Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

9 hours ago, Elad said:

There's a few examples of indeterminism but I think the best one is how photons of light behave in a device that's based on a half silvered mirror.

 

When single photons are fired at the mirror which is at an angle of 45 degrees, then there's an equal probability that the photon land at detector '1' and detector '0'. Which of the two detectors fires when a photon is incident on the mirror is completely random.

If you ran an experiment like this, you will never find any sequence or pattern in the way the photons are detected, not in a million years or until the end of time in the universe, a pattern will never emerge.

 Notice how the detectors are labelled '0' and '1' this can be interpreted as binary code in computers and they are used today for science and engineering, cryptography and they're also used in gambling or slot machines. They are known as 'Quantum Random Number Generators'. 

 

Are you telling me that's not pure randomness?

Well, you have just proven to yourself that "reality " isn't static, and science is still far from understanding every detail of the universal laws.

I think old Sigmund Freud was right in general terms when he said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ".

[Peter Denis]

9 hours ago, Elad said:

There's a few examples of indeterminism but I think the best one is how photons of light behave in a device that's based on a half silvered mirror.

 

When single photons are fired at the mirror which is at an angle of 45 degrees, then there's an equal probability that the photon land at detector '1' and detector '0'. Which of the two detectors fires when a photon is incident on the mirror is completely random.

If you ran an experiment like this, you will never find any sequence or pattern in the way the photons are detected, not in a million years or until the end of time in the universe, a pattern will never emerge.

 Notice how the detectors are labelled '0' and '1' this can be interpreted as binary code in computers and they are used today for science and engineering, cryptography and they're also used in gambling or slot machines. They are known as 'Quantum Random Number Generators'. 

 

Are you telling me that's not pure randomness?

Are you telling me that's not pure randomness?

Yes.

What you perceive as 'pure randomness' of the outcome of the individual event, is that you are not able to predict where the photon will land.

If you ran an experiment like this, you will never find any sequence or pattern in the way the photons are detected, not in a million years or until the end of time in the universe, a pattern will never emerge.

When the set-up is not skewed somewhere (e.g. the angle of the mirror), a pattern will emerge that 50% of the photons end up in detector 1 and 50% end up in detector 2.

And the more data you collect the closer the actual binary distribution will be approached.

Yes, you are not able to determine the outcome of the individual next event based on the trend of the previous outcomes, but there is definitely a pattern. 

If you and I would be doing this experiment say 1000 times, it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that our detector 1 vs detector 2 outcomes, would show a large difference.  And the difference would diminish with the square of the number of experiments done, when we keep on doing it.

Note: Actually that is only true when we both use an automated set-up, otherwise a deliberate mind-effort of one of us to skew the results to detector 1 or 2, will influence the outcomes...

 

[Tagged]

Since I get a strange emotion on my post, maybe this can clerify a bit more where I was heading with my ramble

 

 

"Introduction
What do you have in common with a banana? Even though we might not look alike, all living things—bananas and people included—are made up of the same basic material."

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/find-the-dna-in-a-banana-bring-science-home/

 

and all living on this planet is just basically stardust

Edited February 3, 2021 by Tagged

[Peter Denis]

42 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Are you telling me that's not pure randomness?

Yes.

What you perceive as 'pure randomness' of the outcome of the individual event, is that you are not able to predict where the photon will land.

If you ran an experiment like this, you will never find any sequence or pattern in the way the photons are detected, not in a million years or until the end of time in the universe, a pattern will never emerge.

When the set-up is not skewed somewhere (e.g. the angle of the mirror), a pattern will emerge that 50% of the photons end up in detector 1 and 50% end up in detector 2.

And the more data you collect the closer the actual binary distribution will be approached.

Yes, you are not able to determine the outcome of the individual next event based on the trend of the previous outcomes, but there is definitely a pattern. 

If you and I would be doing this experiment say 1000 times, it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that our detector 1 vs detector 2 outcomes, would show a large difference.  And the difference would diminish with the square of the number of experiments done, when we keep on doing it.

Note: Actually that is only true when we both use an automated set-up, otherwise a deliberate mind-effort of one of us to skew the results to detector 1 or 2, will influence the outcomes...

 

Thorwald Dethlefsen - I have mentioned his esoteric primer The Challenge of Fate already several times in this thread - did put it much more eloquent than me (I did put the bold marking):

The analogy “as above so below” is applicable only if we are willing to recognize this universe in its entirety as a cosmos (Greek: kosmos = order). A cosmos, however, is governed by laws and there is no room for chance occurrence.
Chance occurrence, being something unaccountable and random, would transform every cosmos into chaos. When we build a computer it represents in itself a small cosmos: it is built according to laws and its functioning is dependent on the observance of such laws. If we solder into its circuit a few transistors, condensers and resistors which are not in accordance with the laws governing the circuit design, then these built-in random elements will transform its entire cosmos into chaos and the computer will stop working properly. The same applies to our world. With the very first random event our world would cease to exist.

