Quantum physics, the multiverse, freewill and an omnipotent God

[jmdrake]

Long thread title I know. But it's a conceptually simple idea. At least to me it is. I keep hearing people push the idea that real choice cannot exist with an omnipotent God. Well...why not? Here is a thought experiment that's based on logic and science. I'm not making a Biblical claim about how the universe and/or multiverse must work, but rather how it can work.

Background theory. One idea in quantum physics is that of the multiverse. The basic idea is this. Every possible universe that can exist does exist. From the famous "cat" thought experiment one idea is that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time in two parallel universes. So here's the idea. All possible choices happen somewhere in the multiverse. Somewhere I didn't make the mistakes that helped lead to my divorce. Somewhere my wife choose not to divorce me anyway. Somewhere I decided not to marry her anyway and went back to my previous girlfriend. Somewhere I'm the Calvinist or the Catholic or the Eastern Orthodox or the atheist and all the rest of all are the Seventh Day Adventists. There are multiple universes where each of us are ultimately saved. There are multiple universes where each of us are ultimately lost. God, in His infinite power and wisdom, allow them all to exist. Well....to a degree. I don't think God allows any universe to exist where He loses. I certainly wouldn't if I was God. There is no universe where Jesus sinned or choose not to die for us or where Herod was successful in killing baby Jesus. Now God could also only allow universes where all Bible prophecy came true. But He could simply have different Bible prophecies for different universes.

[Deborah K]

I can't speak to multiverses John, but I can say that those who believe free will can't exist with an omnipotent God seem to be under the false impression that God is a puppet master - and he's not. His allowance of our choices can be likened to a parent in this way: Good parents guide and protect their children from harm, but also let them make their own mistakes so that they can grow and learn from the experience. And a child who trusts and loves their parent will abide by their good advice and warnings.

After all, we do call him our Father.

[Ronin Truth]

The famous quantum physicist Richard Feynman once said essentially that anyone who thought he understood quantum physics did not understand it enough to understand that he did not actually understand it!

(I've waited a while for an opportunity to use that one.)

[jmdrake]

The famous quantum physicist Richard Feynman once said essentially that anyone who thought he understood quantum physics did not understand it enough to understand that he did not actually understand it!

(I've waited a while for an opportunity to use that one.)

LOL. Good one. I hear atheists complain that theists use God for any "gap" in knowledge. I guess quantum physics could serve that same purpose.

[Crashland]

I can't speak to multiverses John, but I can say that those who believe free will can't exist with an omnipotent God seem to be under the false impression that God is a puppet master - and he's not. His allowance of our choices can be likened to a parent in this way: Good parents guide and protect their children from harm, but also let them make their own mistakes so that they can grow and learn from the experience. And a child who trusts and loves their parent will abide by their good advice and warnings.

After all, we do call him our Father.

If there exists a truly omnipotent God, then there is no logical difference between reality and God's will. The two are equivalent. Any event that does occur, can only have occurred because God allowed it to. Any event that does not occur, did not occur because God did not want or allow it to occur. Any kind of free will outside of God's own free will would be a limitation on his omnipotence.

It's just like the question, "Can (an omnipotent) God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" The answer is no because it is a logical contradiction. The question "Can (an omnipotent) God create something with a free will that he does not control?" is the exact same thing.

[Deborah K]

If there exists a truly omnipotent God, then there is no logical difference between reality and God's will. The two are equivalent. Any event that does occur, can only have occurred because God allowed it to. Any event that does not occur, did not occur because God did not want or allow it to occur. Any kind of free will outside of God's own free will would be a limitation on his omnipotence.

It's just like the question, "Can (an omnipotent) God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" The answer is no because it is a logical contradiction. The question "Can (an omnipotent) God create something with a free will that he does not control?" is the exact same thing.

Can an omnipotent God have regrets? Or be convinced of something? Or feel sorrow and anger? Because the God of the Bible does all these things.

[Crashland]

Can an omnipotent God have regrets? Or be convinced of something? Or feel sorrow and anger? Because the God of the Bible does all these things.

I don't know about sorrow or anger, but a God who is both omnipotent and omniscient could not be convinced of something, or feel regret. The God of the Bible does do all those things. So either the God of the Bible is not really omnipotent/omniscient (and can actually have his decisions influenced by us), or he is only pretending when he "changes his mind" (as in, he already knew all along what he was going to do, but he leads us to believe that we had some kind of impact on him).

