{"id":55,"date":"2006-02-13T02:58:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-13T02:58:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/?p=55"},"modified":"2006-02-13T02:58:00","modified_gmt":"2006-02-13T02:58:00","slug":"a-euclidean-theater-of-misery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scottaaronson.blog\/?p=55","title":{"rendered":"A Euclidean theater of misery"},"content":{"rendered":"

As winner of the Best Umeshism Contest<\/a> (remember that?), Peter Brooke earned the right to ask me any question and have me answer it on this blog. Without further ado, here is Peter’s question:<\/p>\n

If it is assumed that God exists, what further, reasonable, conclusions can be made, or is that where logical inquiry must end? Reasonable means in the light and inclusive of present scientific understanding. Defend any assumptions and conclusions you make.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At least Peter was kind enough not to spring “Is there a God?” on me. Instead, like a true complexity theorist, he asks what consequences<\/em> follow if God’s existence is assumed.<\/p>\n

Alas, Peter didn’t say which God he has in mind. If it were Allah, or Adonai, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster<\/a>, then I’d simply refer Peter to the requisite book (or in the case of the Spaghetti Monster, website) and be done. As it is, though, I can’t assume anything about God, except that<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. He exists,<\/li>\n
  2. He created the universe (if He didn’t, then it’s not He we’re talking about), and<\/li>\n
  3. He’s a He.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    (Note for Miss HT Psych: the third assumption is a joke.)<\/p>\n

    So the only way I see to proceed is to start from known facts, and then ask what sort of God would be compatible with those facts. Though others might make different choices, the following facts seem particularly relevant to me.<\/p>\n