Does God have free will?

[harvey1]

This is a topic that Bugmaster and I have started to discuss, so I want to open it up for a wider debate. If God is conforming to certain laws (e.g., logical, mathematical, physical laws, spiritual laws, etc.), then in what way is God's actions free since God must conform to those laws? On the other hand, if God doesn't have this freedom, then in what way is God omnipotent?

[harvey1]

This discussion is continued from this thread.

God may or may not have free will, but I believe God has free will... Of course God is restricted by the laws in which God labelled as "true" because God wouldn't have labelled them as "true" if they were not binding.

This is in contradiction to your previous statements, where you've stated that God is personally involved in the execution of all natural laws, which are, presumably, all "true" (whatever that means). So, if God is obligated to maintain every single law, then he cannot break any law at all, which means that he does not have free will (for example, he cannot prevent ice from melting).

I don't see any contradiction with my previous statements. God is involved in the execution of all natural laws every moment the universe exists (i.e., God sustains the universe). And, God is bound by the laws up to the point that the laws are in effect. However, the laws of nature are mainly approximations, and as approximations they can be brought to the point to where the old law no longer applies and the new law begins to apply (i.e., at the phase transition). However, this gives God a great deal of free will because once the system moves to criticality, the old laws no longer restrict God's hand. This is why, I believe, Christians are told to wait on God. God needs time to let the system move toward criticality, and then God can favor an interpretation of nature that favors those whom God wishes to favor.

Flexibility of God's decisions can come within those boundaries. So, for example, if there are two possible interpretations of a situation and neither is a law, God can freely choose a particular interpretation for reasons that God favors (versus reasons that are the only possible rational choice in that given situation).

What do you mean by "interpretations of a situation"?

When there are no laws for a situation, there exist competing interpretations of what is true. God allows different interpretations to play themselves out (e.g., as a metaphor think of God allowing Job to suffer to see if Satan is right about Job's heart that he would curse God if his wealth were taken away).

I realize that the Christian can pray for something trivial, such as "oh Lord, please make sure gravity still works tomorrow!". However, if the Christian prays for something non-trivial, such as "please heal my cancer", or "please make my inferior football team win", or "please turn the sky green with purple polka dots", then, in order to fullfill the prayer, God would need to break some physical laws. Otherwise, the cancer will kill the patient, the football team will lose, and the sky will remain blue.

Not necessarily. As I mentioned, second order phase transitions are spontaneously broken symmetries that are broken without being specified by what came before. What determines what does happen in these spontaneous broken symmetries is based on what is actually possible in our universe. Possibility for the universe is intrinsically tied to God's will. So, for example, if God rules out the possibility that evil doers win in the end, then spontaneously broken symmetries will not occur which would allow evil doers to win in the end. This is how I think God's will is accomplished in the world.

Again, this is the whole point of divine intervention: changing the way the world works in order to fullfill a prayer (or just the god's own selfish desire, depends on the deity).

It depends not on the deity but God's will. God's will is to bring about certain harmony and unity in the world, so those who express this kind of harmony and unity will be instruments of God and their desires and will has an influencing effect on what God allows to happen in the world.

[Amp]

Harvey1,

This is a topic that Bugmaster and I have started to discuss, so I want to open it up for a wider debate. If God is conforming to certain laws (e.g., logical, mathematical, physical laws, spiritual laws, etc.), then in what way is God's actions free since God must conform to those laws? On the other hand, if God doesn't have this freedom, then in what way is God omnipotent?

A)

If God is conforming to certain laws (e.g., logical, mathematical, physical laws, spiritual laws, etc.)

The creator of reality, I give that as a description and definition of God. Therefore, if this being created the 'laws' it doesn't follow that it is constrained by them...heres the point... unless it decides(volition) to work or act within said laws.

Although, Omnipotence is generally considered the ability to do everything or all powerful, the misconception is that it doesn't mean that the impossible or undoable can be done.

Somethings, 'God' cannot do.
1. not exist or be
2. Be less than what it is - "God"
3. not be good, mature(perfect), eternal.

