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?

[The Happy Humanist]

It's like asking what caused cause? If we ask what caused causation, then the answer is that nothing caused causation since you need the concept of causation to ask "what caused X."

oooo, I just know this is a mistake, but....does this mean you now accept Causation as prime, and hence acknowledge that your search for a material or immaterial basis for causation is a wild goose chase? I know, I know, you will argue that "basis" and "cause" are two different things. To which I say, no they're not. To which you will reply "Piffle." And I will respond "Tommyrot." And the music goes round and round....

Similarly, "an Omniscient Interpreter exists" doesn't need a verification since the nature of truth requires an omniscient interpreter to make sense of the statement. Any version of reality that we can construct all require an omniscient interpreter, so it is meaningless to try and construct a view of reality where you assume that an omniscient interpreter is a secondary property of reality. It is a primitive of any kind of reality whatsoever.

You realize, of course, that I have never accepted the premise of reality requiring an interpreter, omniscient, sentient, or otherwise.

It is about all possible moral decisions that God could and does make. (3) and (4) establish that regardless whatever moral decisions God could and does make, they must cohere.

Same answer. I don't accept 4. The rest of it, I freely admit, I just don't follow. Sorry, Harvey, I just don't think you "cohere."

[harvey1]

but....does this mean you now accept Causation as prime, and hence acknowledge that your search for a material or immaterial basis for causation is a wild goose chase?

Sigh. I said in that thread many times that a principle of causation is a primitive in my metaphysics. The problem for any material causation is that the primitive is material stuff. This is where the conflict comes with material causation since material stuff cannot explain causation.

I know, I know, you will argue that "basis" and "cause" are two different things. To which I say, no they're not. To which you will reply "Piffle." And I will respond "Tommyrot." And the music goes round and round....

If you think you can show how there can be material causation if material stuff is the primitive, then be my guest to show how this is possible.

You realize, of course, that I have never accepted the premise of reality requiring an interpreter, omniscient, sentient, or otherwise.

But, you never showed how a satisfaction relation can exist without an omniscient interpeter. If you can make that argument, then I'd more than happy respond to it. If you choose not to make that argument, then on what basis do you reject premise (4)?

The rest of it, I freely admit, I just don't follow. Sorry, Harvey, I just don't think you "cohere."

THH, I think it is important that you understand this argument so that you can see my particular form of theism has secure foundations. Obviously if you just want to have a prejudiced mind against theism, then there's nothing I can do. But, I thought you were not like that. I thought you really were open-minded to theism if it could be shown to be rational. Am I wrong about that?

[trencacloscas]

Russell lived in the pre-cosmological age of science. Since the evidence of the expansion of the universe became overwhelming to deny, we know our material universe has an origin at the big bang. Had Russell would have known this, then he would not have been able to say what he did. In addition, it's quite a different story for God to be necessary in any kind of conception of reality versus a universe just existing forever. In the case of our universe we can't rely on brute facts as my thread in the philosophy forum demonstrates

You must be kidding, harvey. Bertrand Russell died only in 1970. He actually absorbed the impact of modern science and discoveries better than most philosophers of the XX century. You better check out his "Philosophical Consequences Of Relativity" or "Science And Ethics" to start with. Since you present theories elaborated by Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, what cosmological age did they know?

Anyway, I only mentioned Russell as precedent. I still don't see the necessity of a God to explain everything, and I don't understand the introduction of any "divine hand" to explain facts.

[harvey1]

You must be kidding, harvey. Bertrand Russell died only in 1970.

Russell was 93 when the CMBR was discovered in 1965, and it took until the 1970's before the big bang took on general acceptance in the general scientific circles. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems were not even complete until 1970. So, I don't think you can label any period prior to 1965 as the beginning of real cosmological science. Prior to then, it was generally believed that the steady-state model was correct. So, even though Russell lived until 1970, at no time when he was an active writer did he have knowledge of modern cosmology that would have made him re-consider an argument that the universe had a beginning (as we do today).

He actually absorbed the impact of modern science and discoveries better than most philosophers of the XX century. You better check out his "Philosophical Consequences Of Relativity" or "Science And Ethics" to start with. Since you present theories elaborated by Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, what cosmological age did they know?

I'm of course talking about cosmology science, so none of these people had knowledge of modern science.

Anyway, I only mentioned Russell as precedent. I still don't see the necessity of a God to explain everything, and I don't understand the introduction of any "divine hand" to explain facts.

