Does it matter whether or not God intervenes in the universe?

[Boojatta]

Some Deists claim that God would not have created a universe so imperfect as to require intervention. However, what if God created a supernatural, intelligent machine that was designed to occasionally intervene? In that case, you could say that, as the creator of the machine, God indirectly intervenes.

Of course, no human being has the ability to distinguish between an action performed by God and an action performed by a supernatural, intelligent machine. So the question arises: what difference does it make whether an action was performed directly by God or by a supernatural, intelligent machine that God created?

Perhaps the whole train of thought is based on a faulty concept of perfection. In a perfect economy, would human beings design and build robots, but otherwise not work?

[Orrex]

1. Sure it would matter

If God or a metaphysically equivalent supernatural meddler were to intervene in the functioning of the universe, then all empirical observation--past, present, or future, would be forever invalidated.

Beyond that, I don't know that it would make much of a difference.

[Boojatta]

5. "then all empirical observation--past, present, or future, would be forever invalidated."

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[Orrex]

6. Because once an omnipotent actor has acted, all bets are off. Forever.

If you allow that an omnipotent meddler can meddle, then there's no way to verify that any observation is valid. Every single moment, from the beginning of the universe to the end, is potentially a fabrication by the meddler. Heck, the universe could have come into existence right this very second, with all "prior" events being an elaborate fiction.

I suppose that one could argue that empirical observation would still work in terms of describing the fallout of the meddler's meddling, but that throws us back about 800 years, when natural philosophy was intended to describe God's work, rather than to describe the underlying function of the universe.

[Boojatta]

9. There are human meddlers.

If there are human meddlers who have enough meddling skill to meddle without being detected by scientists, then are all observations invalidated?

Doesn't a space shuttle ordinarily have several computers simultaneously and independently performing the same calculation? If all but one agree upon the result, then the typical conclusion would be that one computer malfunctioned, not that we can never trust computers.

[Orrex]

11. Comparisons between a human meddler and an omnipotent meddler are meaningless

We can account for a suspected human meddler via a host of mechanisms. We cannot account for an omnipotent meddler. Once that meddler is known to exist--a fact which, I hasten to add, can only be known at the meddler's whim--we can never state with any confidence that any observation is valid.


Your example of the space shuttle computers is likewise meaningless. For one thing, it's far too small a sample size. For another thing, it's far too vague and open-ended.

What is the nature of the error? How many times has the error occurred? What mechanisms exist by which the error can be assessed? What are the consequences of the error? All of these factors must be weighed before we can even conclude "that one computer malfunctioned."

[Boojatta]

13. "Once that meddler is known to exist"

I don't see how ignorance of the existence of something can be a secret ingredient that makes it possible for people to achieve the important goal of verifying that observations are valid.

Also, I don't see a connection between intervention and "meddling" (presuming that by "meddling" you mean deception). An event is real regardless of whether it is caused by natural or supernatural agency.

[Orrex]

14. Your first sentence assumes the existence of the supernatural meddler

I don't see how ignorance of the existence of something can be a secret ingredient that makes it possible for people to achieve the important goal of verifying that observations are valid.

One can't be ignorant of the existence of something that doesn't exist, so the only way your objection makes any sense is if we assume outright that the meddler exists, in which case all other observations are suspect.

However, if we have no basis for allowing that the supernatural meddler exists, then the meddler's nonexistence is hardly "a secret ingredient" at all. It's simply the recognition that a particular hypothetical factor is not relevant to a particular observation.

Also, I don't see a connection between intervention and "meddling" (presuming that by "meddling" you mean deception). An event is real regardless of whether it is caused by natural or supernatural agency.

Suppose that we have reasonable basis for allowing the existence of the meddler. Then:
1. If an observed event would occur differently absent the intervention of the meddler, then the meddler has meddled.
2. In any case, we have no basis for concluding that the meddler has not meddled in a given event.
3. Therefore, we have no way to know how the event would occur absent the intervention of the meddler.
4. Additionally, assuming we learn of the meddler's existence at some future point, we have no basis for concluding that the meddler hasn't meddled in prior events, and we have no way of assessing the validity of observations re: those events.

