Evidence for God from Science

Here's something I posted in a facebook group today where people were talking about their conceptions of God and I thought I'd share what I wrote. I expect many here will disagree with much of it, but we'll see:

My concept of God is something that is unimaginably complex yet simple at the same time, sort of like a dimensionless singularity while also being like a 12 or so dimensional being. I think of it as something free from all causality and being static+eternal. God in it's purest form cannot be anthropomorphic like we are, but I think it could probably anthopomorphize itself for us in order to interact with beings on our low level if it wanted. While many would imagine that a creator of the universe would be so grand that it wouldn't even be aware of our existence, I think that such a grand being wouldn't be limited in what it can percieve in the universe, and so may be aware of us as well as all of the 100 septillion stars and planets in the universe, all at the same time. I think it plotted out the course of the universe in its mind before setting it in motion, and so in a sense designed us, although traditional creationism is almost certainly not true. I think God is benevolent, as it has created a universe where things like love and sex are present. At the same time though, there is suffering in the universe, so its also possible God hasn't predestined every detail, or else operates in a way that we don't understand, or possibly does not care about humanity like some other Deists have proposed. Either way, God is definititely mysterious and has to be speculated about rather than directly known. I don't claim to know any of this about God for sure, but these are my own opinions/beliefs/whatever about God.

• "Then here are the two things I say to you dan-dinh. First, I say that the three of us - you, me, Eddie - will speak an-tet to Susannah before the Wolves come, and tell her everything we know. That she's pregnant, that her baby is almost surely a demon's child, and that she's created a woman named Mia to mother that child. Second, I say that we discuss this no more until the time to tell her has come."
  
  Jake considered these things. As he did, his face gradually brightened with relief. "Do you mean it?"
  
  "Yes." Roland tried not to show how much this question hurt and angered him. He understood, after all, why the boy would ask. "I promise and swear to my promise. Does it do ya?"
  
  "Yes! It does me fine!"
  
  Roland nodded. "I'm not doing this because I'm convinced it's the right thing but because you are, Jake. I - "
  
  "Wait a second, whoa, wait," Jake said. His smile was fading. "Don't try to put all this on me. I never - "
  
  "Spare me such nonsense." Roland used a dry and distant tone Jake had seldom heard. "You ask part of a man's decision. I allow it - must allow it - because ka has decreed you take a man's part in great matters. You opened this door when you questioned my judgment. Do you deny that?"
  
  Jake had gone from pale to flushed to pale once more. He looked badly frightened, and shook his head without speaking a single word. Ah, gods , Roland thought, I hate every part of this. It stinks like a dying man's ****.
  
  In a quieter tone he said, "No, you didn't ask to be brought here. Nor did I wish to rob you of your childhood. Yet here we are, and ka stands to one side and laughs. We must do as it wills or pay the price."
  
  Jake lowered his head and spoke two words in a trembling whisper: "I know."
  
  "You believe Susannah should be told. I, on the other hand, don't know what to do - in this matter I've lost my compass. When one knows and one does not, the one who does not must bow his head and the one who does must take responsibility. Do you understand me, Jake?"
  
  "Yes," Jake whispered, and touched his curled hand to his brow.

Beyond that, as you might expect, I disagree with much of it. Given my philosophical commitments, it is self-contradictory to speak of God as both static and eternal. Nor can we speak to God as being any dimensional, be it one, three, twelve, or twelve million. I notice that you claim God cannot be anthropomorphic, and yet you immediately anthropomorphize Him by speaking of Him as being "aware," of Him "plott[ing] the course of the universe," of Him having a "mind," of Him "designing us," and of Him being "benevolent." You claim God cannot be known directly. I wonder how, if that's true, you know it (sounds self-defeating to me). And if you don't know any of this, I wonder on what basis you believe it.

As for me, let me tell you what I know about God, and that from pure reason--not one appeal to Scripture:

That God exists;
That He is subsistent existence, that is, that He is being itself (and as such, that He is not a being, one among many);
That He is pure actuality and all that follows from that (e.g., eternal, simple, timeless, absolutely immutable, etc.);
That He is the First Cause of all that is;
That He is the Final Cause of all that is;
That He is perfect in every conceivable way (i.e., He is omniscient, omnipotent, that He exists a se, etc.);
That He is, in fact, a plurality of persons

I could go on, but that's a fine start. No reason to be exhaustive, and I don't know that I could anyway if I wanted to be. Again, these are things I do claim to know about God for sure. These are not my opinions. These are the facts as best as I understand them.

IF there is a GOD ( and I believe there is of course), then we must understand that we can only begin to fathom Him VIA our human ( very limited) perceptions.
That is where theology comes in because it is the view of MANY people and THEIR experiences with God ( not just our experience with God) and sometimes people understand God on different levels, with different examples and ways of seeing God.
Mere Christianity is a great place to start and CS Lewis' chapters on the nature of God are very good.
To me, the one thing that resonated with me personally was that God is a relational, other-centered being.

Seraph wrote:Here's something I posted ...

... I think it (God) could probably anthopomorphize itself for us in order to interact with beings on our low level if it wanted.

Wow, you have definitely picked up on several themes not commonly brought to view.

I like them, and particularly because you are prepared to think outside the square.

Re to the above quote, reminds me of Psalms 113. He likes to "humble Himself" or let go of His greatness to be able to relate with comparative dust.

God prefers to be on the level of the person in company, to genuinely identify Himself with them, and that requires a practical rejection of His status and power.

It makes God seem like a walkover to some.

Seraph wrote:...While many would imagine that a creator of the universe would be so grand that it wouldn't even be aware of our existence, I think that such a grand being wouldn't be limited in what it can perceive in the universe, and so may be aware of us as well as all of the 100 septillion stars and planets in the universe, all at the same time. I think it plotted out the course of the universe in its mind before setting it in motion, and so in a sense designed us, although traditional creationism is almost certainly not true. ..

These concepts are... really powerful.

Tell us more about what you have about "traditional creationism" what it is, and why it is inadequate?

There is nothing contrived about a creation once it is let go, or allowed, or spoken into existence.
It is against His nature to compel or manipulate situations to suit Himself, so He lives with the real consequences of His creation, one of which has been the rebellion of His head angel Lucifer.

Pure Love cannot have an ounce of manipulation in it. Genuine freedom is a risk, but life is not worth much without it.