Creation and Causality

[The7thColporteur]

Not worst.

Undefined, foundational criteria again?

 

[devolved]

Oh, I'm sure you'll think of something

So... You went from Hitchslap to Hitch...hike lol

 

[HitchSlap]

Undefined, foundational criteria again?

It'a apparent to me why you have such difficulty with straightforward discussions.

 

[HitchSlap]

So... You went from Hitchslap to Hitch...hike lol

Yep. Wanna' come along?

 

[The7thColporteur]

It'a apparent to me why you have such difficulty with straightforward discussions.

I did ask you several questions, in charity, but you did not seem to want to participate in them in any manner of serious dialogue.

Creation and Causality

Creation and Causality

I was asking to know what you believe about those things, that I might ask more intimate questions concerning them to find out what you believe, but you seem more interested in stroking your 'ego'.

On matters of God, angels/devils [beings that are not God], resurrection, etc.

 

[HitchSlap]

I did ask you several questions, in charity, but you did not seem to want to participate in them in any manner of serious dialogue.

Creation and Causality

Creation and Causality

I was asking to know what you believe about those things, that I might ask more intimate questions concerning them to find out what you believe, but you seem more interested in stroking your 'ego'.

On matters of God, angels/devils [beings that are not God], resurrection, etc.

Ask away... open ended questions are best.

 

[Chriliman]

On the contrary, you've yet to demonstrate your woo is relevant to reality.

(you know, the real reality... the one that doesn't go away in spite of mental gymnastics)

In fact, I challenge you to name one thing where my three basal assumptions might fail to provide the best answer.

Your basal assumptions may be good for figuring out how reality works but they can't tell you how you ought to act towards others.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wouldn't need extra evidence for claim 2. I would only need to know the truthfulness and reliability and consistency of the person making the claim, and so it has nothing to do with extraordinary evidence.

People like you make con-men a small fortune.

For instance: These Contacts Let You Shoot Lasers From Your Eyes

I said eyes.

Wonderful things happen all of the time in history, children falling from 13 stories and being instantly caught by a person below, etc. People surviving explosions, and so on.

So therefor, you can believe anything anyone claims at face value.

Uhu.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your basal assumptions may be good for figuring out how reality works but they can't tell you how you ought to act towards others.

Sure they do. #3

 

[Chriliman]

Sure they do. #3

Ok and what have you concluded?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think it's as simple as that.

All of us begin with our respective axiomatic presuppositions. For example, you assume that yours is reasonable because it follow certain rules of logic, but when anyone would ask you to "prove" that the foundation for the rules of logic is valid, the only thing you can do is to either point to some pluralistic consensus, or some axiomatic necessity.

As a nihilist I don't hold any axiom to be intrinsically true.

Axioms cannot be proven within the system that they generate; this is a notion that has universal agreement. Beyond that, some people hold that they are true in some other way, a notion that is nonsensical.

Thus, it's not the case of a Christian must prove something to you based on your philosophic model of reality. You first need to justify your model of reality in order for any side to accept that what you would consider "invalid evidence" is actually a viable conclusion.

I don't see how this is relevant, and further, it doesn't make sense that one could confuse invalid evidence for a conclusion. Evidence, whether valid or invalid, would be a premise.

Your model is based on "first principle" assumptions that you can't justify or provide "proof" for.

Off topic. We're not discussing the foundations of logic, or the lack thereof. This thread is about physical reality.

What we essentially have is two varying models that are built using different presuppositional philosophical frameworks.

No.

There is not single "Christian position", just like there is no single and unified "atheist position" on this topic.

There is no single Christian position, but doesn't every Christian believe that God created everything that exists? At least that must be universal.

As far as atheism goes, I explicitly pointed out that I was saddling the atheist with a claim that he wouldn't make just for the sake of argument. Why you are bringing this up is a mystery to me.

The default position is "we don't know".

Agreed.

That's why it's called a belief in God, instead of a claim of knowledge. A belief is a guess based on certain claims and lines of evidence.

OK... and I'm showing that belief in God is unreasonable.

Now, the debate is not about logical viability, because we first have to agree about rules of logic and context you are framing these in.

False. Again, we are discussing physical reality. It has nothing to do with logic.

You seem to be citing fallacies as though these are some sort of universal judicial decisions. These are not. Fallacy claims are not absolute. These are contextual, and only work within certain observable and repeatable variable context.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Saying that God created "something out of nothing" is a linguistic attempt to describe reality.

Is there a way of describing anything that is not linguistic?

