If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

I was intrigued by this idea: Message 922I have come across the idea that some god set things in motion and then left the universe entirely to it's own devices. I have come across the idea that some god set things in motion and then watched the universe unfold but gave the odd helping hand or caused the odd miracle here and there. I have seen numerous variations of these sorts of 'walkaway' or 'tweaker' gods.I don't think I have previously been confronted with the idea that every breath we take requires god's involvement and that an absence of intervention at any moment in time would equate to the end of existence.Is this sort of ultra-intervention idea common amongst theists?
How much intervening does god do?
Is any intervening necessary at all?
How would we define or determine God "doing nothing" as opposed to God doing something?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

From your link:

quote:

---

Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god.

---

I'm guessing that DB believes in some sort of God that is recognisably Christian in nature. Personal and, as described in the bible at least, anthropomorphic in a way that is very at odds with Spinozan ideas of "god".Maybe a bit of a mish mash going on....

If God is resposnible for absolutely everything, even individual breaths, then I am not sure where that leaves any notion iof freewill....

So a lapse in divine concentration and we are all obliterated.Yipes.

Which observable phenomena is God presently actively responsible for and which are happily occurring without any active divine participation at all?If God just decided to extract himself from any participation in our universe, our lives, our deaths and anything else one might consider godly intervention to be present in - Would we notice?What would the difference be betwen a world in whcih God is present and one in which God is now absent?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why couldn't GOD just kick it off and then let it run without any further involvement or even consideration on his part?

Sounds like we are back to some sort of pantheism again.

What if most people agree on there being absolute truth?Are they wrong? Or are the right?

Unless we somehow establish that not a single carbon atom was formed anywhere but in a star I'm not sure 'Carbon comes from stars' can be considered an absolute truth.

Is 0+1=1 or 1+1=2 an "absolute truth"?And I (if it helps) mean these in the physical sense rather than the axiomatic sense.I just think you could save Proto and JR a lot of time coming up with examples like carbon etc. if it was clear that even the physical reality of mathematical truths were not considered "absolute" by your way of thinking.In what sense is 1 object plus 1 object = two objects not an "absolute truth" as far as you are concerned?I ask for clarification purposes predominantly....

Without such proof Id say knowledge is tentative rather than established as absolutely true. As long as there might exist a carbon atom that wasnt formed in a star (or whatever other example you might use) how can it be absolutely rather than tentatively true that all carbon atoms form in stars (or whatever).If your knowledge might be wrong then it is tentative rather than absolute. I think this is what ringo is getting at.

We certainly oprate on that basis. We might even say we consider this to be true.But it might be wrong, its not infallible, so how can it be absolute?

How have you concluded that reality independent of your consciousness "must exist"?Solipsism, whilst rather futile in many ways, cant just be dismissed as obviously wrong simply because you dont like it.

Well....Any human culture, or indeed any alien civilisation in our universe , would discover that one object plus one object equals two objects. Its not just definitional (in fact we could define axioms such that 1+1 does not equal 2).Remove the culturally specific nomenclature and you get the same physical result.Its not just definitional its a physical result.

You started out with "There is such a thing as reality that exists independent of consciousness" as an example of absolute truth.But as has been pointed out this could be untrue.You seem to have now modified this to saying that whatever reality it is that exists, whether solipsistic and thus dependent on consciousness or not, is real.In short reality is real. But this is true by definition. What is true is true by definition.These would be examples of what Ringo is calling "trivial" as they are definitionally correct. We could agree it to be objectively true but not absolutely true.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.