I don't get how an omniscient/omnipotent God could be convinced of something? Anyone who tries to convince God of something, God already knows from the beginning what it is that they were going to say anyway, so how could it really make a difference?

[jmdrake]

If there exists a truly omnipotent God, then there is no logical difference between reality and God's will. The two are equivalent. Any event that does occur, can only have occurred because God allowed it to. Any event that does not occur, did not occur because God did not want or allow it to occur. Any kind of free will outside of God's own free will would be a limitation on his omnipotence.

It's just like the question, "Can (an omnipotent) God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" The answer is no because it is a logical contradiction. The question "Can (an omnipotent) God create something with a free will that he does not control?" is the exact same thing.

You're only thinking in 4 dimensions. Expand your thinking to the 5th dimension. An omnipotent God could allow multiple or even an infinite number of realities to occur. He could limit Himself to only interfering sometimes or even never interfering at all. An omnipotent God can have both a permissive will (what He allows to happen) and a perfect will (what He would prefer to have happen). This really is not the same question as "can God create a rock He cannot lift." Even from a 4 dimension perspective there are times that I allow my children to make choices that I would rather they not make. I could force them to make a particular choice but I don't. That doesn't mean that I couldn't or that the choice that I allowed them to make was "my will." Then there are some choices they might want to make that I put my foot down and don't let them make.

[Crashland]

You're only thinking in 4 dimensions. Expand your thinking to the 5th dimension. An omnipotent God could allow multiple or even an infinite number of realities to occur. He could limit Himself to only interfering sometimes or even never interfering at all. An omnipotent God can have both a permissive will (what He allows to happen) and a perfect will (what He would prefer to have happen). This really is not the same question as "can God create a rock He cannot lift." Even from a 4 dimension perspective there are times that I allow my children to make choices that I would rather they not make. I could force them to make a particular choice but I don't. That doesn't mean that I couldn't or that the choice that I allowed them to make was "my will." Then there are some choices they might want to make that I put my foot down and don't let them make.

There could be an infinite number of realities, sure. I am only talking about this one. Anything in those other realities have no bearing on this one.

When you suggest that God can limit himself, how is that different from the question of God creating a rock he can't lift? Can God choose to limit himself in such a way that he does not have total control over the rock? No, he can't. Can God choose to limit himself such that he does not have total control over anything? No. If he did, then he would no longer have the attribute of being omnipotent. You can't be both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time. Omnipotence means total control, absolute power. Anything less than that is not omnipotence.

A parent can have a both a permissive will and a "preference" will for their child. The reason that this is possible at all is because the parent does not have total control of the child's will. This is not true for God. If God is omnipotent, then he has the power to make you feel happy, sad, angry, stubborn, or anything that he wants. Anything that you feel or choice that you make is a direct result of God creating in the way that he did and not some other way. If he is omniscient, then he knew before all of creation exactly how you would feel and how you would act for every second of every day for your whole life. There are an infinite number of ways that God could have created. He chose to create this exact reality, the one in which you make all of the decisions the way you do in this reality.

[jmdrake]

There could be an infinite number of realities, sure. I am only talking about this one. Anything in those other realities have no bearing on this one.

Are you sure about that? One explanation of the Schoerdinger's cat thought experiment is that the experiment itself causes two separate realities to exist. And with quantum entanglement and all that good stuff. Like Ronin Truth said, nobody really fully understand QM.

When you suggest that God can limit himself, how is that different from the question of God creating a rock he can't lift? Can God choose to limit himself in such a way that he does not have total control over the rock? No, he can't. Can God choose to limit himself such that he does not have total control over anything? No.

Can God delegate certain things to control of others? Yes. Yes He can. Your saying He can't doesn't mean that He can't. Don't get hung up on your own "rock" thought experiment. It's actually not valid. The fact that I can choose to force my son to play the trumpet instead of the trombone doesn't mean that if I allow him to play the trombone I'm the one that chose for him to play the trombone instead of the trumpet.

If he did, then he would no longer have the attribute of being omnipotent.