Language is by necessity axiomatic.

The formal language is, but common language is not.

But if you have a problem with axioms, perhaps we can just point and grunt.

As for me, I prefer to hold axioms as tentatively true. I accept them as if, ... then statements.

It's not absolute. It's not 1:1 representation of reality. It's just collection of symbols with send to communicate meaning.

Are you a nihilist also?

Thus, when a Christian says something, there's a different semantics involved than when a scientist says something, just like when a philosopher says something, there's a different semantic meaning to the similar words that we speak. We may use the same words, but these words may not map to the same concepts.

Common vernacular is not much of a point in question. Stick to it to avoid confusion.

Each of us gives individual meaning to the words.

I'm definitely starting to think you're a nihilist. A Christian nihilist. Kind of strange. But yes, words are ultimately undefined. Common language defines words circularly, since every word is defined in terms of other words, and the formal language defines its symbols in terms of the primitive symbols which are undefined. So ultimately, yes, all words are undefined.

The word "nothing" could have a wide range of meaning in this context, and it's highly unlikely that it's "abstract nothingness" that you are talking about. We don't know.

Nothing. No thing. The lack of anything that exists.

The point of that statement is not about HOW God created, but THAT God created, and it's a presupposition based on certain line of observable evidence.

What evidence?

Again, your referring to reason and cause here is problematic. You have to axiomatically presuppose the viability of both for us to have this conversation.

I tentatively assumed that God exists and that he created the universe, and then I followed that logic to its conclusion. In other words, I did take it as an axiom. I showed that taking it as an axiom produces a system inferior to one which does not take it as an axiom.

If you watch West World, they are making a hidden statement about it in the show intro animation. Robotic hands are playing the piano, and it looks like the robot is causing the piano to play. But then robot removes the hands, and the piano keeps on playing on its own. So, what we assumed to be a causal relationship turns out to be not causal at all. Piano and hands just move together to make it look like so.

Thus, you assume causality, because you perceive something simultaneously happening. But there's no conclusive means to prove causality. It's an assumption that your brain seems to connect based on patterns, and we can agree on certain causal relationships, but we don't need to agree that everything is causal and everything plays by the same causal rules. It's your assumption, and perhaps we can all agree to assume something, but that agreement is pragmatic and not based on some ontological validity.

I don't know what your point is here.

The same with reason. You are assuming that there MUST BE a reason for everything that exists from your assumption about causality.

You should have deleted this paragraph because it is contradicted by the next thing you quote from me, which is this:

We have not, and presumably cannot, observe nothingness, so there are no empirical grounds to say what can or cannot occur. Further, we know that nothingness entails a complete lack of rules or governing principles, so the governing principle "something cannot come from nothing" cannot apply to nothingness by definition.

But it's a foundational model that you formulate and you have to justify it. And I can assure you that you can only justify it so far before you run into the very same logical fallacies that you seem to think must be valid in any context.

Above, you accused me of holding certain assumptions about causality. You're proven wrong in your very next quote and you don't acknowledge it. Instead, you just float out yet another objection which is yet again proven wrong, except this time you've redacted what I said on the matter:

Let me clarify, though, that I'm not positively claiming that something definitely can come from nothingness, but rather that it cannot be ruled out.

Making an objection which is already addressed by your opponent, and then redacting your opponent's comment on the matter, is quite a dishonest tactic. If I go to the trouble of saying that I'm not making a definitive claim, but just expressing a possibility, don't tell me I have to justify my speculative remark and then also redact the part where I said it was speculative. Please, have some manners.

Well, how do we know that nothingness entails and what it does not entail? Nothingness is a word that refers to absence, and we have to agree on your own subjective meaning of that word prior to us using it.

A new kind of fallacy: find a speculative remark from your opponent, and hammer it as though it is an actual claim of theirs. Perhaps we could call this the tin man fallacy.

You may point to dictionary for some proof of words meaning, but linguistic meaning is not a static phenomenon. The only "true" meaning of the word labels is that which one we can agree on in any particular instance we use it.

Yes, we're both nihilists. I know.

If you say "nothing" means X, and I say nothing means Y ... and we do so axiomatically, then there can be no further conversation. We simply talk past each other insisting that our axioms are valid.

When I talk about nothing, I'm referring to no thing. When you talk about nothing, are you referring to a thing?

Again, you don't know how causality works in any given situation. You are making a baseline assumption that you don't seem needs to be defended.

