There is an idea in theology that runs roughly like so: God is maintaining the laws of physics and indeed the entire universe by a continuous effort of will, and thus the consistency of physical law is in fact a form of miracle. Unfortunately I can't remember what this belief is called, and my google-fu is not strong enough to formulate a helpful search term. Does anyone remember the name?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I am aware of the belief; I don't really know a name for it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
ditto.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've never actually heard that one before. Sorry.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Does it need a name other than "Miracle of Creation?"
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Were I to name it, that's certainly not the name I would choose. But regardless, it needs a name so he can find it on teh internets! The better to belittle it, one supposes.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It is a lot harder to belittle when you constantly have to referr to it as "that thing where everything is a miracle because without god's constant good will we would all instantly turn into boogers and explode."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I don't think it has a name. I heard similar ideas expressed in many different religions, so if it has one name, it probably has many different names, but I've never heard any name for it at all.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I'm not sure there is a single name for it. Various theologies have God sustaining the universe in various ways. Will, love, withdrawal.
Do you need a specific name for a specific purpose, or would something like "continuous creation" do?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Occasionalism.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, occasionalism corresponds to the first part of the idea, that God is maintaining everything by constant divine action.
The "miracle" part was not a part of the occasionalist view when it first appeared.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: something like "continuous creation" do?
There's a better name.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, I think the word "occasion" had different connotations when the term was coined. It's not a very helpful name in present-day English.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was actually comparing it to Raymond's (facetious) suggestion, but yeah.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I wasn't intending to be facetious, for the record.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's a shame. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm confused. My suggestion is lame/boring/I-should-have-been-able-to-come-up-with-something-better, or my suggestion appears to be malicious?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Malicious" is rather a strong word.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, substitute a less strong word. In any case, I meant nothing by the comment other than "Miracle of Creation seems like a workable name for the belief you're talking about" and apart from it not being a particularly accurate name, I'm not sure why you're taking objection to it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok. I withdraw my objection to your implication, which I doubly misread.
Still think it's a fairly useless name, though. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Was your implication more complicated than "I seemed like I was making fun of religion?" I'm just curious if there was any actual lesson I should be learning here, or if my comment would have been completely innocuous if I was known on these boards as a theist.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Was your implication more complicated than "I seemed like I was making fun of religion?"
Not really. Except that I don't generally expect making fun from you -- you're usually fairly courteous. And while it's totally unfair, the fact is that people tend to react more to someone they perceive as being uncharacteristically rude than some being characteristically so. So really, it was a compliment!
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: or if my comment would have been completely innocuous if I was known on these boards as a theist.
That is a fair question. To which I do not have an answer.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Occasionalism is the word I was looking for! Thank you, Destineer.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Can I ask what prompted the question?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was in a discussion on another forum and ran into someone who apparently believed this.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Ah, occasionalism as I'm familiar with it is a little different - X does not cause Y on its own, rather it requires Z to do the actual causation. The third party actually responsible for all causation tends to be God.
It has a long and storied history in western phil - do you plan on beating up on what will probably be the only occasionalist you'll ever meet in your life?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Ah, occasionalism as I'm familiar with it is a little different - X does not cause Y on its own, rather it requires Z to do the actual causation. The third party actually responsible for all causation tends to be God.
Wikipedia backs this up. This is really quite different than the belief I thought was being asked about.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Ah, occasionalism as I'm familiar with it is a little different - X does not cause Y on its own, rather it requires Z to do the actual causation. The third party actually responsible for all causation tends to be God.
It has a long and storied history in western phil - do you plan on beating up on what will probably be the only occasionalist you'll ever meet in your life?
No, he doesn't appear to listen to what anyone says, so it's not a very interesting discussion; but if you want to expound, I'd be interested anyway. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Ah, occasionalism as I'm familiar with it is a little different - X does not cause Y on its own, rather it requires Z to do the actual causation. The third party actually responsible for all causation tends to be God.
It has a long and storied history in western phil - do you plan on beating up on what will probably be the only occasionalist you'll ever meet in your life?
No, he doesn't appear to listen to what anyone says, so it's not a very interesting discussion; but if you want to expound, I'd be interested anyway.
ya, me too!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Science was started by the church to explain the mysteries of God but politics got in the way.