That's simply a fallacious argument easily disproved by the parent child relationship. Again, I could force my child to play the trombone. I have the "power". I could "force" him to play the tuba. I have the "power". By delegating that choice to him I have not given up the power to override his choice.

You can't be both omnipotent and not omnipotent at the same time.

You can be omnipotent and delegate responsibility for certain choices to others. I'm not sure why that's such a hard concept for some people.

Omnipotence means total control, absolute power. Anything less than that is not omnipotence.

No it doesn't. You're making up your own definition. Having the power to intervene doesn't mean that you must intervene in everything. Think of it this way. If you were granted omnipotence does that mean that you had to control what color socks I put on? No.

A parent can have a both a permissive will and a "preference" will for their child. The reason that this is possible at all is because the parent does not have total control of the child's will.

Wrong. Again the tuba / trombone example. Since I'm the one with the money, I have total control of the kind of instrument my child will play. I could force him to play the instrument I wanted him to play. At the very least without control over his will, I could prevent him from playing an instrument I didn't want him to play. If I delegate that decision to him whether or not I have "control" over his will is irrelevant.

[Crashland]

Are you sure about that? One explanation of the Schoerdinger's cat thought experiment is that the experiment itself causes two separate realities to exist. And with quantum entanglement and all that good stuff. Like Ronin Truth said, nobody really fully understand QM.

I'm with you there.

Can God delegate certain things to control of others? Yes. Yes He can. Your saying He can't doesn't mean that He can't. Don't get hung up on your own "rock" thought experiment. It's actually not valid. The fact that I can choose to force my son to play the trumpet instead of the trombone doesn't mean that if I allow him to play the trombone I'm the one that chose for him to play the trombone instead of the trumpet.

It would mean that you chose it if you were the one who had the omnipotent power to create him with any preference, and chose to create him in the way such that he would prefer to choose the trombone. With that fact in consideration, the child would still feel like he has a choice. It is a real choice from the child's perspective, but it is an illusion because his very decision-making faculties were pre-determined, and his choice is already known.

That's simply a fallacious argument easily disproved by the parent child relationship. Again, I could force my child to play the trombone. I have the "power". I could "force" him to play the tuba. I have the "power". By delegating that choice to him I have not given up the power to override his choice.

The parent-child example is not an appropriate analogy because the parent only has *some* power. The parent did not craft the child's soul as God would have crafted all of ours.

No it doesn't. You're making up your own definition. Having the power to intervene doesn't mean that you must intervene in everything. Think of it this way. If you were granted omnipotence does that mean that you had to control what color socks I put on? No.

There is no need to "intervene" in anything. An omnipotent, omniscient God can't ever be caught by surprise by anything. Any possible event that might warrant an "intervention" would have been known when God created. God still chose to create everything the way he did knowing all this. God would see the entire creation, past present and future, and it would all be known from the beginning. You pointed out earlier that I am only thinking in 4 dimensions, but you are the one making that mistake.

[jmdrake]

I'm with you there.

Okay.

It would mean that you chose it if you were the one who had the omnipotent power to create him with any preference, and chose to create him in the way such that he would prefer to choose the trombone. With that fact in consideration, the child would still feel like he has a choice. It is a real choice from the child's perspective, but it is an illusion because his very decision-making faculties were pre-determined, and his choice is already known.

Unless you created him with the power of choice. Humans are attempting to create robots with the power of choice. Humans are greater than God in your opinion? Further from a quantum viewpoint all choices happen. So God in a quantum multiverse isn't dictating the choice. In one universe I put on white socks today. In another universe I put on black socks. In another universe I went barefoot. In another universe, years ago I volunteered for the first Gulf war, stepped on a land mine and lost both my legs so I don't wear any socks.

The parent-child example is not an appropriate analogy because the parent only has *some* power. The parent did not craft the child's soul as God would have crafted all of ours.

You're assuming the each soul was "hand crafted" by God. God having the power to "hand craft" souls doesn't mean God is required to "hand craft" souls any more than the fact that I can choose to by a trombone means that I have to buy a trombone just because I personally prefer trombone music.

