God, Satan and Job

[Tim the Skeptic]

The book of Job starts out with the "divine beings", including Satan, getting together with God. (OK, this is bizarre considering what I understand of God/Satan relationship, but not my point here.) And then this conversation, as I interpret it, occurs:

God (to Satan): Isn't Job a great guy, he is a blameless and upright man.

Satan: Look at the way he's been blessed by you. Of course, he's a great guy.

God: OK, you can do to his life whatever you want but don't hurt him.

Satan destroys Job's wealth and kills his children. But he did so with God's permission, so, who's responsible? Is God the source of this evil that happens to Job?

[QED]

Where's the evil in God's work to bring about complexity in the world?

It is necessitated by the rules that lead to the complexity. I mentioned all the chicken diners you've consumed as a crude example. All life is necessarily fleeting. Regions of criticality depend on phase changes in dynamical systems. In a world without "evil" people wouldn't kill chickens and stars wouldn't explode -- and no movement towards complexity would be possible.

It is a very, very difficult philosophical problem in showing how novelty in the world is possible in principle. However, the world appears to have novelty, and if it does have real novelty, then it is very odd that the world just happens to be so fine-tuned by having physical laws that bring it about. Too much novel action, and you would have anarchy. Not enough and you have a strong deterministic world. The fact that our universe looks to sit on the edge of being novel and structured is strong evidence that only a mindful intelligence could have willed it to be so.

I don't know if it's got anything to do with having a background in electronics and mechanical engineering, but such fine-tuned criticality is commonplace within feedback systems. Indeed whenever we examine criticality in other systems (e.g. biological, commercial, social etc.) we Invariably discover feedback as the governing principle -- not mindful intelligence. All this makes me wonder at the way you so readily relinquish the benefits such understanding in order to grab the opportunity to postulate a disembodied mind as a governing force. Why shouldn't I simply dismiss this as being as naive as someone who insists that there must be a "little man" inside every operational amplifier (whose job it is to turn a dial controlling the output voltage in order to keep the inputs at the same potential).

Once again you would seem to be advocating a strong form of Deism in your above post ...are you in the process of converting?

No. God set up the laws of self-organization, however self-organization depends on symmetry-breaking events which I think God establishes the boundary conditions in terms of the allowable events that can occur. This includes even events that happen in our lives, so God is entirely a personal God in my view. This is why, I think, that the believer is told to wait for God. What are we waiting for? We are waiting for a particular system to reach its critical point such that a symmetry-breaking event occurs. This brings about God's action, and prayers can be answered at those times.

I still think you'd be better off with Deism. Do you have any unambiguous evidence that I could take a look showing that prayers are answered by God?

[harvey1]

It is necessitated by the rules that lead to the complexity... In a world without "evil" people wouldn't kill chickens and stars wouldn't explode -- and no movement towards complexity would be possible.

Perhaps you've hit upon one of the major reasons why evil is necessary and the reason that God allows it to exist.

I don't know if it's got anything to do with having a background in electronics and mechanical engineering, but such fine-tuned criticality is commonplace within feedback systems. Indeed whenever we examine criticality in other systems (e.g. biological, commercial, social etc.) we Invariably discover feedback as the governing principle -- not mindful intelligence.

Of course criticality is common, it is part of nature. However, I'm saying that God is part of nature.

All this makes me wonder at the way you so readily relinquish the benefits such understanding in order to grab the opportunity to postulate a disembodied mind as a governing force. Why shouldn't I simply dismiss this as being as naive as someone who insists that there must be a "little man" inside every operational amplifier (whose job it is to turn a dial controlling the output voltage in order to keep the inputs at the same potential).

As I said before, if the laws are platonic in nature, then you have the problem of how to handle the satisfaction relation where a law is "satisfied" by the phenomenal conditions that exist. I say that as part of the satisfaction relation, a mind is needed. If you say the laws are not platonic in nature, then you have the problem of material causation where you cannot explain how it is that criticality is the cause of anything, much less a phase transition. Either way, you're sunk.

In my viewpoint, the world operates with an omniscient interpreter who not only breaks symmetries, but sustains the whole universe every point of its existence. This, by the way, is consistent with the biblical view:

He sustains all things by His powerful word. (Heb. 1:3)

I still think you'd be better off with Deism. Do you have any unambiguous evidence that I could take a look showing that prayers are answered by God?