God is truth, science is truth. Science only describes God. Theocracies, like sharia and flat earth catholics have other intentions.....political ones.
Politics gets in the way....
What if it was decided "scientifically" that some humans were more advanced than others? What happens when you're told your child has an "insane" gene? Do you "trust God"?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Science was started by the church to explain the mysteries of God but politics got in the way.
God is truth, science is truth. Science only describes God. Theocracies, like sharia and flat earth catholics have other intentions.....political ones.
Politics gets in the way....
What if it was decided "scientifically" that some humans were more advanced than others?
Are you addressing someone in particular? Or just making a proclamation?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
No one in particular...I won't mention any statistics...statistical science is racist.....political.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not to mention usually used in a skewed fashion to "prove" an agenda/facts that are pre-determined.
Not that I expected you to say that. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
KoM, it sounds similar to the Clockwork Universe Theory, where God created the physical laws, so therefore they are in fact supernatural in origin, despite being constant and observable.
Newton had some ideas like that, but with his concept of god occasionally "winding" the watch back up.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Not to mention usually used in a skewed fashion to "prove" an agenda/facts that are pre-determined.
Lots of scientific studies are used that way. Especially once you go past just the raw data of the study and get into explaining why the data is that way.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: KoM, it sounds similar to the Clockwork Universe Theory, where God created the physical laws, so therefore they are in fact supernatural in origin, despite being constant and observable.
Newton had some ideas like that, but with his concept of god occasionally "winding" the watch back up.
My beliefs are definitely close to that. Indeed, plenty of Jewish prayer thanks God for natural phenomena. There is a blessing we say after using the bathroom where we thank God for creating the body's complicated digestive system.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Is there a name for the belief that God abides by the laws of physics and not the other way around?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think Mormons subscribe to a belief system close to that.
edit - not sure if there is an actual name for it though.
[ September 07, 2010, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Hinduism and Vedic thought actually delve quite into this, with the divine force being a "dreamer" but not a "participant in the dream" -- essentially the universal constant or driving force. I'm not sure what terminology they use, but I'd bet that a vedic scholar could put a name to it.
I think that I might have read a bit of it in the Bhagavad Gita?.?.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Obviously it is an idea with many variants, but I think it's distinct from the clockwork universe. As I understand it, in a pure clockwork universe the god acts only at the start, to create the laws; it doesn't tinker with them later on. In such a universe, you might say that the existence of a god matters only for the first few milliseconds, or so; you wouldn't be able to tell if the god had then withdrawn its attention to other projects. There is also a variant where there might be an occasional bit of interference for miracles. But occasionalism, if I understand correctly, is the idea that the existence of the god is continuously necessary; to continue the clockwork analogy, the clockmaker not only has to build the clock, he also has to keep hanging onto one of the springs, or the clock will stop. (In a human, of course, we would consider this rather dodgy clock-building; perhaps that's why this theory is not very popular.) In such a universe, the absence of the god after the initial creation would be noticeable as physical law broke down and people's biochemistries stopped operating; whether it would happen instantly or slowly is a matter of taste.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: I think Mormons subscribe to a belief system close to that.
edit - not sure if there is an actual name for it though.
Fairly close, I guess. Here's how I see it (in no way is this official church doctrine, just afr's clumsy interpretation).
Basically, the universe functions in certain ways. God abides perfectly by how the universe functions, and that is partly why He is God. God makes laws based on how the universe functions, so that we know good from bad, and so we know how to abide by the universal rules the same way He does. We break God's laws once we know them, and He must apply justice. Justice has to be satisfied. If He lets us off the hook without satisfying justice, he is no longer God.
Here's an LDS scripture to that effect:
Alma 42:22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
There's lots more to it than that, of course. For instance, this is where Christ comes in, by making repentance and mercy possible without destroying justice. The whole chapter is central to LDS theology and is actually quite interesting if you care to read it:
Edit: As to whether the universe would fall apart if God ceased to be God, I couldn't say from an LDS perspective. We would certainly cease to have any hope. I believe God is a governing force in the universe, and without Him a certain degree of order would be lost--as in, there would be no purpose in things anymore.
[ September 08, 2010, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)