random events and God

[Skwim]

I reject that randomness entails acausality. You'd have to demonstrate that. I have clarified that by random I mean in the technical sense that events follow a particular mathematical distribution. Each event in the system has no memory of previous ones.

  'taint worth it!
​

 

[Sir Doom]

It may be strange that this is my first topic here (aside from a welcome) since I am a theist, but why not.

Here is my challenge. If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience? Suppose we have a radioactive isotope sitting around. If God is omniscient, then in principle God knows precisely when it will decay. However, the empirically verified models we have of radioactive decay suggest that these events are truly random. Given a single isotope we can only give a probability for a particular event, it is not possible to know ahead of time precisely when it will in fact decay.

Can the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God be reconciled to a universe which has genuinely (no hidden variables) events? if so how?

I don't believe God to be either omnipotent or omniscient, but its easy to reconcile this. If such a being exists (omnipotent, that is) then the term random becomes an illusion altogether. What is happening is ALWAYS the intention of the omnipotent being and must therefore be an extension of its will in each and every case. Our inability to ascertain the cause of one event or another at the quantum level is that proverbial gap that god is always sliding into.

 

[Tumah]

Because if you have something like a maximally entangled states they are literally unknowable. Once one part of the system has a definitive value for some observable, then yeah, you can infer what the other parts of the system are *now*, after the measurement in question has taken place. Before that they are neither here nor there.

So you are saying that G-d's knowledge is bound only to the things that are knowable?

 

[Bunyip]

It may be strange that this is my first topic here (aside from a welcome) since I am a theist, but why not.

Here is my challenge. If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience? Suppose we have a radioactive isotope sitting around. If God is omniscient, then in principle God knows precisely when it will decay. However, the empirically verified models we have of radioactive decay suggest that these events are truly random. Given a single isotope we can only give a probability for a particular event, it is not possible to know ahead of time precisely when it will in fact decay.

Can the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God be reconciled to a universe which has genuinely (no hidden variables) events? if so how?

Brilliant question. I would think that the answer is no. Omnipotence and omniscience can ot be reconciled with the existence of randomness.

 

[brokensymmetry]

So you are saying that G-d's knowledge is bound only to the things that are knowable?

Yes. I don't know what it means to know things that are logically impossible to know. The request itself is meaningless.

 

[Tumah]

Yes. I don't know what it means to know things that are logically impossible to know. The request itself is meaningless.

Then you are saying that the omnipotent G-d is only as omniscient as logic allows him to be?
Can you explain why G-d, who pre-existed the universe and its natural laws, would be bound to the laws that He created?

 

[ametist]

God doesnt only know but creates every possible outcome and has universe for each. it knows because it creates each possible outcome and even the impossible ones for appropritate realities. God is both the moving force and that outcome alike in each stage of its being and the observer out of time. What has happened being god can inform god which was before that happening.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Then you are saying that the omnipotent G-d is only as omniscient as logic allows him to be?
Can you explain why G-d, who pre-existed the universe and its natural laws, would be bound to the laws that He created?

Because God would then become something that you could not even begin to pretend to understand. That leads to some unfortunate implications such as even pretending to know or understand Gods will, and of course the issue of might makes right.

 

[Tumah]

Because God would then become something that you could not even begin to pretend to understand. That leads to some unfortunate implications such as even pretending to know or understand Gods will, and of course the issue of might makes right.

The first two are already solved, the third, is a non-issue.
I can't even begin to pretend to think about trying to understand G-d. That is impossible.
It is impossible to understand G-d's Will. It's even impossible to say that G-d has a Will, because that would imply a duality: G-d and His Will, when in fact G-d is One. However, along with creating a world that is possible to understand, He also created a Will - that is G-dly, but not G-d - that bridges the gap between the finite and the infinite. That is what we call the Torah.

The last thing is a non-issue, because its only relevant if it is actualized as such. In other words, you might be stronger than me, but instead of strong-arming me to do something you want, you make it worth my while. So might makes right is not a problem.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The first two are already solved, the third, is a non-issue.
I can't even begin to pretend to think about trying to understand G-d. That is impossible.
It is impossible to understand G-d's Will. It's even impossible to say that G-d has a Will, because that would imply a duality: G-d and His Will, when in fact G-d is One. However, along with creating a world that is possible to understand, He also created a Will - that is G-dly, but not G-d - that bridges the gap between the finite and the infinite. That is what we call the Torah.

The last thing is a non-issue, because its only relevant if it is actualized as such. In other words, you might be stronger than me, but instead of strong-arming me to do something you want, you make it worth my while. So might makes right is not a problem.