As I argued in those threads I mentioned, it is apparently impossible for there to be a material cause to the world, and even if it were possible, it is not a reasonable argument to suggest that a material world is a brute fact. If you'd like to reply to those arguments, I would happily respond to them.

[The Happy Humanist]

This is where the conflict comes with material causation since material stuff cannot explain causation.

And I maintain that nothing can explain causation, because it requires no explanation. I think you actually said the same thing above, when you said that we can't ask what causes causation.

But, you never showed how a satisfaction relation can exist without an omniscient interpeter. If you can make that argument, then I'd more than happy respond to it. If you choose not to make that argument, then on what basis do you reject premise (4)?

On the contrary, you never showed (at least to my "satisfaction") why a "satisfaction relation" is anything more than your own personal mental construct. Introducing an omniscient interpreter is just compounding the already over-complexified scenario.

THH, I think it is important that you understand this argument so that you can see my particular form of theism has secure foundations. Obviously if you just want to have a prejudiced mind against theism, then there's nothing I can do. But, I thought you were not like that. I thought you really were open-minded to theism if it could be shown to be rational. Am I wrong about that

Not at all. In fact, I've been doing some musing on your scenario. For some reason I am reminded of HAL, the computer from 2001: A Space Oddysey. Some interesting parallels: You claim that your "God" is not a person, but can interact with people as if he were. Obviously HAL is programmed to do just that. The problem of evil: HAL's instructions (the Divine Will) are to complete the Jupiter mission, which will ultimately bring man closer to the interloping aliens (the "Creator"). Along the way, actualizing his will involves killing four astronauts, but it all works out in the end when the Omega State (realization of the Divine Will) is brought about. HAL can deviate at will from the programmed path (weak omnipotence), so long as such deviation does not deter the completion of the final goal.

Of course, the comparison breaks down in other ways...and it's ironic to note that Clarke is an atheist... but I thought it was an interesting analogy.

So is your God akin to a "sentient computer" in this fashion?

[harvey1]

And I maintain that nothing can explain causation, because it requires no explanation. I think you actually said the same thing above, when you said that we can't ask what causes causation.

Good, then you have accepted a non-material depiction of the Universe which puts you within 10 years of being a theist again.

On the contrary, you never showed (at least to my "satisfaction") why a "satisfaction relation" is anything more than your own personal mental construct. Introducing an omniscient interpreter is just compounding the already over-complexified scenario.

If you accept that material causation is not a valid depiction, and instead you accept causation as a primitive, then you need a satisfaction relation. Let me illustrate:

"C causes E" = "C brings about E such that C is a necessary cause of E in certain sufficient conditions"

For example:

"The uncertainty principle caused the virtual particle to come into existence"

Which equates to:

"The uncertainty principle brought about the virtual particle such that the uncertainty principle (UP) is a necessary cause of the virtual particle when certain UP conditions exist"

Notice, without a satisfaction relation, then there is no way to link C and E. The satisfaction relation tells you why C and E are related (e.g., in this example, because certain UP conditions obtained).

This is why you need a satisfaction relation.

So is your God akin to a "sentient computer" in this fashion?

Very similar. The major difference is that I think God has "levels of consciousness" that respond minimally in route to the Omega state. Therefore, the laws of physics are a base state of consciousness that is simply "aware" in a very mild sense (e.g., ghost intereference experiments having to do with quantum erasure). However, as more complex phenomena evolve, the higher functionality of the "laws of physics" kick in. As an example, ghost interference is just about as complex of a reaction that we see from the laws of physics since it would take a pretty complex program to simulate the intelligence displayed in this reaction. However, we're just talking tricking entangled partners to do some things that the laws do not want us to do (viz. possess information that would violate which-way requirements). I think the laws of physics do not stop at this level of complexity, they keep getting more complex as evolution of organisms begins, and far more richer when human beings began cognizing their environment. The laws take on a new name at this level of complexity, viz. God. HAL is not so hierarchical in structure.

[QED]

1. X is an infinite set of every possible member decision (i.e., moral decision) that can or has been made by God
2. Goodness for God is defined as a set X where every moral decision in that set must cohere
3. Truth must cohere to be truth
4. God is part of the truth relation (i.e., as an omniscient interpeter that determines something as true)
5. As a consequence of (3) and (4), every moral decision of God must cohere.
6. God must make moral decisions to be considered God
7. Ergo, God must be good [(2), (5), (6)]

In other words, if God's decisions must cohere for God to be part of the truth relation, and Goodness for God is every moral decision cohering, then God must be Good.