If we have no reasonable basis for allowing the existence of the meddler, then:
1. We have no reason to suspect that the meddler has meddled in an observed event.
2. We have no reason to wonder how the event might have occurred differently because of the meddler's meddling.

I disagree that "an event is real regardless of whether it is caused by a natural or supernatural agency," because in the latter case we have no way of making verifiable empirical observations about the event. An event caused by a natural agency can be said to be "real" insofar as we are able to assess the event empirically. An event caused by a supernatural agency can't be said to be "real" because we are not able to assess the event empirically; we are only able to assess the outcome of the event, because the supernatural agency is beyond our ability to observe.

Even assuming that the meddler allows itself to be observed, we have no basis for concluding that these observations are valid.

[Boojatta]

16. Is it rare and unusual for something to be beyond our ability to observe?

An event caused by a supernatural agency can't be said to be "real" because we are not able to assess the event empirically; we are only able to assess the outcome of the event, because the supernatural agency is beyond our ability to observe.

This may seem ridiculous to you, but I think there's a three-way distinction:
1. cause of an event
2. the event itself
3. consequences of the event

I don't see how, on the assumption that the cause of an event is beyond our ability to observe, you conclude that the event itself is "not real."

[hughee99]

8. I'm not sure why this would necessarily be the case...

it would depend on how the supernatural meddler intervened. If this entity wanted to make a mountain disappear and they were "all powerful" they could defy all the laws of the universe and simply *poof* make it disappear.

Of course, this entity could, hundreds of years earlier, inspire someone to come up with a technology whose eventual development and use would cause mankind to level this mountain so they could build an airport, or strip it bare for the coal, or rip it apart to use as landfill, and no physical, or thermodynamic laws are violated in the process.

But then, if the entity had the power to invalidate these laws, then were they really "laws" to begin with?

On edit: I guess this goes with your question in Post 7 below about whether god is supernatural or bound by the laws of the universe.

[Orrex]

12. Your edit sums it up

Let's consider your example of inspiration. If there is no way to identify that the inspiration was supernatural in origin, then there is no basis for concluding that this is the case. We are left with something indistinguishable from a mundane instance of inspiration, no matter how astonishing the outcome.


The underlying question of "how can we know?" is very similar to a question I've posed here before: if you accept the reality of one supernatural phenomenon, on what basis do you conclude that any other supernatural phenomenon is real or not? If, for instance, you believe that ghosts are actual manifestations of the spirits of the dead--a belief for which there is no empirical evidence--you have no basis to object when I make any other supernatural claim. You have, in essence, said "no evidence is necessary," and you've abandoned the best mechanism you have for assessing reality.

Of course, you might take the diplomatic position that "I believe that you believe it," but that's just a patronizing way of saying that you don't actually believe it. And then we have to ask on what basis you reject it.


The same is true of the supernatural meddler. Once the meddler's meddling is revealed, no subsequent claim can be made without potentially being compromised by the meddler. At the very least, no claim of an observed one-time phenomenon can ever be rejected, because the claimant can always blame it on the meddler.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

2. The basic assumption there -

that of a "god" makes me close down right from the get-go................

[saltpoint]

3. This is a complex and beautiful question.

I hope people might want to weigh in on whether it is their personal vision of intervention that matters or whether they could be a pilgrim and accept intervention in various forms, including forms they find comfort in as well as form which have some odd or disturbing component.

I like the emphasis in the question on 'intervention' even before it takes flight. It would be interesting to hear what people feel constitutes the likelihood -- or absence -- of intervention by deities.

Thank you, Boojatta. I hope a huge garden grows from your rich original seed here.

Recommended.

[JDPriestly]

4. If God does it, it's natural, not supernatural, it's part of the world.

God is not supernatural. God is all powerful and present everywhere. Some might even say that God at least defines nature, creates nature and perhaps is nature itself.

