The God Constraints

Direct Arrivals From a Google Search

If you arrived here directly from a Google Search, this website accepts free will as real and then integrates free will into physics. You may wish to read this brief overview for additional details.

The Physical Laws Fall Short

In Chapter 1, we found that we had to accept free will as real to align our beliefs with the way we live our lives. We also found that free will could not be real if our choices were determined by the physical laws or quantum level probabilities. Therefore, we had to eliminate the physical laws as a possible cause of conscious minds with free will.

Is God a Scientific Possibility?

If the statistically determined physical laws cannot be the source of conscious minds with free will, then we must investigate whether a supreme agent with free will could be the source of consciousness. However, before we head down this scientifically treacherous path, we will first work out the complete set of constraints that would have to be met before any God solution could be scientifically acceptable. Working out these constraints is the task of this chapter.

Knowledge

We found earlier that the mission of science is to expand knowledge. But what is knowledge?

A conscious mind acquires information over time, and this information becomes part of an interwoven belief system. When this belief system has been systematically constructed from observation and reason, it will be aligned with the surrounding reality because the beliefs are based on that reality.

Knowledge:

The set of beliefs that are soundly supported by observation and reason.

The key word is “soundly,” knowledge has confidence levels. Confidence in our knowledge increases as the rational evidence supporting that knowledge grows. Mathematical proofs are found at the highest confidence levels of knowledge. Because knowledge has confidence levels, it must be continuously updated and corrected with the ongoing arrival of new and soundly supported information.

Can Anything Be Known With Certainty?

Is there anything that we can know with certainty?

Yes, great philosophers have made clear there is. When I think, I have an awareness of my own conscious existence, an existence that I cannot rationally deny. If I deny my own existence, who is it, then, that is doing the denying? That which thinks cannot deny its own existence because the act of making the denial proves the existence of that which is being denied. I think, therefore I cannot not exist, therefore I am.

All knowledge begins with the certainty that I do exist. It is the certainty of our own existence that makes it possible for us to further investigate the universe in which our existence takes place.

Doctrine Versus Knowledge

Doctrine has multiple definitions, so we begin by defining the term exactly as it is being used here.

Doctrine:

Rationally indefensible beliefs accepted as certainty.

If doctrine could be rationally defended, it would be knowledge and not doctrine. Because doctrine is held as certainty, it cannot be dislodged by science, observation, or reason, it can only be uprooted by an act of choice.

The Doctrinal Mindset

Accepting something as true that is not supported by observation and reason profoundly alters the mind’s thinking process. Even a single doctrinal belief converts the mind to a doctrinal mindset whereby new information will only be accepted if it is compatible with the doctrine that is already known to be true.

That is, if new information is not compatible with already held doctrine, the new information is predetermined to be false prior to any review of the evidence. That which is certain cannot be otherwise, therefore, any information not aligned with what is certain cannot be true. For doctrinal thinkers, all new information will face the mind’s doctrinal filter before any other consideration.

Notice how the doctrinal mind and the rational mind cannot coexist by definition. Recall that a rational mind is free to accept any soundly supported information as true, whereas a doctrinal mind rejects doctrinally incompatible information before even considering whether the information is soundly supported.

Because a doctrinal filter will block all incoming information that is not compatible with the mind’s already known doctrinal certainties, it only takes a single doctrine to create an impenetrable bias in the mind. For this reason, a mind that holds even a single doctrinal belief will be incompatible with science.

Furthermore, the choice to accept as certain that which is not supported by observation and reason opens the door to unresolvable conflict with those who have chosen to accept different and incompatible certainties. Because the two sets of certainties are incompatible, each is an affront to the other, and because the beliefs are held as doctrine, any rational resolution is impossible. To accept doctrine is to create conflict.

The opposite is true of knowledge. Knowledge is based on observation and reason, both of which are universal. For this reason, belief systems that are soundly supported by observation and reason unify – we have an entire world that shares the same science and the same mathematics.

