A few thoughts on the God of the Gaps (warning: theology in progress)

[Doktor Howl]

Okay, so we have this poor deity, and according to many, the room for him in our universe shrinks every time somebody learns something about how said universe operates.  This is a possible error, as we are inferring an unknown quantity by its absence, without knowing for sure if there is any said absence.

A Deist would say that God set up the rules of the universe and then absented Himself from it (or, for that matter, He IS it, and cannot be detected because He is the system itself).  Therefore there are no "gaps" in the first place, just rules we haven't yet learned, none of which conceal God because he isn't there to conceal.  He's not real with respect to the universe, because if he was, he'd have to follow the universe's rules him/herself, which would imply that God isn't really a god at all, but rather just some very powerful natural critter.  This argument assumes that this hypothetical God is actually a deity and not a natural critter.

A Universalist would add to that; saying that not only did God set up the rules and then bugger off, but that His/Her intent seems to be that we learn the rules that God set up...In fact, that learning said rules (physics, chemistry, etc) are the highest form of worship and/or devotion.  The claim that "there are things man was not meant to know" is to them sacrilege.  Lastly and perhaps most importantly, it is blasphemy to claim that physical evidence should be disregarded in favor of scripture, because that's basically calling God a liar.  And to imply that said evidence are "lies of the devil" is Manicheaism, a heresy that no follower of ANY Abrahamic religion will tolerate (as it implies that "the devil" is at least as powerful as God).

(Universalists also don't believe that anyone goes to hell, because people were made the way they are by God for reasons that God hasn't chosen to communicate.  Needless to say, this pisses off every other religion, as they feel that they are God's chosen deputies at the very least, and can say who gets to go to hell.  A universalist would counter with "You don't get to tell God what to do".  I am rather fond of universalists.)

[trix]

I've never heard of a Universalist, but your description here describes the first theology I've encountered that I'd have respect for.  Basically your description of a Universalist is what I initially imagined a Scientologist to be before I had learned anything about Scientology other than the name.

From your description, I'd give a Universalist the following score on the Theology-o-meter I just invented:

Basic Logic: 5/5
Meshes with what we know of the Universe: 5/5
Worth Looking At: 5/5
Need to Worship: 1/5  (apparently this God wouldn't care as long as we study the Universe)
Interesting Mental Exercise: 5/5
Snubs other theologies: 3/5  (extra thin skin of other Theologies doesn't count)

Thus I give Universalist a final score of 4 out of 5 apples.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Universalists are pretty cool.

I'm more and more inclined to go with the idea that God is the universe.

[Doktor Howl]

Universalists are pretty cool.

I'm more and more inclined to go with the idea that God is the universe.

It would explain a few things.

[Doktor Howl]

Need to Worship: 1/5  (apparently this God wouldn't care as long as we study the Universe)

Well, the other part is, this God wouldn't care anyway.  If God isn't bound by the rules of the universe, then even if you have free will, he already knows what you will choose to do (and as long as he doesn't TELL YOU, then free will isn't compromised).  That, taken with the idea that He supposedly created you to be what you are, implies that God is either 1) A sadistic thing not worth worshiping, or 2)  he doesn't damn anyone, because you were just doing your thing.

This explains in large part why the universalists consider the Gay marriage thing to be a foregone conclusion.  Since people have no choice in their orientation, God made them the way they are and free will was never at issue, so no sin can be attached.

[Ben Shapiro]

God is a cat.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that my perspective is more one that God isn't aware of us or our doings any more than we're aware of our mitochondria... unless they malfunction, in which case it becomes rather a pressing issue.

[Doktor Howl]

I think that my perspective is more one that God isn't aware of us or our doings any more than we're aware of our mitochondria... unless they malfunction, in which case it becomes rather a pressing issue.

This argument implies that God is more or less a person, rather than omniscient.  Not sure that qualifies as a God.

[LMNO]

Universalists are pretty cool.

I'm more and more inclined to go with the idea that God is the universe.

That sounds to me like you're saying god exists as a set of physical laws.  That seems to both reduce god from godhood (because god would have the same limitations as the physical laws), as well as simply being a semantic substitution for said laws.

...


When I go deeper (because, oddly enough, I've been re-reading LessWrong's Quantum Physics sequence), the Universe, and everything in it, are amplitudes in configuration space.  So what you appear to be saying is that God is a wave function, no more and no less.

[Doktor Howl]

Universalists are pretty cool.

I'm more and more inclined to go with the idea that God is the universe.

That sounds to me like you're saying god exists as a set of physical laws.  That seems to both reduce god from godhood (because god would have the same limitations as the physical laws), as well as simply being a semantic substitution for said laws.

...


When I go deeper (because, oddly enough, I've been re-reading LessWrong's Quantum Physics sequence), the Universe, and everything in it, are amplitudes in configuration space.  So what you appear to be saying is that God is a wave function, no more and no less.

The no more and no less is up for debate. 

But I tend to agree with the universalists that a God would have to exist OUTSIDE of the rules (and thus the universe), because the universe's rules don't allow omniscience or omnipotence (athough omnipresence would be implied).