Perhaps if you didn't redact large portions of my thread, you'd see where I defended my position. You know, the part where I explicitly define causality in two equivalent ways. I even give an example.

1) You can make a good claim of contextual causality as a pragmatic axiomatic assumption. If we see something that consistently repeating as a causal result, then there's a good pragmatic necessity to assume that A caused B.

2) When you are talking about non-repeating, or extremely complex phenomenon, causality is very difficult to infer, or even presume at all.

Right... which is why I am going through all this trouble to explain that the Big Bang cannot have been caused.

In terms of the transcendent reality, we can only philosophically infer what it may be like using the language of our reality. That's why the term is "God created something from nothing". It's a loose metaphor, but the point of that metaphor is not a scientific explanation. It's a philosophical point that God is the "ultimate source". Is there a source beyond God? That would be another level of discussion.

The eternal existence of physical material would render God's existence moot. Given eternity, all possible outcomes must occur. Our universe is obviously a possible outcome.

Again, you are attempting to evaluate God in context of your own semantic model in which it naturally doesn't fit. When you axiomatically define meaning of certain words, OF COURSE you basically define God out of possibility with these axioms.

Please do me the courtesy of understanding my position, or else don't reply. In no way did I attempt to prove that God does not exist. In no way is that the focus of the thread.

You would have to first justify your model prior to us having this conversation on some viable grounds. If you can't, then what are we talking about here? Your presuppositions? Why would that be more valid than presuppositions of other people? Because it seems like so to you ?



It's sort of like demanding to explain how can quantum entanglement do what it does? We don't know. At the level of "derivative concepts" we can only make only so many assumptions, because the model lacks data.

These assumptions exists on fringes of presumed causal relationships, and these don't and can't explain the reality behind these entities. These models are derivative to begin with. That's the FRINGE of our understanding. It's difficult to guess what's behind the guess, because there are no constrains for us to hold on to.

Again, it's a philosophical model. For you to claim that it's "worse" what are you comparing it to? You are comparing it to your own model, and I'm asking you to justify that model prior to having this discussion. It's sort of like jumping on physics forum and asking to justify the "Many Universes" explanation, or various explanations behind quantum phenomenon. We never observe either our Universe, or quantum phenomenon except in some derivative manner. We assume that these things are as we imagine these to be.



Why would the "extra assumption" be inferior explanation as to "less assumptions". You first need to justify THAT ASSUMPTION that you are making here, and you need to show that it's valid in every context of its application before you rush in and apply to everything.

I'm kind of done here... I don't get the sense that you bothered to read the thread.

 

[devolved]

Please do me the courtesy of understanding my position, or else don't reply. In no way did I attempt to prove that God does not exist. In no way is that the focus of the thread.

Well, I did not say that you attempt to prove that God doesn't exist. I said that you are defining an axiomatic model in which there's no likely possibility for God's existence.

So, if I say that I am a solipsistic... prove to me that you exist... what can you do? Nothing. The conversation is a dead-end at that point.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, I did not say that you attempt to prove that God doesn't exist. I said that you are defining an axiomatic model in which there's no likely possibility for God's existence.

So, if I say that I am a solipsistic... prove to me that you exist... what can you do? Nothing. The conversation is a dead-end at that point.

Do you have anything to say on the topic of the thread or do you concede the point?

 

[devolved]

Do you have anything to say on the topic of the thread or do you concede the point?

The problem is that you think that you have point, but all you are doing is framing an axiom and then demand that people supposed to agree with assumptions that flow from such axioms.

Ironically, you are not acting like a Nihilist ... perhaps existentialist at best, at least from the POV that you attempt to frame these arguments in context of logic and reason that supposed to mean something.

So the Christian has an extra assumption which explains nothing, and assumptions that explain nothing are supposed to be dropped. In logic, assumptions, while necessary, are a liability and should be limited to the best extent that is possible.

Again, you say that these supposed to be dropped, but you don't provide reasons why it would be better in this case, since you analogizing different categories here. What you are doing is no different than creationist saying "Hey people create things, therefore all things are created". Just because we view Occam's Razor concept to be valid in some contexts... doesn't mean that it would be valid in all. You would have to demonstrate that it's valid in all prior to invoking it in context of axiom that God exist.

You invoke informal logical fallacies as absolutes, but these are not. Invoking these as absolutes is a fallacy of its own, because informal fallacies are "fallacies by analogy". That's all these are. You are saying "things like these are false, then your reasoning is likely false if you think like that". But it doesn't invalidate the argument by itself.