Except with a omnipotent omniscience being there is no need to do any of what you mention in the last part. Why would an omnipotent being make anything worth your while? Or even need you?

 

[Tumah]

Except with a omnipotent omniscience being there is no need to do any of what you mention in the last part. Why would an omnipotent being make anything worth your while? Or even need you?

Because He.
But he doesn't need us.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Because He.
But he doesn't need us.

So it's a whim? There is no value to God? It's merely a want?

 

[Tumah]

So it's a whim? There is no value to God? It's merely a want?

You're evaluating my G-d with finite traits. G-d doesn't whim and G-d doesn't value. G-d is inherently unknowable. The only thing we can say about Him and His Wants, is what He tells us, through that Bridge. But we can only understand the metaphors for His Will to so far an extent.

That's why I can't say why G-d created us. I can tell you that He tells us that He Wanted to do Good and He is the Ultimate Good. So He Wants us to achieve the Ultimate Goodness. The method is by being like Him to the closest extent that is finitely possible, by way of the Bridge.

But that's only a metaphor because ultimately, good and evil and close and far and everything else is infinitely removed from Him.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You're evaluating my G-d with finite traits. G-d doesn't whim and G-d doesn't value. G-d is inherently unknowable. The only thing we can say about Him and His Wants, is what He tells us, through that Bridge. But we can only understand the metaphors for His Will to so far an extent.

That's why I can't say why G-d created us. I can tell you that He tells us that He Wanted to do Good and He is the Ultimate Good. So He Wants us to achieve the Ultimate Goodness. The method is by being like Him to the closest extent that is finitely possible, by way of the Bridge.

But that's only a metaphor because ultimately, good and evil and close and far and everything else is infinitely removed from Him.

I have never read the Torah the closest I have Ever gotten is the Old Testament in the Christian bible, and I'm fairly sure that is not even close. But many times God is described with emotions of anger, love, jealousy, and while those may not be malicious, they are still bound within a cause and effect scenario and governed by nature.

I am not declaring your God to be finite I am declaring your God to be logical and as such there are things which cannot be done. Such as making a circular triangle or lifting a stone that cannot be lifted. Those are logical absurdities which omnipotence as defined would not cover. That still leaves Gods will unknowable but still maintains that God is a logical being. If God is not a logical being than you would be hard pressed to say that the creation of this universe and the laws put in place have some purpose and are not merely the dreams of some random diety with super powers.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Then you are saying that the omnipotent G-d is only as omniscient as logic allows him to be?
Can you explain why G-d, who pre-existed the universe and its natural laws, would be bound to the laws that He created?

Logical impossibility is different from nomological (physical law based) impossibility. I never said God would need to be bound to physical rules that God created, but logical ones? yes.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It may be strange that this is my first topic here (aside from a welcome) since I am a theist, but why not.

Welcome to the forum

Here is my challenge. If there are truly random events in the world, as there appears to be, how are we to reconcile that with God's omniscience?

I like the answer someone gave further on in the post that said, Randomness is called thus because we can't add in all the factors which would make it probabilistic.

Suppose we have a radioactive isotope sitting around. If God is omniscient, then in principle God knows precisely when it will decay. However, the empirically verified models we have of radioactive decay suggest that these events are truly random. Given a single isotope we can only give a probability for a particular event, it is not possible to know ahead of time precisely when it will in fact decay.
Can the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient God be reconciled to a universe which has genuinely (no hidden variables) events? if so how?

We might make this simpler and ask does he know what we are going to do. If not, then how does he make sure that the Crucifixion takes place on the right day at the right time? Puzzle?? So that sounds as if he must be controlling everything, right? The problem then is, though not mentioned in the Bible as such, according to the Gnostics, Logos (mind thought reason) had Freewill which was Self Originated from the Almighty Father from whence it came. Now if there is then Freewill, and this is what we perceive, then how can we arrive at a Crucifixion time, by sheer blind chance? But if we consider that there is a multidimensional side to God, then we can see that everything is the Consciousness of God. This is what science theory in QM now says, (Hagelin Goswami etc). What we see here is Physical-consciousness. Now we need then a new paradigm! What we now see is not a God who is somehow, somewhere else but IS the things we talk about, including US. So being then in line with QM, there is freewill, and being in line with the Text, there is Freewill, and in line with our own thinking there is Freewill. So we see that perhaps the question you gave is not a question after all. The universe would have to have compete-autonomy from the Higher Aspect of God. If it does not, then it is not Free. This is what everything is all about and why we sinned in the garden in the first place. Thus nothing can be attributed to God as blame, as it is all our own doing. How then does this all work? As I have said, it is Fractal, we follow what has already happened- "there is nothing new under the sun". So he knows what will happen as we follow our OWN nature, and yet he can be devoid from it in a Higher sense, hence we can't see evidence of him in a physical way.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't believe God to be either omnipotent or omniscient, but its easy to reconcile this. If such a being exists (omnipotent, that is) then the term random becomes an illusion altogether. What is happening is ALWAYS the intention of the omnipotent being and must therefore be an extension of its will in each and every case. Our inability to ascertain the cause of one event or another at the quantum level is that proverbial gap that god is always sliding into.