God is not a person. God is not limited by the dimensions of space and time. Those dimensions are a function of human thought, and human thought is very limited. God is the energy or power that is beyond human understanding. That's what we mean when we speak of God. So, intervention is not the correct word or concept in my view. It is too limiting. It isn't that God intervenes. It is that God is.

[Orrex]

7. You've set up a contradiction

God is not supernatural. God is all powerful and present everywhere.

If God is not supernatural, then God is subject to natural law and is therefore not all-powerful.

Conversely, if God is all-powerful, then God is not subject to natural law and is therefore not natural.

Can't have it both ways.


Additionally, if you argue that God is beyond such petty logical conundrums, then you've likewise declared that God is not natural.

[JDPriestly]

17. We define "natural" within the confines of what we can see and

feel and hear -- what we can perceive with our senses. But our perception is extremely limited. It is highly unlikely that the natural world in the sense of the world as it really is is as we perceive or believe or can think it to be. That is because of the limitations on our ability to perceive. So, much of what people think is supernatural is actually a part of the natural world that humans cannot understand.

I have a worm bin. The natural world as perceived by my worms is even more limited than the natural world as I perceive it.

My view does not negate science. It merely accepts the fact that human perception is limited and that therefore what we call science is a limited understanding of reality.

The "supernatural" (and I am talking about phenomenon that we cannot explain but that is real and not imagined) exists. But there is nothing so extraordinary about it. My worms do not know where their food comes from. In fact, I give it to them. They simply find it and believe it is natural to have it. They would "think" to the extent they can that some natural disaster had occurred to devastate their food source if I stopped feeding them.

God is not subject to natural law. God is natural law. We cannot know God or natural law completely because our minds and our ability to perceive are too limited. There is the natural law that humans can perceive and understand, but there is natural law beyond that. We call what we cannot perceive and understand "supernatural," but in fact it is all natural. We just can't understand it. Our ability to understand grows and grows as we extend our ability to perceive through artificial intelligence, tools and spiritual practices of various kinds.

[Orrex]

20. It's a mistake to limit the natural world to what we perceive directly with our senses

We have a huge array of tools and devices enabling us to examine the natural world far beyond the feeble limitations of our senses. We can "see" X-rays from the other side of the galaxy; we can "hear" the shape of the sea floor; we can "smell" the difference between two samples of blood. Your attempt to equate the supernatural with "stuff we can't directly perceive or explain" (my paraphrase) is simply a rehashing of the tired old "God of the gaps" fallacy.

In equating God with natural law, you are changing Boojatta's question, unless you can demonstrate that natural law is "intelligent" in some way that doesn't require a further trick of equivocation or semantics.

In claiming that the "supernatural" is just a part of the wider, unperceived "natural" world, you are making a statement of faith that you can't back up with empirical evidence. In addition, you're simply underscoring my point upthread that a belief in one professed aspect of the supernatural undermines one's disbelief in any other professed aspect of the supernatural. Someone can always claim "I'm right, but you just can't perceive it," which is rhetorically equivalent to multiplying both sides by zero.

Let me pin you down on one other point:

The "supernatural" (and I am talking about phenomenon that we cannot explain but that is real and not imagined) exists.

If you experience a phenomenon that you can't explain, then how can you claim that your experience of the phenomenon is accurate and correct. Can you give me an example of such a supernatural phenomenon?

Ultimately, I'd say that you're using an artificially broad definition of "supernatural" so that you can include whatever you want to include, by relying on The Great Unknown to bail you out, rhetorically speaking.

[JDPriestly]

22. I think you should use the word "perceivable" instead of "natural."

"Natural" excludes too much. As for the word "God," it pretty much means what people want it to mean, doesn't it? My definition is for me. There are just some words that must be defined subjectively within the experience of the user and within the common experience of the user and the listener or reader in some cases.

God is The Great Unknown. That is true. That is why it is absurd to say that God does not exist and also absurd to worry about whether God "intervenes." God exists because we refer to certain realities as "God." God is not separate from our own conception of God. That is what is meant in the Bible by the statement that Man is made in the image of God. It is really the other way around. We define God if not in our image in an image that we can understand. I am talking about my understanding and definition of God.

