errorlevel.org

The following is based on a discussion I had with my fiancée, Kristen. We were talking about her beliefs and God. The conversation was sparked by a book called The Inescapable Love of God.

The Appearance of God

Through the discussion, I came to ask Kristen how she pictured God as being. I understand that she believes God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent. For the sake of discussion, I assumed the existence of God would take presence in the known dimensions (e.g. the x, y and z axes, forward/backward in time, and maybe extra dimensions if one believe's in String theory.)

Kristen said she believes that God appears to people in a way that is the most meaningful to that person. She gave an example of one of her former pastors who said she saw God as a horse. Of course, there is also the biblical account of God appearing as a burning bush. To Kristen, God appears as a strong woman.

A Physical Discussion of God

I then began to discuss what I would think a god would need to be to satisfy the conditions of omniscience and omnipresence. My mind conjured up imagery of something that must be everywhere at everytime. I had pictured in my mind something akin to the aether of the ancient Greeks, or the luminiferous aether of pre-Relativity physics.

Such a being could perhaps exist in a non-space dimension. One such dimension that people are familiar with is time. Time exists everywhere and affects all of us. If there was another non-space dimension, then, perhaps, a god could exist in that.

But, how would God interact with the universe and how could scientific inquiry still yield constantly predictable results? One such idea that I espoused made reference to a quote by Einstein.

"God does not play dice with the universe."

Albert Einstein refused to accept the uncertainties indicated in quantum theory. Quantum theory makes use of what are called wave-equations. These equations are used to discuss the probability of something (like a photon) being somewhere.

A simple way of understanding why only probabilities can be used would be to look at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that you can never know with certainty what some pairs of values are. The problem that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle shows is that no matter how you measure some value in a system, you will always change the system you measured.

Given the uncertainties inherent in quantum mechanics, if there was an omnipresent being that could interact with the universe, then such a being could change things at such a miniscule level as to be undetectable to all scientific inquiry. God would then not be "playing dice", but controlling the dice.

Faith from Uncertainty

God could, therefore, exist yet still be undetectable to science. In such a situation, the logical and scientific constructs of physics would be useless in seeking out God. This would also mean that any miracles that God performed could be explained both by religion and science, since a god that is omniscient could know every miniscule change that would need to be made to cause the "correct" behavior as predicted by science. Of course, all such changes could be made since God is also assumed to be omnipresent.

[As an aside: If God is omniscient, then God would know how to set the Big Bang into motion as to have every outcome worked out in advance. But, such an idea would lend itself more towards the notion of fate and contradict the notion that people have free will.]

Unification Theory

Modern physics seeks to reconcile seeming contradictions between General Relativity on a quantum level and Quantum physics at a relativistic level. Both theories work very well in their respective fields. However, physicists want to come up with a Theory of Everything. If such a theory was to be formulated, and an equation found, then that equation could explain all known phenomena. Some would say that the equation would mean that God doesn't exist since there would be no need for a god to exist as a explanation of natural events. Others might say that the equation is an exhibition of God's beauty and God's omniscient nature. Perhaps both could be true.

Christian Universalism

When Kristen talks to me about her interest in Christian Trinitarian Universalism ("Universalism" is sometimes referred to as "Universal Salvation"), she seems under the impression that it is the most self-consistent Christianity. Self-consistency meaning that it agrees with the Bible and the ideas that God is omniscient, omnipresent, and most importantly, omnibenevolent. She makes very convincing arguments and I would agree with her, based on her representation, that it does appear to be self-consistent.

Why Not Believe?

Given everything I've discussed, she still didn't understand how I continue to not believe in a god. I admit that Universalism seems self-consistent. And, I even admit that the idea of God could be made to be completely compatible with science.

In response, I asked if math was real.

She said, "No."

I then asked if math was self-consistent.

She said, "Yes."

I then explained that even though Universalism and God could be self-consistent, that still didn't lead me to believe that God is real. Where the world would work (or appear to work) just the same with God as without God, Occam's Razor would suggest that God does not need to exist.

The only argument that Kristen can provide as evidence for the existence of God, she provides with full knowledge that it is not something that will convince me. Nor does she expect it to convince me. That argument is personal experience.