For example, I pointed out to you that you can't even prove to me that causality is a viable assumption. It's a good axiom, but it's not something you can prove. It's something that you have to assume.

Hence, in all of this conversation you seem to miss one important detail:

God is an axiom that frames my logic. God is not a concept that I have to prove to you via some logical chain of your own assumptions.

Hence, it's a win win. You get to win and believe whatever you want to, and I get to win and believe whatever I want to. We can have overlap of agreement, and we can have an overlap of disagreement.

Of course you will disagree with me on fundamental axioms, and that's fine... but I see no point to debate assumptions that neither of us can validate. You can't prove to assumptions behind your Nihilism identification anymore than I can prove to you that God exist with some demonstrable force apart from things that I personally view as viable evidence.

And that's really what these conversations boil down to. So, after playing this kind of "intellectual chess" for a while, there's nothing inherently new here. Perhaps a few modified approaches that allow us consider various possibilities, but in the end we adhere to our axiomatic preferences, and these preferences follow the subconscious models that we may not even be aware of.

Thus, it may be useful to engage in these debates to attempt to modify these subconscious models, but in yours and mine case... probably not. Both of us are "too far gone" . Maybe there's hope for us yet, but I don't think so.

In which case it may be more productive to discuss philosophy of Westworld with you than viability of Biblical narrative.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The problem is that you think that you have point, but all you are doing is framing an axiom and then demand that people supposed to agree with assumptions that flow from such axioms.

What axiom? All I did was propose two equivalent definitions of causality, and then said this:

You are free to come up with another definition of causality, so long as it models reality as we know it.

So I'm not demanding that people agree with any assumption I've made.

You're absolutely wrong about absolutely everything.

Ironically, you are not acting like a Nihilist ... perhaps existentialist at best, at least from the POV that you attempt to frame these arguments in context of logic and reason that supposed to mean something.

My nihilism is a result of the ultimate vacuous nature of language and logic. But once again, we are talking about physical reality. The universe does not respect the "laws" of logic that we invent. Please stop talking about the fundamentals of logic as if it has anything to do with this thread. This thread, like virtually all other threads in existence, is tentatively accepting common notions of logic and going from there. I'm not getting into the foundations of logic - at least not here - and if you continue, your comments on the matter will simply be met with a poop emoji.

Again, you say that these supposed to be dropped, but you don't provide reasons why it would be better in this case, since you analogizing different categories here.

The block of text that you quoted answers your objection:

In logic, assumptions, while necessary, are a liability and should be limited to the best extent that is possible.

What you are doing is no different than creationist saying "Hey people create things, therefore all things are created".

That's an extrapolation fallacy; I am not doing that.

Just because we view Occam's Razor concept to be valid in some contexts... doesn't mean that it would be valid in all. You would have to demonstrate that it's valid in all prior to invoking it in context of axiom that God exist.

The idea that irrelevant assumptions should not be included in an argument is valid in all contexts.

You invoke informal logical fallacies as absolutes, but these are not. Invoking these as absolutes is a fallacy of its own, because informal fallacies are "fallacies by analogy". That's all these are. You are saying "things like these are false, then your reasoning is likely false if you think like that". But it doesn't invalidate the argument by itself.

I have no idea what you just said.

For example, I pointed out to you that you can't even prove to me that causality is a viable assumption. It's a good axiom, but it's not something you can prove. It's something that you have to assume.

And I pointed out to you that this thread is about physical reality, not about logic. Causality is an observation, not an axiom, and if you don't like it... well... there's the door, see yourself out.

Hence, in all of this conversation you seem to miss one important detail:

God is an axiom that frames my logic. God is not a concept that I have to prove to you via some logical chain of your own assumptions.

Then you're in the wrong forum. This is the apologetics forum, where you demonstrate the existence of your deity to those who do not share the same belief. Assuming that God exists is not going to convince anyone of anything.

Further, as is demonstrated in this thread, assuming that God exists does not enable you to provide a better explanation for why the universe exists.

Hence, it's a win win. You get to win and believe whatever you want to, and I get to win and believe whatever I want to. We can have overlap of agreement, and we can have an overlap of disagreement.

I don't believe what I want to believe. My beliefs are beyond my control. For example, I am unable to believe that Australia does not exist. Perhaps I really hate the continent, and wish that it doesn't exist. That does not enable me to actually believe it doesn't exist.

For you, though, the opposite seems to be true. It seems that you're able to believe whatever you want. I'm pretty sure that's referred to as "make believe".