In forming a concept of 'God' as the creator of reality, imagine what was before reality. There was or is only 'God'. No space, no time. 'God' is all there is thus when reality was created the only place it could be located was inside of 'God'. This at once shows how 'God' can be omnipresent and gives a clue to omniscience because in this case the created time(in reality) is not linear to 'God', IOW, 'God' views all timelines and time simultaneously.

[ST88]

Possibility for the universe is intrinsically tied to God's will.

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then we can never really know what is possible in the universe until something happens to show us. For example, before Joshua witnessed the sun stopping in the sky, such a thing would not have been known to be possible. However, because we now know that this happened, we must account for it in our calculations of how the universe works. How much of God's free will is "possibility" beyond what he's already done and how much is His "elbow room" (i.e., within the scope of what he's already done).

So, for example, if God rules out the possibility that evil doers win in the end, then spontaneously broken symmetries will not occur which would allow evil doers to win in the end. This is how I think God's will is accomplished in the world.

Casting aside the meaning of "in the end" for a moment, how much assumption is allotted to us in what we believe God capable of? That is, does God expect us to be able to interpolate His capabilities based on what He's shown us in the past, or are we to follow His examples without drawing our own conclusions?

It depends not on the deity but God's will. God's will is to bring about certain harmony and unity in the world, so those who express this kind of harmony and unity will be instruments of God and their desires and will has an influencing effect on what God allows to happen in the world.

Do you believe it is possible to determine who and/or what these instruments are without the big finger in the sky pointing to them?

[harvey1]

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then we can never really know what is possible in the universe until something happens to show us.

None of us have absolute knowledge, but knowing what is possible is much easier in the scheme I'm presenting because God is obviously restricted by physical laws that we know about. (I say obvious because if God's will is to further goodness there are many things that could be done that are not being done--e.g., miracles, cures of diseases, angels forcing terrorists to disarm, etc.). This lack of intervention is best understood that the physical laws we know about do limit God in what can happen in the future.

For example, before Joshua witnessed the sun stopping in the sky, such a thing would not have been known to be possible. However, because we now know that this happened, we must account for it in our calculations of how the universe works.

I'm not a fundamentalist, so you'll have to convince me that this has happened. You haven't been successfully converted recently by the Jehovah's Witness at your door? I suppose they got pretty lucky, and caught you at a very persuadable moment.

How much of God's free will is "possibility" beyond what he's already done and how much is His "elbow room" (i.e., within the scope of what he's already done).

In terms of what is possible after/beyond this universe, I would say that there is infinite number of creative possibilities for other universes/structures that God moves forward with. In terms of this universe, possibility is difficult to define. For example, there's logico-mathematical possibility. I would hazard to guess that logico-mathematical possibility is already fixed for this universe. That is, all the possible statements pertaining to logic and math will not be less true or more true at any time in the future of this universe (or at any time in the past). So, God has no elbow room as far as this possibility is concerned. I say hazard to guess since Gregory Chaitin has found some indeterminism in mathematics, so perhaps there's some possible room for God to act in this narrow band of indeterminism. It may not apply for our universe though.

how much assumption is allotted to us in what we believe God capable of? That is, does God expect us to be able to interpolate His capabilities based on what He's shown us in the past, or are we to follow His examples without drawing our own conclusions?

Do you mean does God expect us to repent from any God-rejecting thoughts? Yes, I think God expects us to see a much more holistic and spiritual perspective. That comes not from some document (e.g., Leviticus), it comes from the spirit of the law that our human minds know to be true but use trite excuses to avoid. We should strive for the fruits of the spirit.

Of course, I think it is not the time for some to come to this kind of spiritual knowledge. Perhaps there are reasons for their unwillingness to accept God. What I would encourage those who reject the spiritual mind is to do whatever "good" that they think they can do and think. My religious view is that this is what is commanded of those who cannot find it in themselves to accept spiritual knowledge and God as their loving Father and Mother and Sister and Brother.