No, but do you have any unambiguous evidence that science produces truth?

[QED]

It is necessitated by the rules that lead to the complexity... In a world without "evil" people wouldn't kill chickens and stars wouldn't explode -- and no movement towards complexity would be possible.

Perhaps you've hit upon one of the major reasons why evil is necessary and the reason that God allows it to exist.

So tell me this -- how do you know it's not the other way around? Looking back through history at all the dirty dishes and chicken carcasses I fail to see where your assertion that goodness is in the driving seat comes from. Ultimately this is where the second law comes in. The overall level of entropy must increase within any closed system; all organization and complexity is bought at the expense of a greater total disorder and spent energy. As I said earlier, if I were thinking in your terms I would find this easier to identify with a God who was 100% malevolent but only 99% effective.

Of course criticality is common, it is part of nature. However, I'm saying that God is part of nature.

And so we all have God in us? Are you sure you're in with the right crowd?

As I said before, if the laws are platonic in nature, then you have the problem of how to handle the satisfaction relation where a law is "satisfied" by the phenomenal conditions that exist. I say that as part of the satisfaction relation, a mind is needed.

Give me a couple of examples of these "platonic laws". I just Googled for "platonic law" and nothing particularly authoritative came up.

If you say the laws are not platonic in nature, then you have the problem of material causation where you cannot explain how it is that criticality is the cause of anything, much less a phase transition. Either way, you're sunk.

To sink something requires that you hit it with something more substantial than rhetoric. This is all that your argument about causation amounts to when it rests solely upon the arbitrary stopping of time -- just so you can ask what connects one moment to the next.

In my viewpoint, the world operates with an omniscient interpreter who not only breaks symmetries, but sustains the whole universe every point of its existence. This, by the way, is consistent with the biblical view:

He sustains all things by His powerful word. (Heb. 1:3)

That's nice. I'm glad to see that there are limitations on his powers of intervention:

The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

I don't think there's a single idea that couldn't be teased out of that book if one were prepared to put in the effort. You needn't waste your time giving me Tarot readings like that.

I still think you'd be better off with Deism. Do you have any unambiguous evidence that I could take a look showing that prayers are answered by God?

No, but do you have any unambiguous evidence that science produces truth?

For one who has so keenly adopted the scientific method in his own arguments you surprise me somewhat in asking this question. However I'm delighted to say that, unlike blind faith, the methods employed by science have the potential to arrive at truths and once there, to stick with them. Thus we may never know for certain that we have knowledge of any particular truth, but the method can still lead us there nonetheless.

[Cathar1950]

QED wrote:

It is necessitated by the rules that lead to the complexity... In a world without "evil" people wouldn't kill chickens and stars wouldn't explode -- and no movement towards complexity would be possible.

I have to think your onto something too.
harvey1 wrote:

Of course criticality is common, it is part of nature. However, I'm saying that God is part of nature.

I think he is in the right crowd if it consists of neo-platonist in the same fashion as Whitehead.
In other words he is a Panentheist with a Pauline Jesus is God, NT perspective. Just guessing from the quotes such as:

This, by the way, is consistent with the biblical view:

Quote:
He sustains all things by His powerful word. (Heb. 1:3)

I found it interesting you wanted to show it was "biblical" and chose a letter that was not Paul's but a later unknown writer and follower of Paul's thought.
I am not entirely with out sympathy even if i don't follow your insistence on the nature of matter and what I see as dualistic. Or the divinity of Jesus or the perfection of the bible OT or NT.
But back to Job.
It seems to me this is what the book of Job is trying to work out. How and why evil? The pat answers do not work. But it seems to also imply that God has no choice and is forced to live with it also.
Just my take on it.
But it is just a story and old interesting pre-biblical story.

[harvey1]

how do you know it's not the other way around? Looking back through history at all the dirty dishes and chicken carcasses I fail to see where your assertion that goodness is in the driving seat comes from.