Of course you will disagree with me on fundamental axioms, and that's fine... but I see no point to debate assumptions that neither of us can validate. You can't prove to assumptions behind your Nihilism identification anymore than I can prove to you that God exist with some demonstrable force apart from things that I personally view as viable evidence.

There are no assumptions behind nihilism. And if you can't prove that God exists, I suppose you can just make believe.

And that's really what these conversations boil down to. So, after playing this kind of "intellectual chess" for a while, there's nothing inherently new here. Perhaps a few modified approaches that allow us consider various possibilities, but in the end we adhere to our axiomatic preferences, and these preferences follow the subconscious models that we may not even be aware of.

ileofpoop:

Thus, it may be useful to engage in these debates to attempt to modify these subconscious models, but in yours and mine case... probably not. Both of us are "too far gone" . Maybe there's hope for us yet, but I don't think so.

When I visit the land of make believe, I'll be sure to knock on your door. Until then, yes, there's no real hope here.

In which case it may be more productive to discuss philosophy of Westworld with you than viability of Biblical narrative.

Why not just assume the validity of the Bible and be done with it? Checkmate, atheists.

 

[devolved]

When I visit the land of make believe, I'll be sure to knock on your door. Until then, yes, there's no real hope here.

You are living in that land, and you claim that it's not real, even though you act like it is. So I asked you to prove to me that you are indeed a Nihilist, what would you point to ? The only thing you would point to is your imagination.

Hence let's not set double-standards here and claim that your absurd is better than mine (from your Pov). You have no framework to build the concept of "better" from where you stand, apart from clinging to some narrow pragmatic outcomes. But the moment you do, you are visiting my land of imagination when it comes to assigning meaning and claiming that it's relevant to us all.

 

[devolved]

There are no assumptions behind nihilism. And if you can't prove that God exists, I suppose you can just make believe.

All Nihilism is a string of subjective assumptions. In fact, I'm not quite certain that you believe it. If you were so certain, you wouldn't be on a Christian board asking others to prove to you that God exists .

All we can do is to make-believe models and act these out. That's what we do as humans. The reason why I'm here is because there's a millenia-old string of assumptions that point us in a direction of some God-like existence. As a human living in 2018 I merely grab a Christian model as the one that survived the test of cultural evolution, and I adopt it to my life the best I can. It may not be true, and I can recognize that as a possibility, but I do have certain pointers that communicate intelligence behind our being that transcends the concept of atoms bouncing around, and gradually self-assembling into what we are today.

Do I know that God exist? No, but I suspect, just like the vast majority of humans before me, that there's something to our conscious existence that begs that question.

But, even if God doesn't exist and everything is absurd, my view of it of Christian existentialism then. I get to choose what to believe, and your absurd doesn't get to dictate that it's a "better absurd" if all that we have is absurd. Case closed .

We can play intellectual chess game all we want, but that's all it will ever boil down to... your string of assumptions vs my string of assumptions. And from your POV it's your absurd vs mine. Why do you care?

And YES, in my string of assumptions, just like Tolstoy would say ... If God doesn't exist, then we'll have to invent one. And I'd be totally fine with that too, given that no other meaning exists outside of the meaning that we create. It's a better alternative than "no meaning at all exist", and I don't see you behaving that way.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

All Nihilism is a string of subjective assumptions. In fact, I'm not quite certain that you believe it. If you were so certain, you wouldn't be on a Christian board asking others to prove to you that God exists .

All we can do is to make-believe models and act these out. That's what we do as humans. The reason why I'm here is because there's a millenia-old string of assumptions that point us in a direction of some God-like existence. As a human living in 2018 I merely grab a Christian model as the one that survived the test of cultural evolution, and I adopt it to my life the best I can. It may not be true, and I can recognize that as a possibility, but I do have certain pointers that communicate intelligence behind our being that transcends the concept of atoms bouncing around, and gradually self-assembling into what we are today.

Do I know that God exist? No, but I suspect, just like the vast majority of humans before me, that there's something to our conscious existence that begs that question.

But, even if God doesn't exist and everything is absurd, my view of it of Christian existentialism then. I get to choose what to believe, and your absurd doesn't get to dictate that it's a "better absurd" if all that we have is absurd. Case closed .

We can play intellectual chess game all we want, but that's all it will ever boil down to... your string of assumptions vs my string of assumptions. And from your POV it's your absurd vs mine. Why do you care?