Do you believe it is possible to determine who and/or what these instruments are without the big finger in the sky pointing to them?

Well, it's hard to put yourself in the mind of another individual. I for the life of me am completely flummoxed at the inability of others on this site to plainly see the spiritual dimension existing in our world. I read physics books and I feel like I'm reading the New Testament. However, I think the answer is a "yes" in that I think that most human beings have an inward (or a priori) sense of what is higher spiritual truths versus lower spiritual truths. We don't all have the same spiritual vision, but I find myself agreeing more on what is right than not. My main concern is fundamentalism which I think is the real obstacle (e.g., militant atheism). The fundamentalist mindset, I think, is part of our evolutionary past that promotes fear, pedantism, group think, etc..

[harvey1]

The creator of reality, I give that as a description and definition of God.

I have a problem with that definition. Reality is whatever there is (in the ultimate sense). Reality cannot be created since even if there is nothing, it is still "the" reality of the world. How about the term "(multi)universe" to describe the structures that God has created in time?

Therefore, if this being created the 'laws' it doesn't follow that it is constrained by them...heres the point... unless it decides(volition) to work or act within said laws.

By "laws" I'm not just referring to the laws of physics. I'm referring to any laws, even laws of logic and/or laws of reality. So, are you saying that God can act illogically? It seems you reject that notion because of your definition of omnipotence.

Somethings, 'God' cannot do.
1. not exist or be

I agree, but it is a great joking response to an atheist: "God is so omni-powerful that God choose not to exist for this universe..." bababomp

'God' is all there is thus when reality was created the only place it could be located was inside of 'God'. This at once shows how 'God' can be omnipresent and gives a clue to omniscience because in this case the created time(in reality) is not linear to 'God', IOW, 'God' views all timelines and time simultaneously.

This seems like Bradley's absolute idealism to me. I reject absolute idealism because in my view there is still a phenomenal world that any logical statement must refer to (the statements which you suggest limit God's definition of omnipotence). God brings about changes to the phenomenal world, and in a manner of speaking is "in" the phenomenal world, but God or God's thoughts are not identical to the phenomenal world. We still have "us" as ultimately separate from God.

[Bugmaster]

And, God is bound by the laws up to the point that the laws are in effect. However, the laws of nature are mainly approximations, and as approximations they can be brought to the point to where the old law no longer applies and the new law begins to apply (i.e., at the phase transition). However, this gives God a great deal of free will because once the system moves to criticality, the old laws no longer restrict God's hand.

This sounds like you're saying, "God can rewrite the laws of the Universe however he wishes", which is in contradiction to your earlier statements that God conforms to the laws of the Universe. I realize that you can counter by saying, "no, God can only do this during phase transitions", but since phase transitions occur all the time (i.e., ice melting), this gives God quite a bit of leeway.

I am also not entirely sure what you mean by "the laws of nature are mainly approximations..." Is this an ontology/epistemology confusion ?

This is why, I believe, Christians are told to wait on God. God needs time to let the system move toward criticality...

I thought God was atemporal ?

and then God can favor an interpretation of nature that favors those whom God wishes to favor.

This sounds to me like saying that God is paying very, very close attention to us humans specifically, and cares about what we think. If that is what you're saying, let me know, and I'll proceed (I just want to make sure I don't accidentally attack a straw man).

When there are no laws for a situation, there exist competing interpretations of what is true.

What do you mean by, "true" ? Presumably, in your worldview, truth is one of these laws -- but they don't exist for the particular situation in your example, so the very notion of truth becomes meaningless.

As I mentioned, second order phase transitions are spontaneously broken symmetries that are broken without being specified by what came before.

Doesn't this negate your entire "First Cause" chain of reasoning that we're discussing on the other thread ? You now have events which are not specified by any causes (not even God, perhaps, depending on how I read your statement).

God's will is to bring about certain harmony and unity in the world, so those who express this kind of harmony and unity will be instruments of God...