There is no need to "intervene" in anything. An omnipotent, omniscient God can't ever be caught by surprise by anything. Any possible event that might warrant an "intervention" would have been known when God created. God still chose to create everything the way he did knowing all this. God would see the entire creation, past present and future, and it would all be known from the beginning. You pointed out earlier that I am only thinking in 4 dimensions, but you are the one making that mistake.

Nope. I'm not making the mistake at all. You're looking at this wrong. An omnipotent, omniscient God can decide to allow for outcomes that are not His preference. And that's especially true if multiple outcomes happen anyway in multiple universes. Again consider the socks that I put on today. I sincerely doubt God has a preference for me wearing white socks or black socks. So it's quite possible that in the multiverse scheme of things God doesn't choose to intervene in that decision. But compare that to Herod's decision to try to kill baby Jesus. That decision required intervention. So there is no universe where Herod killed baby Jesus. God intervened. The intervention may be different in different universes, but intervention was required. How do we know this? Well the Bible recorded the intervention God made in this universe. (Sending an angel to warn the wise men and to warn Joseph). Now one might say "Well what about the babies that were killed? Did God want them dead? Surely He could have intervened." I believe there very well could be universes where those babies didn't did that night for whatever reason. That's just the way the dice rolled. Their deaths or survival didn't not disrupt God's ultimate will the way the premature death of the messiah would have.

[Deborah K]

I don't know about sorrow or anger, but a God who is both omnipotent and omniscient could not be convinced of something, or feel regret. The God of the Bible does do all those things. So either the God of the Bible is not really omnipotent/omniscient (and can actually have his decisions influenced by us), or he is only pretending when he "changes his mind" (as in, he already knew all along what he was going to do, but he leads us to believe that we had some kind of impact on him).

I don't get how an omniscient/omnipotent God could be convinced of something? Anyone who tries to convince God of something, God already knows from the beginning what it is that they were going to say anyway, so how could it really make a difference?

I think, that our own limitations and understanding of God and the Universe make it difficult for us to conceive of an omnipotent God who can be convinced, or have regrets. That we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I used to have a problem with it. A few years back I decided to read the Bible from start to finish and when I read in Samuel that God regretted making Saul King, I put a bunch of question marks next to that verse. I did it again while reading in Job that he let Satan convince him to take over Job's future. But, after having read the Bible and studied it in its entirety, I have found a peace I never had before because I can now accept things I don't understand. I don't have to understand everything in order to feel happy and good, and safe. And, I know that it's because reading the Bible has deepened my faith. There is a reason for why the Bible has been the most widely read book for so many centuries. It's because those who actually make it a priority to read and study it ALL, are profoundly changed. It's a shame that most Christians don't even read it. And yet it is the earth's go-to source for understanding God.

We humans are so, so far from understanding and really knowing truth. And I feel empathy for those who believe that absence of evidence means God (or whatever else) doesn't or can't exist. I'm grateful explorers, pioneers, inventors, visionaries, and the like don't think that way. I'm glad I don't think like that anymore, either.

[Crashland]

Unless you created him with the power of choice. Humans are attempting to create robots with the power of choice. Humans are greater than God in your opinion? Further from a quantum viewpoint all choices happen. So God in a quantum multiverse isn't dictating the choice. In one universe I put on white socks today. In another universe I put on black socks. In another universe I went barefoot. In another universe, years ago I volunteered for the first Gulf war, stepped on a land mine and lost both my legs so I don't wear any socks.

What does it mean to create something with the power of choice? Does God not know what choices people are going to make? It is like there's only one way to create a person with free choice, and God just sees the result and says well I guess that's the way it had to be? There can't be only one way to create someone with free choice, because there are billions of us with this free choice and we all make different choices. Does God have a random number generator and create all of us with a different seed number? Even that wouldn't matter if God already knows the outcome of every possible seed.

The quantum/multiverse is an interesting concept. Wouldn't God still have to be above that though, as in, create the multiverse?

You're assuming the each soul was "hand crafted" by God. God having the power to "hand craft" souls doesn't mean God is required to "hand craft" souls any more than the fact that I can choose to by a trombone means that I have to buy a trombone just because I personally prefer trombone music.