[trix]

Thinking on this a bit, I've pretty much boiled down this new perspective right back into my old perspective, which is basically, Try To Be A Generally Good Dude To All People, learn what I'm smart enough to learn, and hope my mind outlives my body and I get some sort of metaphysical high five for my efforts when I arrive in whatever afterlife there may or may not be.

Or laughed at for my silly efforts.  Really anything except Eternal Damnation.  I don't think I'd be a fan of Eternal Damnation.

Really though if there is some sort of omniscient thing we can call God, or if there is not, to us the world will look the same.  I can't help but think the part that really matters is whether or not there is an afterlife or whether we just quit when we die.  And to that, I still hope for "Yes There Is!" but expect the answer to be "No Way Jose".

Although, it is nice to know there is theology out there that is actually thought out and more or less consistent with what we know of how things work.  I'm glad I learned this.

[LMNO]

Universalists are pretty cool.

I'm more and more inclined to go with the idea that God is the universe.

That sounds to me like you're saying god exists as a set of physical laws.  That seems to both reduce god from godhood (because god would have the same limitations as the physical laws), as well as simply being a semantic substitution for said laws.

...


When I go deeper (because, oddly enough, I've been re-reading LessWrong's Quantum Physics sequence), the Universe, and everything in it, are amplitudes in configuration space.  So what you appear to be saying is that God is a wave function, no more and no less.

The no more and no less is up for debate. 

But I tend to agree with the universalists that a God would have to exist OUTSIDE of the rules (and thus the universe), because the universe's rules don't allow omniscience or omnipotence (athough omnipresence would be implied).

Understood.  And that's the part that usually throws me.  I get the omniscience, because QM doesn't allow for individuality among functions (see: the "it's all the same electron" theory).  But the omnipotence... I just don't see it as either evident nor necessary.  The way I reason through it, if the universe allowed an occurence outside of the physical laws, then the physical laws, by their very nature of describing the universe, would have to contain that occurence.  You can't accurately describe how reality behaves and not be able to allow or describe "miracles".

[Doktor Howl]

Universalists are pretty cool.

I'm more and more inclined to go with the idea that God is the universe.

That sounds to me like you're saying god exists as a set of physical laws.  That seems to both reduce god from godhood (because god would have the same limitations as the physical laws), as well as simply being a semantic substitution for said laws.

...


When I go deeper (because, oddly enough, I've been re-reading LessWrong's Quantum Physics sequence), the Universe, and everything in it, are amplitudes in configuration space.  So what you appear to be saying is that God is a wave function, no more and no less.

The no more and no less is up for debate. 

But I tend to agree with the universalists that a God would have to exist OUTSIDE of the rules (and thus the universe), because the universe's rules don't allow omniscience or omnipotence (athough omnipresence would be implied).

Understood.  And that's the part that usually throws me.  I get the omniscience, because QM doesn't allow for individuality among functions (see: the "it's all the same electron" theory).  But the omnipotence... I just don't see it as either evident nor necessary.  The way I reason through it, if the universe allowed an occurence outside of the physical laws, then the physical laws, by their very nature of describing the universe, would have to contain that occurence.  You can't accurately describe how reality behaves and not be able to allow or describe "miracles".

1.  The great thing about omnipotence is that it can exist even if it doesn't have to.

2.  The idea of a "miracle" is when God forgets "just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD", and is by definition a localized abrogation of physical laws that does not repeat itself (and usually involves stacks of dead Canaanites).  If it were a physical possibility, it wouldn't be a miracle, it would just be "good luck".  Surviving a plane crash isn't a miracle.  Having a completely 169% dead guy get up and go home (Lazarus, etc) IS a miracle to the best of our knowledge.  There MIGHT be a way to reanimate all the way dead things, but we don't know if or how it can be done.

So we're right back to the God of the Gaps, aren't we?

[Doktor Howl]

Thinking on this a bit, I've pretty much boiled down this new perspective right back into my old perspective, which is basically, Try To Be A Generally Good Dude To All People, learn what I'm smart enough to learn, and hope my mind outlives my body and I get some sort of metaphysical high five for my efforts when I arrive in whatever afterlife there may or may not be.

Or laughed at for my silly efforts.  Really anything except Eternal Damnation.  I don't think I'd be a fan of Eternal Damnation.

Really though if there is some sort of omniscient thing we can call God, or if there is not, to us the world will look the same.  I can't help but think the part that really matters is whether or not there is an afterlife or whether we just quit when we die.  And to that, I still hope for "Yes There Is!" but expect the answer to be "No Way Jose".

Although, it is nice to know there is theology out there that is actually thought out and more or less consistent with what we know of how things work.  I'm glad I learned this.

According to the hardcore universalists¹, even Hitler didn't go to hell.  So you're probably okay.




¹ Hardcore universalists. 

YOU'RE JUST FINE BY US, INFIDEL!
\

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think that my perspective is more one that God isn't aware of us or our doings any more than we're aware of our mitochondria... unless they malfunction, in which case it becomes rather a pressing issue.

This argument implies that God is more or less a person, rather than omniscient.  Not sure that qualifies as a God.

Not really, it's just the best simile I could come up with.

My idea of God is more like... well, you know how any given thing has properties that you could never know simply by looking at its parts? There's no way we, at our tiny human level, could even know what the properties of the whole of the universe are. Assuming there's any such thing.