And YES, in my string of assumptions, just like Tolstoy would say ... If God doesn't exist, then we'll have to invent one. And I'd be totally fine with that too, given that no other meaning exists outside of the meaning that we create. It's a better alternative than "no meaning at all exist", and I don't see you behaving that way.

This thread is about creation and causality. Please be on topic or else don't post here. Please stop polluting my thread.

 

[devolved]

This thread is about creation and causality. Please be on topic or else don't post here. Please stop polluting my thread.

The problem is that when I switch to discussing the causality, you keep driving it to "My direct perception of causality" as though it's the only viable way to look at causality. But, fair-enough. Let's try it again.

And I pointed out to you that this thread is about physical reality, not about logic. Causality is an observation, not an axiom, and if you don't like it... well... there's the door, see yourself out.

You assume that causality is the adequate way to describe "physical reality out there" instead of how we merely perceive the reality out there as we (our minds) parse chunks of it.

For example, if we put you in front of a computer that's playing pong and ask you to describe what you see in terms of the what causes what, you would describe the paddles cause the balls to bounce and alter the ball's trajectory.

In reality though, what you see on the screen merely suggests causal relationship to your mind. Your mind chunks it as a pattern, and that's how you see the game, although obviously the pixels on the screen don't track anything. These merely light up in sequence.

What actually tracks the process is far-detached from how you would perceive the ball/paddle causal relationship to be. In fact, it's not like that at all.

Our physics models actually suggest that electrons occupy no space or have zero mass, and that you look at as matter is actually 99.999999999314% empty space, hence obviously what you see is not what the reality is really like. You see a projection.

So, the question to you in terms of causal relationships still stands. How do you know that these are ACTUAL interaction of matter, or whether it's merely a projection that suggests causal relationships like a screen on the game of pong would?

What we trace and record in reality is our perception (the game of pong). Since perception is consistent, we can usefully derive "casuals stories". But the reality under these patterns is a projection to a smaller or greater degree, depending on what the reality is really like.

Hence, what you seem to imply is that God must operate in the same reality and by the same rules of realty as we do at the level of "projection" of the reality that we see in our brain. That assumption is clearly a category problem.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The problem is that when I switch to discussing the causality, you keep driving it to "My direct perception of causality" as though it's the only viable way to look at causality. But, fair-enough. Let's try it again.




You assume that causality is the adequate way to describe "physical reality out there" instead of how we merely perceive the reality out there as we (our minds) parse chunks of it.

For example, if we put you in front of a computer that's playing pong and ask you to describe what you see in terms of the what causes what, you would describe the paddles cause the balls to bounce and alter the ball's trajectory.

In reality though, what you see on the screen merely suggests causal relationship to your mind. Your mind chunks it as a pattern, and that's how you see the game, although obviously the pixels on the screen don't track anything. These merely light up in sequence.

What actually tracks the process is far-detached from how you would perceive the ball/paddle causal relationship to be. In fact, it's not like that at all.

Our physics models actually suggest that electrons occupy no space or have zero mass, and that you look at as matter is actually 99.999999999314% empty space, hence obviously what you see is not what the reality is really like. You see a projection.

So, the question to you in terms of causal relationships still stands. How do you know that these are ACTUAL interaction of matter, or whether it's merely a projection that suggests causal relationships like a screen on the game of pong would?

What we trace and record in reality is our perception (the game of pong). Since perception is consistent, we can usefully derive "casuals stories". But the reality under these patterns is a projection to a smaller or greater degree, depending on what the reality is really like.

Hence, what you seem to imply is that God must operate in the same reality and by the same rules of realty as we do at the level of "projection" of the reality that we see in our brain. That assumption is clearly a category problem.

It can be strongly and compellingly argued that we are most likely a simulation. This is referred to as the simulation hypothesis. However, it is poorly named because it is not a hypothesis until someone derives a way to test it. It should be called the simulation speculation.

What you're proposing is lower than a speculation because I didn't see where you even define the mechanics of what you're speculating about.

From the OP:

You are free to come up with another definition of causality, so long as it models reality as we know it. The Christian's task is to think up a form of causality which is consistent with both what we observe in reality and also creation out of nothing.

Saying that there could be some kind of overlay that mimics causality while causal relations are truly processed elsewhere fails across the board, scientifically speaking:

1. It does not make predictions
2. It does not use the least amount of assumptions
3. It is not observed
4. It is not even fully defined

Don't get me wrong: I do think it's an interesting idea that you have there. It could be the premise of a great science fiction. I actually write science fiction and I honestly do love the idea. I might even steal it. But in meaningful discussion it does not deserve consideration.