It doesn't matter what God's intentions are, for the purposes of this discussion. The bottom line is, God rewrites the laws of nature in an arbitrary way, in order to fullfill his desires (whatever they may be). This means that God cannot be subject to the laws of nature, which would be in contradiction to your previous statements.

[harvey1]

This sounds like you're saying, "God can rewrite the laws of the Universe however he wishes", which is in contradiction to your earlier statements that God conforms to the laws of the Universe. I realize that you can counter by saying, "no, God can only do this during phase transitions", but since phase transitions occur all the time (i.e., ice melting), this gives God quite a bit of leeway.

Phase transitions do not occur all the time. For example, the electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking event happened when the universe was 1*10^(-11) seconds old. After that event, God was no longer able to determine how the electroweak forces emerged since the spontaneous symmetry breaking event had already passed.

I am also not entirely sure what you mean by "the laws of nature are mainly approximations..."

Systems reach criticality because the boundary conditions of the system are not well-defined at the critical point. As the system approaches criticality, the approximate symmetry of the system begins to be perturbed by small, indeterminate fluctuations until at the critical point these fluctuations cause the system to be unpredictable in principle (indeterminate) with respect to its future state. At the phase transition the system acquires new laws as a result of a spontaneous symmetry breaking (e.g., electroweak spontaneous symmetry breaking), and the fluctuations become small again. The boundary conditions of the new system are in place. If our universe were to approach such a criticality (e.g., another inflationary epoch), then the structure of our universe would permanently change (of course no biological life would remain as these severe conditions would tear apart planets and whatever else was around).

This sounds to me like saying that God is paying very, very close attention to us humans specifically, and cares about what we think. If that is what you're saying, let me know, and I'll proceed (I just want to make sure I don't accidentally attack a straw man).

This is not exactly what I'm saying. Think about the Novikov self-consistency conjecture that I've mentioned to QED as an analogy. In this conjecture it is hypothesized that people cannot actually change the past which would lead to a time paradox, but they can affect the past if no paradox would happen as a result. The "invisible hand" in Novikov's account prevents any paradox tampering in the universe.

What I'm saying is related to this concept. A human being is far less than a gnat in our galaxy, and even far less in the universe as a whole, however I believe that this "invisible hand" is constantly promoting the unity, harmony, and complexification in the universe. It does so not by being a person, but rather by pooling in all the information contained in the system which is then compared to the only future that does not lead to paradox (i.e., the purpose of the universe, or Omega state). As each phase transition occurs in the world (and there are many, many each second all over the universe, including on earth at all scales), this invisible hand restricts spontaneous symmetry breaking events from occurring either in full intensity or partial intensity that would allow a paradox (i.e., the paradox would be if the Omega state is not reached when and how it is required to be reached).

So, whereas some might get the feeling of God as a person who purposely seeks out and cares for human beings, I think this is treating God as us, and I do not think God is at all like a human being. God is this invisible hand that absorbs all information in the universe, and restricts paths that are known by God not to reach the Omega state. However, when people present their intentions in heartfelt feelings and emotions before God, this becomes part of the information presented before God. This information is weighed according to God's overall purpose, and as the system we are in reaches its criticality (or systems that would affect us reach criticality), those spontaneous symmetry breaking events are restricted so as to allow answered prayers (or our desired, strong intentions, or our strong effort toward a particular, etc.) to naturally occur in either partial, full, or better ways that we didn't even expect even if painful sometimes.

When there are no laws for a situation, there exist competing interpretations of what is true.

What do you mean by, "true"? Presumably, in your worldview, truth is one of these laws -- but they don't exist for the particular situation in your example, so the very notion of truth becomes meaningless.

True is based on a few theories that each have their own weights, so it is highly subject to interpretation. For example, we can measure truth by overall coherence of an interpretation compared to known to be true interpretations that are already decided. Truth can be decided by correspondence of the interpretation accurately reflecting the conditions. Truth can also be decided by the pragmatic effect (e.g., "by your fruits you shall know them") and deciding how the interpretation accurately promotes a pragmatic success of the system. It takes the wisdom of God to decide what is true based on these theories and weights, and this is why there are many competing interpretations to truth. For example, the pragmatic interpretation of truth requires a great deal of "playing out" the interpretation to see the overall effect. If the system reaches the Omega state, then pragmatically it is true.