OK, in this you assume at 2 that only goodness coheres and then the rest automatically goes your way. Now here's one for you; What is so obviously "good" about the "decisions" that have led to the self-organization of the cosmos? Notice that in order for self-organization to occur in this universe the laws are such that it requires a dynamic that "all things must pass". Equilibrium or states of eternity are forbidden by the laws so everything dies, decays and ultimately becomes extinct. A totting-up of all the structures that have ever emerged through the laws of self-organization reveals that everything but the current tip of the iceberg has vanished without hardly leaving a trace.

This makes it possible to suggest that God is 100% evil but only 99% effective.

[harvey1]

What is so obviously "good" about the "decisions" that have led to the self-organization of the cosmos? Notice that in order for self-organization to occur in this universe the laws are such that it requires a dynamic that "all things must pass". Equilibrium or states of eternity are forbidden by the laws so everything dies, decays and ultimately becomes extinct. A totting-up of all the structures that have ever emerged through the laws of self-organization reveals that everything but the current tip of the iceberg has vanished without hardly leaving a trace. This makes it possible to suggest that God is 100% evil but only 99% effective.

The world is moving toward more complexity and higher up systems. I don't see the evil in that.

However, I think that self-organization is an indication that there is a God. The emergence of structure happening in an uncomputable fashion (i.e., broken symmetries at phase transitions) suggests that interdependence of higher levels is a feature of the natural world. I think that strongly suggests that a creation mechanism exists which can bring about free-will in the world. Any other mechanism would be unable to do that because it would make God not just the ultimate cause for every action, it would make God alone. The ability to create new and independent entities is an indication that there is a God since this is what you would expect a mindful entity to do: bring novelty to the world. Since self-organization is the only known mechanism that we know that can do this, it suggests that God exists and is good by bringing about a good world.

[QED]

The world is moving toward more complexity and higher up systems. I don't see the evil in that.

So you think there's something wrong with the second law of thermodynamics? Behind this move towards complexity and higher-up systems lies a wake of spent energy that more than balances out the localized effects you're referring to. All the chicken dinners that you have consumed forms a tiny part of this sum-total that, in my opinion, represents the predominance of evil that people are talking about. I say the "evil that people are talking about" because this is the colloquial term given to the garbage of the world. It does not have the exact same connotations to me.

However, I think that self-organization is an indication that there is a God. The emergence of structure happening in an uncomputable fashion (i.e., broken symmetries at phase transitions) suggests that interdependence of higher levels is a feature of the natural world. I think that strongly suggests that a creation mechanism exists which can bring about free-will in the world. Any other mechanism would be unable to do that because it would make God not just the ultimate cause for every action, it would make God alone. The ability to create new and independent entities is an indication that there is a God since this is what you would expect a mindful entity to do: bring novelty to the world. Since self-organization is the only known mechanism that we know that can do this, it suggests that God exists and is good by bringing about a good world.

That's a pretty big land claim you've put in there Harvey. For starters most people say exactly the opposite... that organization is an indication that there is a God. Most people bringing God into these debates view self-organization is an anathema. I don't think it can be had both ways if it's to be at all meaningful as proof of God. Now your way has it that free-will is essential for the emergence of novelty. This sounds reasonable, but you would also have it that this entails a mindful entity to organize such a thing in the first place. I think you ought to have at least a little sympathy for me when I come to grapple with this seemingly obscure logic. Some further explanation would be greatly appreciated.

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

[harvey1]

So you think there's something wrong with the second law of thermodynamics? Behind this move towards complexity and higher-up systems lies a wake of spent energy that more than balances out the localized effects you're referring to. All the chicken dinners that you have consumed forms a tiny part of this sum-total that, in my opinion, represents the predominance of evil that people are talking about. I say the "evil that people are talking about" because this is the colloquial term given to the garbage of the world. It does not have the exact same connotations to me.

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

Now your way has it that free-will is essential for the emergence of novelty. This sounds reasonable, but you would also have it that this entails a mindful entity to organize such a thing in the first place. I think you ought to have at least a little sympathy for me when I come to grapple with this seemingly obscure logic. Some further explanation would be greatly appreciated.

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.

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.