Maybe God likes the modern art. He splashed some paint around randomly :-P
I guess what I am having a hard time with is this idea that an omnipotent God can be imprecise. It's like with a human soul, does God just close his eyes and form something, and after it's done he looks at it and says, well I have the power to change it but I have decided I'm always going to go with how it came out initially. That doesn't compute for me because it would be impossible for God not to know exactly what he was forming even with his eyes closed :-P

[jmdrake]

What does it mean to create something with the power of choice? Does God not know what choices people are going to make? It is like there's only one way to create a person with free choice, and God just sees the result and says well I guess that's the way it had to be? There can't be only one way to create someone with free choice, because there are billions of us with this free choice and we all make different choices. Does God have a random number generator and create all of us with a different seed number? Even that wouldn't matter if God already knows the outcome of every possible seed.

The quantum/multiverse is an interesting concept. Wouldn't God still have to be above that though, as in, create the multiverse?

Question. Why does God have to directly create everything throughout all of eternity in order to be God? There is a computer program called "Conway's game of life". You start off "creating" lifeforms on a grid and press "go". Then the generations multiply and patterns emerge. And yes. In my idea of the multiverse, God sits above it and all possible outcomes, within a limited scope, happen. Okay, let's push the idea a bit further. Say if God could create everything and then wish Himself out of existence. Again we're going with a "thought experiment" and not "theology". Under that circumstance would you still say there was only an "illusion" of choice? I'm going somewhere with this.

Maybe God likes the modern art. He splashed some paint around randomly :-P
I guess what I am having a hard time with is this idea that an omnipotent God can be imprecise. It's like with a human soul, does God just close his eyes and form something, and after it's done he looks at it and says, well I have the power to change it but I have decided I'm always going to go with how it came out initially. That doesn't compute for me because it would be impossible for God not to know exactly what he was forming even with his eyes closed :-P

I think were are using two different concepts of a creative God. It sounds like you are talking about a God that individually creates each human, plant, animal etc. I can see that coming from the whole "God formed me in my mother's womb" idea from the Psalms. I take that metaphorically as opposed to literally. Some babies are born deformed. I call that the effect of a messed up world after sin. I believe God created the DNA design that forms and reforms with each generation. So in my worldview, God got this all started, told living things to "be fruitful and multiply", watched the process unfold, and intervened at key points when necessary to make sure His ultimate will was not thwarted. In the multiverse I've expounded on that idea to believe that different events have unfolded/are unfolding differently in different universes with His ultimate will still in tact. The souls saved and lost in one universe are not the same souls saved and lost in another. I'd like to think that in the next life I would get to mind meld with the me's from all the different universes to know what each me experienced. Okay...I know that sounds hokey. But it seems cool to me.

[Crashland]

Question. Why does God have to directly create everything throughout all of eternity in order to be God? There is a computer program called "Conway's game of life". You start off "creating" lifeforms on a grid and press "go". Then the generations multiply and patterns emerge. And yes. In my idea of the multiverse, God sits above it and all possible outcomes, within a limited scope, happen. Okay, let's push the idea a bit further. Say if God could create everything and then wish Himself out of existence. Again we're going with a "thought experiment" and not "theology". Under that circumstance would you still say there was only an "illusion" of choice? I'm going somewhere with this.

Nice, I am familiar with "Conway's game of life". It's very cool.
If God wished himself out of existence, I suppose I would still think that there is only an illusion of choice. So I'll invite you to continue your thought.

I think were are using two different concepts of a creative God. It sounds like you are talking about a God that individually creates each human, plant, animal etc. I can see that coming from the whole "God formed me in my mother's womb" idea from the Psalms. I take that metaphorically as opposed to literally. Some babies are born deformed. I call that the effect of a messed up world after sin. I believe God created the DNA design that forms and reforms with each generation. So in my worldview, God got this all started, told living things to "be fruitful and multiply", watched the process unfold, and intervened at key points when necessary to make sure His ultimate will was not thwarted. In the multiverse I've expounded on that idea to believe that different events have unfolded/are unfolding differently in different universes with His ultimate will still in tact. The souls saved and lost in one universe are not the same souls saved and lost in another. I'd like to think that in the next life I would get to mind meld with the me's from all the different universes to know what each me experienced. Okay...I know that sounds hokey. But it seems cool to me.