As I mentioned, second order phase transitions are spontaneously broken symmetries that are broken without being specified by what came before.

Doesn't this negate your entire "First Cause" chain of reasoning that we're discussing on the other thread? You now have events which are not specified by any causes (not even God, perhaps, depending on how I read your statement).

No it doesn't because I'm not saying that everything has a determinate cause (i.e., an algorithm exist that is shorter than the actual events themselves in order to predict the effect). What I'm saying at that other thread is that there are always causes for an event. The cause in any spontaneous symmetry breaking event is caused by indeterminate fluctuations. This, I think, ultimately comes down to what "occurs" quantum-mechanically and therefore is ultimately probablistic. The cause in for quantum probablistic causes is are result of the mathematical nature of the universe which dictates that probablistic causes must occur at that scale. In the case of spontaneous symmetry breaking, the mathematical nature of the universe stipulates that certain probabilities do not occur in certain instances (but overall the system remains probabilistic) in order to conform to God's will.

God rewrites the laws of nature in an arbitrary way, in order to fullfill his desires (whatever they may be). This means that God cannot be subject to the laws of nature, which would be in contradiction to your previous statements.

God does not rewrite the laws of nature after they occur. They become set in stone if you will, and from that point forward God works within the system to bring about God's will, or waits as the system reaches criticality and then can re-direct the system to go in the new ways that God wishes. So, there is no contradiction here. God is not arbitrarily directing nature any way that God desires, but rather God plays by the rules that God set up.

[Bugmaster]

Phase transitions do not occur all the time...

Ok, let's focus on ice for a moment. Ice melting is a phase transition; you've said so yourself. I gather that not all phase transitions are created equal... so... what laws can God change or violate every time ice melts ?

Moving on: given a "phase transition symmetry breaking event", is it possible to predict what the results will be, or even what they would probably be ? If the answer is "yes", then God is violating his own laws every time he meddles with melting ice. If the answer is "no" (and you seem to imply that when you say, "...unpredictable in principle (indeterminate) with respect to its future state"), then no one, not even God, could foresee the outcome (assuming, again, that God follows his own laws).

What I'm driving at is that you seem to have arbitrarily singled out phase transitions as the events that God can control. I don't see what makes them so special -- they follow laws, assuming that laws exist. Sure, they may follow different laws than ye olde falling rocks, but the principle's the same.

I believe that this "invisible hand" is constantly promoting the unity, harmony, and complexification in the universe.

Other than "complexification", the values you mention are subjective human values. One must be human (or, at least, sentient and able to pass the Turing Test) to appreciate them. In fact, objectively, the most harmonious universe would be a universe with nothing but a uniform level of background radiation in it... is that what God is working toward ?

...this invisible hand restricts spontaneous symmetry breaking events from occurring either in full intensity or partial intensity that would allow a paradox (i.e., the paradox would be if the Omega state is not reached when and how it is required to be reached).

You make God sound like just another law of nature: gravity prevents things from flying off the surface of the Earth, and God prevents paradoxes from occurring. I see no problem with that, but... we don't worship gravity or Boyle's law, why worship God if it's the same thing ?

True is based on a few theories that each have their own weights, so it is highly subject to interpretation. ... It takes the wisdom of God to decide what is true based on these theories and weights, and this is why there are many competing interpretations to truth.

Ok, so what did you mean when you said,

When there are no laws for a situation, there exist competing interpretations of what is true.

? Which version of "true" are you talking about here ?

No it doesn't because I'm not saying that everything has a determinate cause (i.e., an algorithm exist that is shorter than the actual events themselves in order to predict the effect).