Therefore, we find that the world community depends on science alone to construct a comprehensive belief system that is rationally sound. Science provides the single valid pathway to all knowledge. This takes us back to Chapter 2, “It is the place of science to study any subject where a rigorous application of observation and reason will yield an expansion of knowledge.” And again from Chapter 2, “If a universal truth is knowable, it falls to science to discover that truth.”

Doctrines of Faith

Religious organizations claim that faith provides a valid and necessary pathway to types of knowledge that are beyond the reach of science. Could this assertion be correct?

Religious faith requires the acceptance of divine revelation. If it did not, then there would be no reliable source for the knowledge that religious organizations claim is beyond the reach of science.

The acceptance of divine revelation requires faith because these revelations are coming from a God that is beyond the reach of both science and the senses, and because divine revelation cannot be reproduced or verified. This makes beliefs of faith rationally indefensible – they are not based on observation or reason, and they cannot be reproduced or verified. Furthermore, if beliefs of faith could be rationally defended, they would belong in the category of knowledge, so faith would be unnecessary.

Because the beliefs of faith have no rational foundation, accepting the beliefs of faith is an act of choice. And because divine revelations come directly from God, those who accept divine revelations will accept them as certainty, for nothing could be more certain than revelations coming directly from God.

We have now established that faith is rationally indefensible and the beliefs of faith are accepted as certainty, which means that faith falls under the definition of doctrine.

Doctrines of Faith:

Rationally indefensible beliefs accepted by choice as certainty due to their divine origins.

Because doctrines of faith come directly from God in the form of divine revelations, these doctrines of faith will form the core of a belief system and supersede all other beliefs. As with any doctrine, doctrinal faith cannot be dislodged by science, observation, or reason; beliefs of faith can only be uprooted by an act of choice.

Because the religious mind has been informed by a God that outranks science, any religious mind finds itself in a position to pass judgment on the most advanced scientific theories, even when the individual has little or no background in the field.

Because faith is doctrinal, faith creates a doctrinal filter. Faith blocks the mind from even considering whether new information is soundly supported if the new information does not align with the faith. In other words, faith does not augment the knowledge gained through observation and reason, rather, faith introduces an obstacle to the reasoning process. Because faith obstructs reason, we must reject faith as a valid pathway to knowledge.

To accept as true that which did not come through reason would be irrational by definition. Once again, this free will paradigm finds that it is for science alone to construct a comprehensive belief system that is rationally sound.

Other God Possibilities

We have eliminated the physical laws as a possible source of consciousness, so we are investigating whether a God could be a scientifically acceptable source of consciousness.

We have already rejected any God or religion that requires faith because neither could be compatible with science. However, this does not exhaust the God possibilities. We will now investigate other God possibilities.

Gods and Divine Providence

We have already rejected the Gods of all religions that require faith. This leaves us with a God that is discoverable by reason alone. Could the God of Deism, or one of its modern alternatives, be the source of consciousness?

First, we will not categorize Deism as a religion because it purports to be reason based and not faith based.

From a historical perspective, Deists have followed two schools of thought: the Deists that accept divine providence (God acts on behalf of humans), and the Deists that reject any form of divine interference in the universe. Both schools of Deism accept a rationally discoverable God, but they differ on God’s active participation in the universe.

We will now consider the scientific acceptability of any God that actively interferes in the universe.

God-Events in the Physical Universe

In Chapter 2, we discussed what would happen if a single hiccup in the physical laws led to a scientific observation that was incompatible with all other observations. We found that this observation of a single uncaused aberration in the physical laws would disable science for all time.

We now turn our attention to God-caused events in the physical universe, events where God interferes in the universe to bring about a physical outcome that would otherwise be impossible. The question is, would a God-event make the universe unknowable?

If God were to interfere in the universe and alter the course of a physical event, then God would be the cause of that event. However, God is beyond the reach of scientific instruments, so the cause of the event would not be scientifically discoverable.

Even though there would be a cause, God, if the cause of a physical event is undiscoverable, then the event would be indistinguishable from the uncaused aberration event we covered in Chapter 2. If God-events are indistinguishable from uncaused hiccup events, so must their effects on science also be indistinguishable.