As I said, goodness is consistency of moral propositions as they relate to truth. If there is a principle of causality, and I don't see how you can escape such a principle, then I think there is an omniscient interpreter. If there is an omniscient interpreter (OI), this OI would need to be consistent on the moral propositions that it decided on, and therefore would need to be good. My view is that entropy can be explained in terms of information theory, and therefore is a necessary part of complex structure. If you are right, and evil is a result of entropy, then this would mean that the OI is limited to working with a physical world that must confront evil in order to have information. So, as a summary:

1. A causality-inference principle exists to the world
2. This causality-logical inference principle requires a satisfaction principle
3. The satisfaction principle requires a mind to be "satisfied" that some causality/inference proposition is true
4. This mind must be consistent in the propositions it holds true, even for all moral propositions that are considered true
5. Entropy is deeply related to information theory
6. The universe is an information-theoretic structure, and therefore contains entropy
7. Entropy may imply evil
8. Therefore, the OI may be logically constrained to allow evil as it interprets the causal happenings of our universe

Now, which of the above propositions do you reject? I accept all of them, therefore I think the conclusion is sound. I see no problem with entropy, in fact, I would expect it because I think entropy is a byproduct of information-theoretic structures.

And so we all have God in us? Are you sure you're in with the right crowd?

Yes. However, when most of us think of God we are referring to the Father in High Heaven, and this would be an aspect of God that is high above and separate from our world.

Give me a couple of examples of these "platonic laws". I just Googled for "platonic law" and nothing particularly authoritative came up.

Mathematical theorems, for example, would be platonic laws.

To sink something requires that you hit it with something more substantial than rhetoric.

Rhetoric uses logical fallacies to establish its logic. Please identify the fallacies in my argument besides opinion of not liking the result of the deductions I made.

This is all that your argument about causation amounts to when it rests solely upon the arbitrary stopping of time -- just so you can ask what connects one moment to the next.

QED, why are you talking like this? Many, many times I told you that I would consider any possibility besides slicing up time to a divisible segment. If you want to try and solve this material cause issue with an indivisible solution of time, then be my guest. You call this rhetoric, but if you cannot solve the problem (and most of the fundamental physics people think that the laws have some kind of fundamental existence (as per Paul Davies quote which I shared with you)), then why not just accept that your view is wrong? Why continue on with this lame attempt to say my argument has some fallacy when you cannot point out what the fallacy is? From my perspective it just looks like you do not like the result. I'm sure if the result was that atheism were true, you'd be singing songs and rejoicing how there is no God in the universe. But, the opposite has occurred. Why not just accept the conclusions instead of engage in this argument that I've somehow engaged in a rhetorical argument? It has no validity unless you can show that to be the case.

The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Of course that quote is talking about Judah being unable to drive out those inhabitants...

I don't think there's a single idea that couldn't be teased out of that book if one were prepared to put in the effort. You needn't waste your time giving me Tarot readings like that.

I quote scriptures so that you can see that my view is Christianity. Every now and then you try to argue that my view is not consistent with Christianity (e.g., =deism, etc.).

...do you have any unambiguous evidence that science produces truth?

For one who has so keenly adopted the scientific method in his own arguments you surprise me somewhat in asking this question. However I'm delighted to say that, unlike blind faith, the methods employed by science have the potential to arrive at truths and once there, to stick with them. Thus we may never know for certain that we have knowledge of any particular truth, but the method can still lead us there nonetheless.

How do you know? Your view is that the pecularity of the physical constants can be explained by a multiverse. Well, how do you know that there's not a higher cardinality of infinite universes than we can imagine? Perhaps there's an infinite number of universes with no laws, but the universes look exactly like ours because by pure random events those universes happen to look like they follow the same laws that our universe follows? (The exception being that in 1 minute many of those universes start acting completely random.) How can you scientifically say that this is impossible? How can you gauge any probability on this being the case for our own universe since you have no knowledge about what lies beyond the "walls" of our universe? Do you realistically think that the universe will start acting completely random in about 1 minute (e.g., Bugs Bunny popping out and saying, "ah, what's up Doc?")

I think that you can only base your view on your own subjective experience, and therefore it seems to me and you as though science is discovering truths. I say the same thing about prayer. It seems from my own subjective experience that God answers the prayers of those who earnestly communicate with God through prayer. But, like you said with regards to the physical constants, there may be a universe out there that lacks that particular coincidence (e.g., a prayer being coincidentally answered). Just like our decision to subjectively believe that science discovers truth, I subjectively believe that God answers prayers.