I definitely agree with you that not everything can be predicted by such an algorithm (though some things can). But I never argued for that. What I'm saying is that, according to you, every effect (every effect but one !) must have a definite cause, and there must be an initial uncaused cause, in order for the Universe to make any sense at all. But now, you are describing these symmetry breaking events as breaking the chain of cause and effect. The laws prior to the event are different from the laws after the event, and there is no way to tell what caused the new laws (as opposed to some other set of new laws). Thus, according to your own argument, the Universe should be "irrational".

God does not rewrite the laws of nature after they occur. They become set in stone if you will, and from that point forward God works within the system to bring about God's will, or waits as the system reaches criticality and then can re-direct the system to go in the new ways that God wishes.

So, God set up the rules in such a way that allows him to arbitrarily rewrite the rules from time to time. How is this any better than just rewriting the rules as he sees fit ? You mentioned yourself that symmetry breaking events occur all the time, which would imply that God can rewrite the rules... all the time.

[harvey1]

Ok, let's focus on ice for a moment. Ice melting is a phase transition; you've said so yourself. I gather that not all phase transitions are created equal... so... what laws can God change or violate every time ice melts?

Well, first let's treat this example in reverse. Prior to when water freezes it has continuous translational symmetry (each randomly chosen point in the water has the same properties as any other randomly chosen point in the water). However, when water freezes this continuous translational symmetry is "broken," it means that the crystalline ice structure forms into a regular lattice so that each randomly chosen point in the ice is not the same as other randomly chosen point. The breaking of the continuous translational symmetry is unpredictable in that there's no way to know prior to the sudden freezing of the water on how the lattice will form. God, I imagine, can operate freely in this unpredictable zone in determining how this crystalline lattice will form. Obviously this doesn't have an apparently big impact to how nature evolves, but the freedom is there if God so choose to restrict lattice formation to a particular lattice property if it was needed to accomplish God's will. In the case of the reverse situation, continuous translational symmetry unbreaking, which happens when ice melts, God can control how the lattice breaks apart. So, for example, the melting of a glacier, or the melting of an iceberg would be within God's range of freedom. This would be quite helpful if you were being chased by polar bears in the Arctic, and you prayed to God to save you. Well, it wouldn't save you for long because polar bears can swim...

Moving on: given a "phase transition symmetry breaking event", is it possible to predict what the results will be, or even what they would probably be?

A system moving toward criticality experiences fluctuations in its correlation length, and that at criticality these fluctuations become unpredictable. However, it is possible to suppress these fluctuations so that the system does not enter a critical phase. That's not to say that all the properties of the system become unpredictable at criticality, just those properties which are part of the phase diagram.

If the answer is "no" (and you seem to imply that when you say, "...unpredictable in principle (indeterminate) with respect to its future state"), then no one, not even God, could foresee the outcome (assuming, again, that God follows his own laws).

But, even if God could not predict what the system would do, God can simply have done what we see in the delay choice experiments. Remember in those experiments that one photon went through the Young's double slit and was destroyed and detected. After that photon A was destroyed, the entangled photon B was either measured or not measured and then detected. Depending on whether photon B was measured or not, the detection of photon A either had the interference pattern or it did not. So, there's an element of reality that forces the past to be what the future needs it to be to keep the quantum events consistent with quantum laws. So, it is no biggy for the same situation to exist in all events in the world. Either a certain outcome of a phase transition is against God's will, and simply cannot happen, or the symmetry breaking events are simply in a loop where symmetry breaking events keep occurring over and over until the situation naturally arises that is in conformance with God's will. Personally, I'm not sure which is correct. One or both are needed to explain the delayed choice experiments, so I'm not sure. The second option is pretty wild. It suggests that whole periods of human and evolutinary history can be re-written. So, I would probably lean to the first scenario. (Although I have speculated often about the re-writing of time.)

What I'm driving at is that you seem to have arbitrarily singled out phase transitions as the events that God can control. I don't see what makes them so special -- they follow laws, assuming that laws exist. Sure, they may follow different laws than ye olde falling rocks, but the principle's the same.