I think you're right, we are using different concepts of God. I will say the "mother's womb" thing from Psalms had crossed my mind, but I am ultimately deriving the notion just from the omnipotent and omniscient nature of God. I can see where you're coming from though, especially with the Conway example. However even with Conway's game of life, for any particular starting position, there is only one possible course of events that can follow, which God would have already known. If God had wanted it any other way down the line, he would have chosen a slightly different starting configuration, or perhaps altered the rules of the game.

I do think your perspective could be consistent with an omnipotent God. However I don't think it is consistent with an omnipotent God who is also omniscient and outside of time. I know the thread was originally only about omnipotence, so I am kind of inserting this element, but I think most Christians do hold that God has both attributes.

[Crashland]

...and, I just had to post this

[LibertyRevolution]

If the universe began in a singularity, and matter is quantum entangled, then all mater in the universe would be entangled, so we should be connected to everything everywhere simultaneously.
The only thing stopping us from realizing it before death is the limitations of our consciousness..

[Crashland]

I think, that our own limitations and understanding of God and the Universe make it difficult for us to conceive of an omnipotent God who can be convinced, or have regrets. That we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I used to have a problem with it. A few years back I decided to read the Bible from start to finish and when I read in Samuel that God regretted making Saul King, I put a bunch of question marks next to that verse. I did it again while reading in Job that he let Satan convince him to take over Job's future. But, after having read the Bible and studied it in its entirety, I have found a peace I never had before because I can now accept things I don't understand. I don't have to understand everything in order to feel happy and good, and safe. And, I know that it's because reading the Bible has deepened my faith. There is a reason for why the Bible has been the most widely read book for so many centuries. It's because those who actually make it a priority to read and study it ALL, are profoundly changed. It's a shame that most Christians don't even read it. And yet it is the earth's go-to source for understanding God.

The first time I read through the Bible in its entirety I think I was too young for most of it to sink in or to think too deeply about it. Later on I gave it another go, although that time it didn't exactly have the same effect on me as it did on you. By that point though I was already a bit into questioning my faith.

We humans are so, so far from understanding and really knowing truth. And I feel empathy for those who believe that absence of evidence means God (or whatever else) doesn't or can't exist. I'm grateful explorers, pioneers, inventors, visionaries, and the like don't think that way. I'm glad I don't think like that anymore, either.

Well, it would be a mistake to say that absence of evidence means that something can't exist. But it is also a mistake to believe in something before there is evidence for it. Humans can never be 100% certain of anything. The best we can do is believe what we think is likely to be true based on the available information, and not believing in things because of wishful thinking or stubbornness. Some (but not all) Christians do this. And some (but not all) non-Christians do this.

[jmdrake]

I think, that our own limitations and understanding of God and the Universe make it difficult for us to conceive of an omnipotent God who can be convinced, or have regrets. That we don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't possible. I used to have a problem with it. A few years back I decided to read the Bible from start to finish and when I read in Samuel that God regretted making Saul King, I put a bunch of question marks next to that verse. I did it again while reading in Job that he let Satan convince him to take over Job's future. But, after having read the Bible and studied it in its entirety, I have found a peace I never had before because I can now accept things I don't understand. I don't have to understand everything in order to feel happy and good, and safe. And, I know that it's because reading the Bible has deepened my faith. There is a reason for why the Bible has been the most widely read book for so many centuries. It's because those who actually make it a priority to read and study it ALL, are profoundly changed. It's a shame that most Christians don't even read it. And yet it is the earth's go-to source for understanding God.

We humans are so, so far from understanding and really knowing truth. And I feel empathy for those who believe that absence of evidence means God (or whatever else) doesn't or can't exist. I'm grateful explorers, pioneers, inventors, visionaries, and the like don't think that way. I'm glad I don't think like that anymore, either.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deborah K again.

[jmdrake]

Nice, I am familiar with "Conway's game of life". It's very cool.
If God wished himself out of existence, I suppose I would still think that there is only an illusion of choice. So I'll invite you to continue your thought.

Okay. Cool. So let's say God never existed. Do you believe under that condition choice is still an illusion? After all if your taking the deterministic point of view you still have a finite number of states regardless of whether or not an intelligent being set those states in motion.

