The mode of operation of such an entity would be impervious to our discernment although I’d think such initial conditions would make the emergence of life inevitable. I would hazard a guess that loneliness would have spurred the all powerful to create life in all its guises.

As for micromanaging in real time perhaps only to direct his divine plan and intention if it goes off course or diverges from his end goal whatever that may be.

I’d like to add further that his creatures being granted free will means that they will err from time to time, not necessarily a bad thing as mistakes teach lessons which would otherwise shelter them from life’s harsh realities. You can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg or two.

The end goal of such a project (life) has always fascinated me because he must have had that in mind before and during creation, scripture tells us we get immortal life for the recognition of his greatness, and it would be foolish if not arrogant to dismiss the creator from creation. For if the creation of the universe if it doesn’t fill the mind of the non-believer with awe and wonder then ignorance is their fate. No beauty to be admired, recognised or respected an empty life indeed.

From this as a believer I get the vague idea that he doesn’t create purely for acknowledgement of his power but it’s his way of existing outside of himself not just a manifestation of his nature

I consider deism a subset of theism; so only as far as 'creating the universe' is concerned, they are indistinguishable deity-concepts.

It seems like the micro managing would require more focus. The initial conditions could be set to whatever the desired result is, so why bother micro managing? Make the universe self micro managing.
Thats one difference

He could see the progression of his project (life) at a glance and I assume past, present future all at once too. Or perhaps he would be himself limited to the linear experience of time but could snap back to non-linearity at any time to direct the course of his plan.

Hence micro managing would be uneccessary.

If the universe is the mathematical universe of Tegmark, then perhaps it is a giant dynamical system that goes its merry way starting from a set of initial conditions. As to the nature of God's involvement I would not dare speculate.

Are there facts about reality that will forever be beyond the comprehension of humans, like my dog being unable to understand even the elementary aspects of calculus?

Don't forget that God plays dice. Always annoyed Einstein, but there it is.

Don't forget that God plays dice. — Wayfarer

No... he's a card shark.

From now on I’ll be deleting discussions like this rather than moving them to the Lounge, whether or not they’ve received replies by the time I see them. @TiredThinker has been asked many times to stop posting low-effort OPs, and the Lounge is not the place for them either, because it’s meant to be for casual chat.

Are there facts about reality that will forever be beyond the comprehension of humans, like my dog being unable to understand even the elementary aspects of calculus? — jgill

The first candidate that comes to mind is
the black box of AlphaGo's 'strategies & techniques' it used to vanquish world champion Go grandmaster Lee Sedol in 2016. The intellect of "AI", which we engineer (so far), is often incomprehensible to us it seems the way pre-calculus is to your dog. :smirk:

Not played Go myself but I’m decent chess player so I could see how such computational power would give it an almost god-like ability in confounding the best Go grandmasters as go has an almost infinite line of combinations/moves from initial conditions.

This is a post about religion in an analytical sense. Why wouldn't it belong in this section? It is related to infinite power. It is no small topic.

It’s a low-effort OP, a casual undeveloped thought that popped into your head. You’ve been told about this before.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op

Why wouldn't it belong in this section? — TiredThinker

What section? It’s in the Lounge, like most of your discussions.

I’m not discussing it any more. I’ll be deleting them from now on instead of cluttering up the Lounge.

I didn't mean to put this in lounge.

You didn’t put it in the Lounge. I did. This is pretty clear from what I said above:

From now on I’ll be deleting discussions like this rather than moving them to the Lounge — Jamal

If there were an all-knowing and all-powerful god would there be any real difference between if they started the universe with initial conditions and did nothing afterwards versus micromanaging in real time? — TiredThinker

In order to be all knowing, one has to be everywhere, ones presence has to directly encounter/ keep tabs on all data/information/interaction as they happen.
In order to be all powerful, ones potency must stretch to all places and things "doing work" (potency). Energy cannot be separated from itself/in isolated pockets (absolute zero/absence of energy cannot be reached in any location). Nor can information as all existants are inextricably linked by information - regarding distance, composition, rate of change with respect to one another etc.

So an all knowing all powerful (and all present god), would parallel essentially with our definition of the uni-verse as it is (the set of all energy "potence" , all knowledge/ omniscience or "all information" , and all space or "presence").

In conclusion, such a God wouldn't be separable from creation/the created. It would be a part of it, no, all of it.

I can't conceive how a God could be "outside" everything, or existing beyond the universe (everything). Because if it did, then the universe would not contain everything, and thus not be the "universe" or "one-ness". God would be subtracted for some reason. For me it makes sense that they are one and the same.

This is the issue with personifying, anthropomorphising or in simple terms "objectifying" something that is all objects and the space between them.

So it wouldn't make sense to refer to initial conditions and in time micromanagement as being isolated phenomenon without overlap.

It micro manages at the micro scale, and is initial, fundamental or a basic set of general principles, conditions, laws, rules or constants at the macroscopic scale. Trickling down, or up, however you perceive it.

Which makes sense due to the peculiar random and uncertain behaviour of the quantum verses the relatively consistent and general behaviour of the newtonian and Einsteinian at larger scales of scope/broadness of magnitude.

It’s a low-effort OP, a casual undeveloped thought that popped into your head. You’ve been told about this before. — Jamal

That's a shame. I quite enjoyed it/ thought it was well thought out and interesting.

I'm not one for maths but that appears to already be a majority vote (2 against 1 - at least).

What harm is there in allowing threads to be determined underdeveloped or otherwise by the general forum instead of making that determination as a singular person - all bias, subjectivity and personal perceptions considered?

Are we not all here to listen, discuss and learn from one another?

like my dog being unable to understand even the elementary aspects of calculus? — jgill

Is calculus not something that in simple terms, deals with "change"? Or the summation of minute differences/variances.

I think that is likely one of many innate function of a brain no? In constructing a sense of variance or change in its perceived environment. Internal inbuilt calculus. I don't see why a dog cannot perceive small differences in what it observes from moment to moment or between two bowls of a different volume of food for example.

I for one certainly don't underestimate the intelligence of man's best friend.