I think a phase transition represents a satisfaction event, something very basic in my cosmology because of its relationship to truth. Remember, my view is that God is part of the satisfaction relation of truth? Therefore, phase transitions as part of these satisfaction events is where God makes the divine judgements of truth.

the most harmonious universe would be a universe with nothing but a uniform level of background radiation in it... is that what God is working toward?

I think God is mining answers to questions such as, "what is truth?," "what is beauty?," "what is meaningful?," etc..

You make God sound like just another law of nature: gravity prevents things from flying off the surface of the Earth, and God prevents paradoxes from occurring. I see no problem with that, but... we don't worship gravity or Boyle's law, why worship God if it's the same thing?

God is the source of all the laws. That is, it is God that gives divine blessing to the laws so that those laws guide and direct the universe. And, God is a law of physics in the sense that God just prevents paradoxes of the divine will from occurring. We ought to worship God because spiritual meaning is one of important aspects of finding truth, and that can only be found by worshipping God. It is what it means to find one's place in the Universe and finding heavenly joy.

If his God has a personality, then it needs to have an ability to choose to pass the electric charge through the sphere. If God always chooses what the laws of physics dictate anyway, then he doesn't have a "self", by Harvey's own arguments.

Flexibility of God's decisions can come within those boundaries. So, for example, if there are two possible interpretations of a situation and neither is a law, God can freely choose a particular interpretation for reasons that God favors (versus reasons that are the only possible rational choice in that given situation)... When there are no laws for a situation, there exist competing interpretations of what is true.

Which version of "true" are you talking about here?

It could be any theory of truth that I discussed. For example, a pragmatic theory of truth mainly guides the economic policies of the world. As people naturally stumble upon better economic policies, they tend to say "true" when asked certain questions (e.g., feudalism is a poor economic policy for global economies: "true"). It took about 6 or more centuries to figure this out.

What I was responding to was your notion that God must do what the laws of physics always dictate. The universe is not finished. There are new laws that are still evolving. There are old laws which are now obsolete because we entered a new phase transition. God has freedom in choosing the interpretation of truth that best meets God's will.

What I'm saying is that, according to you, every effect (every effect but one!) must have a definite cause, and there must be an initial uncaused cause, in order for the Universe to make any sense at all. But now, you are describing these symmetry breaking events as breaking the chain of cause and effect. The laws prior to the event are different from the laws after the event, and there is no way to tell what caused the new laws (as opposed to some other set of new laws). Thus, according to your own argument, the Universe should be "irrational".

The causes that bring about a spontaneous symmetry breaking event are not uncaused causes. There was actually a preceding event that made that spontaneous symmetry breaking event necessary. However, once you fine grain into the cause of a spontaneous symmetry breaking event, you begin to fine grain onto a quantum event. However, once you fine grain upon the quantum straw that breaks the camel's back, you are looking at a probablistic cause which has its own probablistic (causal) laws. It's not at all like I'm saying there are no causes for symmetry breaking events. What I'm saying is that there is no deterministic cause.

So, God set up the rules in such a way that allows him to arbitrarily rewrite the rules from time to time.

No. The laws are not re-written as if the mind of God changed. The laws are under certain boundary conditions, the boundaries are surpassed, and the system evolves by obtaining new symmetry conditions.

How is this any better than just rewriting the rules as he sees fit ? You mentioned yourself that symmetry breaking events occur all the time, which would imply that God can rewrite the rules... all the time.

The world is mostly frozen in its flexibility because the major symmetry events that could radically change the world (e.g., electroweak symmetry) are so far from criticality that the system is in no threat of having to become critical. There is a great of flexibility in many systems (not the physics of the electroweak symmetry, though), and that is how God can evoke change. But, it takes time because there are so many stable laws that govern how the world should and must evolve. In order for God to change those laws, the system would need to move toward criticality (i.e., near the boundary conditions of those laws), and this is no easy feat since there is a great deal of stability in the present universe.