Thus, if the single uncaused hiccup event disabled science for the remainder of time, so too would a single God-event also disable science for all time. Therefore, we find that the universe could only be knowable with a God if this God never interferes with the progression of physical events in the universe.

God-Events in the Conscious Universe

We have established that any God must not interfere with the progression of physical events in a knowable universe. But can God interfere with conscious thoughts?

Consider a group of scientists monitoring a large number of addicts as they participate in a new approach for overcoming addiction. These scientists will periodically collect data to monitor the successes and failures of each participant over the course of several years. When this data is coupled with the detailed personal profile of each addict, this controlled, scientific experiment will give valuable information on whether the new approach is useful for treating addiction.

But what happens if during the experiment, God chooses to help some number of the addicts overcome their addiction. We have already found that God cannot affect physical outcomes in a knowable universe, so if God is going to help, the only remaining option is for God to alter the progression of the conscious thoughts of the addicts. But we would now have an undiscoverable agent causing changes in the outcome of a scientific experiment by helping some addicts overcome their addiction. This means that the true efficacy of the new approach for fighting addiction would now become unknowable.

In other words, if God were to interfere with the progression of conscious thoughts, this would impose limitations on science and make the universe unknowable. Therefore, we find that the universe would become unknowable if God were to change either physical events or conscious thoughts.

Religions, Deism, and Divine Intervention

Those who believe in a God widely accept that divine intervention is real. Accepted interventions vary with the believer, but divine interventions that are widely accepted include miracles, signs and divine guidance, answered prayers, revelations, holy books and other inspired writings, as well as punishments through accidents and natural disasters.

But if there were to exist a God that interferes in the universe in any of these ways, then the universe would be unknowable as just discussed. For this reason, this free will paradigm finds that any religion or school of belief that accepts any form of divine interference in the universe cannot be compatible with science or with this free will paradigm.

Deism Falls Short

We have now found that we must reject the branch of Deism that accepts divine providence. This leaves us with the branch of Deism that accepts a rationally discoverable God, but rejects any form of divine interference in the universe. So could we accept the God of this school of Deism as the creator of consciousness?

Initially, this God appears to be plausible as the source of consciousness. This God is discoverable through observation and reason alone (arguable), this God does not interfere in the universe, and there is no need for faith.

There is, however, a fatal flaw even with this school of Deism. These Deists believe in a God that set the universe in motion, and then for no reason given, just stepped aside and left the universe to follow its own path. But this would leave us with a God that could decide to step back into the picture at any time, and this would mean a hiccup enabled universe. Recall our finding that a hiccup enabled universe cannot be knowable.

Therefore, we must reject Deism and its variations as a possible solution to the consciousness origins problem. This brings us to a formal presentation of the God problem.

The God Problem

If there is a God that created the universe and all consciousness within the universe, then as creator, this God would have full rights over the material and the conscious universe. This means that God could interfere with the universe at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all.

But even if God were to never interfere, it would not matter because God still could interfere. The possibility of interference alone would make the universe hiccup enabled, and we know from Chapter 2 that a hiccup enabled universe is an unknowable universe. Thus, the existence of a God would necessarily mean an unknowable universe. Therefore, God cannot exist.

This is the God problem.

The God Constraints

A God solution to the consciousness problem will only be acceptable in this free will paradigm if the solution complies with all the constraints of this chapter. Additionally, the solution will have to reveal the logical error in the God problem argument.

Foundation Complete

Chapter 7 completes the foundation of this work. We will now focus on finding specific solutions. In the next two chapters, we will find the atoms that make up both the mind signature and the minderelle.

Chapter 10 will use protein folding, function, and communication to help clarify the mind’s governing capabilities over matter. Chapter 11 will work through our solution to the source of consciousness problem.

Chapter 12 will use all our previous findings to work out the structure of consciousness. Although consciousness can have neither mass nor momentum, we will find that it must still have a structure.

Chapter 13 will expand on Chapter 10 by covering additional applications in cellular biology.

Chapter 14 will cover the physics of consciousness in order to demonstrate compliance with the conservation laws and to fill in any missing physics details. Chapter 14 is intended primarily for physicists.

And finally, Chapter 15 covers the laws that govern free will choices.