I note that many people who consider themselves atheists define God in a very narrow way -- maybe within the confines of things they learned in religion classes at their church. Their view is that of a child. They did not grow and develop a definition of "God" that unites their own experience. A Catholic priest might be offended by my definition of God, but I arrived at this definition through deep and very personal spiritual experiences. As for my experiences I do not describe them in detail precisely because they are personal to me. I do not expect other people to share my perceptions and experiences that occur within me and within my relationship to my environment and other people and things and animals and plants and even the earth and elements around me.

Yes, I believe that we do see only through a glass darkly during our existence as human beings on this earth. We try to understand, but we simply do not have the capacity to understand everything that happens. If you want proof of reality beyond what is generally defined as "nature," just ask. You never know, you might discover some amazing things within yourself and within your experience.

And yes I define things according to my experience. Remember, I do not see certain shades of blue and green. That has made me humbly realize that my perception is probably limited in a great number of ways.

And then there is language -- so imperfect, so subjective, such a weak attempt at a means of communication and definition. Sometimes a touch, a picture, a sound can convey meaning or cause understanding far more effectively than words. So many intellectuals develop their ability to think and express themselves in words, but do not develop their ability to experience totally with their senses. Imagine experiencing the world through the senses of a cat or a dog, a tiger or a horse. That can start you on the path of realizing that there is much to reality that humans don't understand.

And when you think of the many universes and what we consider to be the spaces between the universes and all that is out there -- nature is so much more than we can know. And God is the word we use to communicate our awe at all of that. The energy that holds it all together. God is not a little man up in the sky keeping a tally of rights and wrongs.

[Orrex]

23. I have no interest in discussing "God" based on one person's "deep and very personal experiences"

No offense, but what would be the point? By definition, your conception of God could never be mine, and you've informed me of what my definition of God is, so there's no way I can persuade you, either.

Defining "God" as "natural law" is simply evading the question; you're attempting to equate two very different things and thereby superimpose some kind of inherent mysticism on the observable universe.

By suggesting that I use "perceivable" in place of "natural," you are simply begging the question. Since we are attempting to ascertain whether the "supernatural" exists, you can't simply declare that it's the same as something whose existence we already accept. Rhetorically speaking, that's cheating.

I do not use "God" "to communicate our awe at all of that." What you call "God" in that sense, I see as no different from throwing up our hands and saying "I give up."

That's the God of the Gaps fallacy that I mentioned earlier, by the way, and it still holds.

[JDPriestly]

24. How do you define "natural"?

[Orrex]

25. "Of nature"

How do you define it?

[JDPriestly]

26. I would agree with the language, but I would caution that we don't really

know the limits of nature or the natural. A lot of things that are "of nature" or natural get classified as supernatural because we do not understand them.

It is interesting how superstition and closed-mindedness work. Again, "of nature" is a concept that we defined according to the limited understanding of our minds and what we can perceive.

I was reading today in about the use of sensory deprivation as a means of torture. We cannot experience what we cannot perceive. Therefore everything we believe to be true depends on our mental and sensory experiences. Again, I must refer you to my experience in discovering that I was colorblind. If you doubt my argument, imagine spending two days blindfolded in a soundproof room. (Don't actually try it.) If you could try it, you would soon find out to what extent your concept of what is natural or "of nature," even what is real depends on your senses, your perception.

[JDPriestly]

18. I should add to my response to your response.

I'm blue-green color-blind. I learned this many years ago when I applied for a technical job that required good color recognition. I passed the math part and flunked the color part and did not get the job.

When I was first told I was color-blind, I could not believe my ears, but it is true. Certain shades of blue and green do not exist for me. I just see gray, not blue, not green. Are those who see those colors imagining things? No. They just have a greater ability to perceive color than I do. It's as simple as that.

