force acts on us we begin to build higher order structures. Just like the molecules and cells each in their turn did.