I think you're right, we are using different concepts of God. I will say the "mother's womb" thing from Psalms had crossed my mind, but I am ultimately deriving the notion just from the omnipotent and omniscient nature of God. I can see where you're coming from though, especially with the Conway example. However even with Conway's game of life, for any particular starting position, there is only one possible course of events that can follow, which God would have already known. If God had wanted it any other way down the line, he would have chosen a slightly different starting configuration, or perhaps altered the rules of the game.

I do think your perspective could be consistent with an omnipotent God. However I don't think it is consistent with an omnipotent God who is also omniscient and outside of time. I know the thread was originally only about omnipotence, so I am kind of inserting this element, but I think most Christians do hold that God has both attributes.

Except I'm talking about an omnipotent, omniscient God outside of time and space. Back to the Conway's game of Life example, if I dictate that all possible starting positions conceivable run simultaneously have I dictated any particular outcome?

[jmdrake]

...and, I just had to post this

Thanks for posting that. Really cool stuff! That drove me to want to play the game again. Thankfully with the modern web I no longer have to download and install it.

http://pmav.eu/stuff/javascript-game-of-life-v3.1.1/

Interestingly enough it's just like I remember. I lack the patience to figure out how to design any interesting patterns like glider guns. If I do a random run I'll see a lot of static shapes and blinkers. Gliders will pop off. But eventually everything settles to statics and blinkers. That's a good illustration of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (And a good argument for intelligent design. Sadly when it comes to Conway's game of life I'm not nearly as intelligent as other designers. )

Edit: And I have to say that even though we believe different things in general and don't agree on the topic of this thread in particular, it's been a most pleasant conversation.

[jmdrake]

If the universe began in a singularity, and matter is quantum entangled, then all mater in the universe would be entangled, so we should be connected to everything everywhere simultaneously.
The only thing stopping us from realizing it before death is the limitations of our consciousness..

+rep

[Crashland]

Okay. Cool. So let's say God never existed. Do you believe under that condition choice is still an illusion? After all if your taking the deterministic point of view you still have a finite number of states regardless of whether or not an intelligent being set those states in motion.

Yes you are right. I have a deterministic point of view regardless of whether God ever existed, but for different reasons. If God does exist, then the possibility of breaking the natural laws (the "supernatural") exists, which would mean that the natural laws by themselves do not account for every event. However all this has done is to push it back another level -- the omnipotent God accounts for every event because God is responsible for both the natural laws, as well as all of the times when the natural laws are broken. Either way it is deterministic.

Except I'm talking about an omnipotent, omniscient God outside of time and space. Back to the Conway's game of Life example, if I dictate that all possible starting positions conceivable run simultaneously have I dictated any particular outcome?

No, I suppose not. I'll have to say, this is the first time I have had a discussion on this topic with a theist in the context of quantum physics or the multiverse, which really fudges up the 'normal' course of discussion. I think the reason why our two viewpoints are incompatible, is that in your theory on how the multiverse can work, it already assumes non-determinism because the existence of true non-deterministic choices are what essentially creates the different universes in the multiverse in the first place. Although, it would still seem deterministic from the perspective of an observer inside any one of those universes.


One other point though that should go without saying, when I talk about believing in determinism, that choice as an illusion,...etc, that is not to say that we should act as if we have no control over our choices. Even if it is true, in a practical sense, society would break down if we did that. If choice is an illusion, it's a damn good one, and it's one that we need.

[Ronin Truth]

“The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we … kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.” -- Bill Hicks

//

[jmdrake]

Yes you are right. I have a deterministic point of view regardless of whether God ever existed, but for different reasons. If God does exist, then the possibility of breaking the natural laws (the "supernatural") exists, which would mean that the natural laws by themselves do not account for every event. However all this has done is to push it back another level -- the omnipotent God accounts for every event because God is responsible for both the natural laws, as well as all of the times when the natural laws are broken. Either way it is deterministic.