Learning that I was color-blind caused me to stop and think about perception in general and how what we believe, what we think possible, what we define as "natural" is affected by our subjective perception -- not just by our beliefs, our willingness to see or observe, but also by our physical ability to perceive sensory stimuli. It varies from person to person. It varies from animal to animal. The natural world from the subjective perception of a tulip is very different from the natural world from the subjective perception of a cat or a human. It is all a part of the natural world.

Can a dog smell things that we can't smell? Yes. That is obvious. Can one human being perceive odors that another cannot? Each of us perceives what is "natural" within the limits of our own perception.

Science is the method through which we extend and test the limits of our perception. But sometimes we have experiences that cannot yet be explained by science. We think of them as supernatural. But in fact they are not. They are natural phenomena. Sometimes they are the products of our minds juxtaposing different perceptions and experiences and are imaginings. They are still part of the natural world. And on occasion something that is not the product of experience or the imaginings of the mind is revealed to a person. Those revelations are still part of the natural world.

The problem with revelations of that sort is that you cannot tell whether they are the product of the subjective imagination of the individual or actually something that is part of the natural world that the specific person can perceive but others can't. Some of the brain research that is now going on may lead to discovering how to know the difference to the extent that the difference exists.

Nature is an ever changing concept. When I went to high school in the 1950s, DNA was not commonly understood and was not taught in my high school as far as I can remember. If you had told us about it, we would have said that it was not a part of the nature we studied at school and that we didn't think that the stories about DNA were true.

Our concept of what is natural changes as we develop. But everything is natural. There is no supernatural. God is the word we use to explain the process, the energy to which we attribute the creation of the world. That is all that "God" is. Therefore "God" is strangely defined by our perception as something greater than our perception and understanding. That is not a contradiction. It is just the humble admission that there is something beyond our understanding and perception.

Those certain shades of blues and greens exist even though I can't see them.

[Orrex]

21. Your definition of "God" is atypical and sort of irrelevant to Boojatta's question

If that's how you define God, I'm not going to argue with you, except to say that I find it an unsatisfying explanation, so I won't be using it myself.

[Silent3]

30. How do you know you're really color blind...

...and that other people aren't playing a trick on you?

Because you can see the reliable, repeatable end results of other people seeing the colors you can't discern. Barring a ridiculous and pointless conspiracy, you have to conclude there is something real in what other people sense that you can't sense, at least directly. Given some simple technological help, perhaps nothing more than a colored filter or two you could hold up to colors you can't make out, you could indirectly detect yourself, at least roughly, the colors you don't normally perceive.

Similarly, the fact that I can't hear ultrasonic sounds, but I can reliably see a dog respond to a dog whistle, tells me there's something real going on beyond my normal sensory range.

In both cases an understanding of the basic physics and physiology behind the functioning of these senses is another way, even without direct evidence, to at least work out the plausibility of colors you can't see and sounds you can't hear.

When people try to liken beliefs in gods and spirits and such to "extra senses" that some people have and others don't there's nothing at all that corresponds to the kind of evidence we can find those other kinds of expanded sensory awareness, there is no technological device that provides even limited access to this supposed realm of new sensory information, and there's no likely candidate for a mechanism to even make the idea seem vaguely plausible in the absence of better evidence.

[dweller]

10. milk and cookies kept you awake huh ?

let's discuss this. You'd better come up, boojatta.

dp

[redqueen]

19. ...

<3

[EvolveOrConvolve]

15. Well, if you believe in a god with the ability to intervene in the universe

you have to ask yourself why he/she/it allows so many bad things to happen. Cruelty? Indifference? Malice? Amusement? Would a "perfect" god allow imperfect things to happen?

[armyowalgreens]

27. If we can concieve perfection, and know that that is not our world...

god has failed at making perfection. Because if God created humanity, all humans should at least believe that their life is perfect.


Free will= imperfection. Intelligence= imperfection.


If God exists, it is evil.

[Occam Bandage]

28. So God created a God to do his God-work for him? nt

[rug]

29. It matters.

Matthew 10:29-31

29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

[Why Syzygy]

31. Angels do it. nt