That's how I would see it it too. God could simply be the cause of everything. Radioactive decay is random because it is based upon God's whim, and nothing else. If God is the cause of the randomness, then surely he knows about it too.

 

[Tumah]

I have never read the Torah the closest I have Ever gotten is the Old Testament in the Christian bible, and I'm fairly sure that is not even close. But many times God is described with emotions of anger, love, jealousy, and while those may not be malicious, they are still bound within a cause and effect scenario and governed by nature.

I am not declaring your God to be finite I am declaring your God to be logical and as such there are things which cannot be done. Such as making a circular triangle or lifting a stone that cannot be lifted. Those are logical absurdities which omnipotence as defined would not cover. That still leaves Gods will unknowable but still maintains that God is a logical being. If God is not a logical being than you would be hard pressed to say that the creation of this universe and the laws put in place have some purpose and are not merely the dreams of some random diety with super powers.

My answer to that, is that we say that all the things attributed to G-d are not referring to G-d Himself, but our perception of the result of His actions. Meaning, G-d creates mankind, then destroys mankind. So to us it seems like G-d regrets having made man, which is what the verse describes. But G-d knew it would happen and doesn't experience emotion to begin with. The same for anger, love, jealousy. G-d is, and sometimes we experience G-d's being as anger and sometimes as love or jealousy. But the reality is that its all the same and its just our perspective that interprets it differently.

So I would say that in reality, or G-d is not logical, not because He is illogical, but because logic is something He created for this world and doesn't apply to Him. He created Logic as we perceive it as a natural law for this world and maintains that law in his dealings with this world, since that's how He wants the world to run.

I don't think G-d can't make a circular triangle. Only, it would go against the natural laws that He wants this world to run by. Creating a stone to heavy for Him, though is not something that makes sense. G-d doesn't lift things. The existence of "stones" and "heavy" and things that are only relevant to the physical world, they lose their meaning when you apply it to G-d.

Logical impossibility is different from nomological (physical law based) impossibility. I never said God would need to be bound to physical rules that God created, but logical ones? yes.

Why should G-d be bound by the logical rules that He Himself created?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Why should G-d be bound by the logical rules that He Himself created?

God didn't create laws of logic. The laws of logic are necessary- they cannot be created.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Welcome to the forum

I like the answer someone gave further on in the post that said, Randomness is called thus because we can't add in all the factors which would make it probabilistic.


We might make this simpler and ask does he know what we are going to do. If not, then how does he make sure that the Crucifixion takes place on the right day at the right time? Puzzle?? So that sounds as if he must be controlling everything, right? The problem then is, though not mentioned in the Bible as such, according to the Gnostics, Logos (mind thought reason) had Freewill which was Self Originated from the Almighty Father from whence it came. Now if there is then Freewill, and this is what we perceive, then how can we arrive at a Crucifixion time, by sheer blind chance? But if we consider that there is a multidimensional side to God, then we can see that everything is the Consciousness of God. This is what science theory in QM now says, (Hagelin Goswami etc). What we see here is Physical-consciousness. Now we need then a new paradigm! What we now see is not a God who is somehow, somewhere else but IS the things we talk about, including US. So being then in line with QM, there is freewill, and being in line with the Text, there is Freewill, and in line with our own thinking there is Freewill. So we see that perhaps the question you gave is not a question after all. The universe would have to have compete-autonomy from the Higher Aspect of God. If it does not, then it is not Free. This is what everything is all about and why we sinned in the garden in the first place. Thus nothing can be attributed to God as blame, as it is all our own doing. How then does this all work? As I have said, it is Fractal, we follow what has already happened- "there is nothing new under the sun". So he knows what will happen as we follow our OWN nature, and yet he can be devoid from it in a Higher sense, hence we can't see evidence of him in a physical way.

Thanks for the kind welcome.

I do not think QM supports any sort of 'universal consciousness' or reality as God consciousness. I don't know what it means to say that choices or such are 'Fractal'.