Yeah. I began to suspect that when any possible view of God I presented produced the same answer. It's interesting some time about when I was arguing with Sola_Fide about predestination (and he took the same "God must predestine everything since He is omnipotent and omniscient" point of view you're espousing), an atheist piped in with the syllogism "If God exists then man cannot have freewill. I have freewill. Therefore God cannot exist." I pointed out that I had recently taken a course on neuroscience and law and that one of the professors had taken the position that the brain was a deterministic machine and there was no free will. This was being presented from a purely atheistic/agnostic, scientific point of view. I even linked to my notes and the atheist claimed I was lying. Anyway during the course he talked about an experiment where the researcher told people to randomly put their hand up at some point in time. The brain area that moved the hand showed activity before the brain area where conscious thought occurs. So the conclusion was that freewill was not involved in the action. I asked him "But couldn't someone decide I'm not going to move my hand at all and not move his hand?" He said "Of course. Maybe there's not free will but there is a free won't." And he explained that some scientists had already postulated that theory.

No, I suppose not. I'll have to say, this is the first time I have had a discussion on this topic with a theist in the context of quantum physics or the multiverse, which really fudges up the 'normal' course of discussion. I think the reason why our two viewpoints are incompatible, is that in your theory on how the multiverse can work, it already assumes non-determinism because the existence of true non-deterministic choices are what essentially creates the different universes in the multiverse in the first place. Although, it would still seem deterministic from the perspective of an observer inside any one of those universes.

Well I have to give others the credit for getting my brain going in this direction. An ex girlfriend once told me her theory that there were an infinite number of dimensions and that God was what occupied dimension infinity. And GunnyFreedom once gave his idea that God saw all possibilities and actuated this particular one. But I'm the only one that I know of that has articulated my particular theory. And yes, you have stated my theory correctly. Of course it's just a theory. I neither expect to win a Nobel prize for physics or an honorary doctor of divinity for it.

One other point though that should go without saying, when I talk about believing in determinism, that choice as an illusion,...etc, that is not to say that we should act as if we have no control over our choices. Even if it is true, in a practical sense, society would break down if we did that. If choice is an illusion, it's a damn good one, and it's one that we need.

Well the idea that we "need" this illusion kind of speaks to the idea of a belief in at least the possibility of non-determinism. Think about it. Maybe what the universe "needs" is a little chaos.


“Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos, I’m an agent of chaos , and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair.”

I know that if the universe is meaningless.. that’s a joke at our expense. If it’s meaningful… a different joke. Any meaning we make ourselves that’s us pretending we’re in on it.

The Joker

[Crashland]

Yeah. I began to suspect that when any possible view of God I presented produced the same answer. It's interesting some time about when I was arguing with Sola_Fide about predestination (and he took the same "God must predestine everything since He is omnipotent and omniscient" point of view you're espousing), an atheist piped in with the syllogism "If God exists then man cannot have freewill. I have freewill. Therefore God cannot exist." I pointed out that I had recently taken a course on neuroscience and law and that one of the professors had taken the position that the brain was a deterministic machine and there was no free will. This was being presented from a purely atheistic/agnostic, scientific point of view. I even linked to my notes and the atheist claimed I was lying. Anyway during the course he talked about an experiment where the researcher told people to randomly put their hand up at some point in time. The brain area that moved the hand showed activity before the brain area where conscious thought occurs. So the conclusion was that freewill was not involved in the action. I asked him "But couldn't someone decide I'm not going to move my hand at all and not move his hand?" He said "Of course. Maybe there's not free will but there is a free won't." And he explained that some scientists had already postulated that theory.

I would contend that the thought "popping" into your head to even consider not moving your hand at all, is also a natural chemical process in the brain that is outside of your own control. Whenever someone asks you a question and you come up with an idea, did you make that idea come into your head? For me, an idea coming into my head is something that I experience and react to, not something that I am necessarily responsible for. So I would contend that regardless of whether I was going to be one of the random hand-raisers, or if I had thought to not raise my hand at all, it would still be the result of natural processes in my brain.

Or to put it another way with a thought exercise -- you know that little voice in your head when you talk to yourself? Try just talking to yourself in your head for a bit, look around the room, observing the things around you...etc. Are you really controlling what words are popping into your head?

Well I have to give others the credit for getting my brain going in this direction. An ex girlfriend once told me her theory that there were an infinite number of dimensions and that God was what occupied dimension infinity. And GunnyFreedom once gave his idea that God saw all possibilities and actuated this particular one. But I'm the only one that I know of that has articulated my particular theory. And yes, you have stated my theory correctly. Of course it's just a theory. I neither expect to win a Nobel prize for physics or an honorary doctor of divinity for it.

Well, it's fun to think about.