 

And also @mauGR1 the Grand Elephant King, gave a very true and appropriate answer to this matter

> In my best moments,  everything looks absolutely perfect and in the right place.

Edited February 3, 2021 by Peter Denis

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Thorwald Dethlefsen - I have mentioned his esoteric primer The Challenge of Fate already several times in this thread - did put it much more eloquent than me (I did put the bold marking):

The analogy “as above so below” is applicable only if we are willing to recognize this universe
in its entirety as a cosmos (Greek: kosmos = order). A cosmos, however, is governed by laws
and there is no room for chance occurrence.
Chance occurrence, being something unaccountable and random, would transform every
cosmos into chaos. When we build a computer it represents in itself a small cosmos: it is built
according to laws and its functioning is dependent on the observance of such laws. If we
solder into its circuit a few transistors, condensers and resistors which are not in accordance
with the laws governing the circuit design, then these built-in random elements will transform
its entire cosmos into chaos and the computer will stop working properly. The same applies to
our world. With the very first random event our world would cease to exist.

 

And also @mauGR1 the Grand Elephant King, gave a very true and appropriate answer to his matter

> In my best moments,  everything looks absolutely perfect and in the right place.

Thanks, anyway,  and it's just some sort of intuition,  which may be completely wrong , I think that there could be, from a human point of view, a very tiny amount of randomness added to the recipe of the whole pie.

Not enough to make things suddenly turn into chaos, but enough to give some sort of development. 

[mauGR1]

20 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Since I get a strange emotion on my post, maybe this can clerify a bit more where I was heading with my ramble

 

 

"Introduction
What do you have in common with a banana? Even though we might not look alike, all living things—bananas and people included—are made up of the same basic material."

 

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/find-the-dna-in-a-banana-bring-science-home/

 

and all living on this planet is just basically stardust

From a purely physical point of view, I think that you are right. 

Yet, although the life of a banana may seem simple and uncomplicated,  I still prefer to be a human, with all the ups and downs.

[Tagged]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

From a purely physical point of view, I think that you are right. 

Yet, although the life of a banana may seem simple and uncomplicated,  I still prefer to be a human, with all the ups and downs.

But you understand where I am going? If complex heritage material as DNA arrived from somewhere in the universe, it could by time evolve in to everything thats have been on this planet just by coincidence, time and at right time?

 

And again, here it comes, if we send out small spaceships with robots with "building stones" to every planet we discover that is earth alike, wouldnt it be possible we create life on another planet? Of course it is highly alike if any close ro planet earth, there will be life there already which we do not know yet! 

[Peter Denis]

19 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Thanks, anyway,  and it's just some sort of intuition,  which may be completely wrong , I think that there could be, from a human point of view, a very tiny amount of randomness added to the recipe of the whole pie.

Not enough to make things suddenly turn into chaos, but enough to give some sort of development. 

Are you not confusing that 'very tiny amount of randomness' with the notion of free will?

I am probably opening a new can of worms here, but imo 'free will' only relates to how we stand in life and perceive things.  So even though we are predetermined, we are also totally free.

This has nothing to do with randomness, as randomness does not exist (see my previous post).

As you wrote and very true > In my best moments,  everything looks absolutely perfect and in the right place.

[Elad]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Are you telling me that's not pure randomness?

Yes.

What you perceive as 'pure randomness' of the outcome of the individual event, is that you are not able to predict where the photon will land.

If you ran an experiment like this, you will never find any sequence or pattern in the way the photons are detected, not in a million years or until the end of time in the universe, a pattern will never emerge.

When the set-up is not skewed somewhere (e.g. the angle of the mirror), a pattern will emerge that 50% of the photons end up in detector 1 and 50% end up in detector 2.

And the more data you collect the closer the actual binary distribution will be approached.

Yes, you are not able to determine the outcome of the individual next event based on the trend of the previous outcomes, but there is definitely a pattern. 

If you and I would be doing this experiment say 1000 times, it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) that our detector 1 vs detector 2 outcomes, would show a large difference.  And the difference would diminish with the square of the number of experiments done, when we keep on doing it.

Note: Actually that is only true when we both use an automated set-up, otherwise a deliberate mind-effort of one of us to skew the results to detector 1 or 2, will influence the outcomes...

 

Perhaps i should have said there's no pattern in the way those photons arrive at 50 50. 

 

The probability is exactly 50 50. I'm talking about individual photons and on that basis it's pure random. If anyone can prove that the incident photons are deterministic, then there's a whole shelf of noble prizes waiting for you. 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

25 minutes ago, Elad said:

Perhaps i should have said there's no pattern in the way those photons arrive at 50 50. 

 

The probability is exactly 50 50. I'm talking about individual photons and on that basis it's pure random. If anyone can prove that the incident photons are deterministic, then there's a whole shelf of noble prizes waiting for you.

Yes, you are referring to the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics, which states that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level, nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance.

But not every scientist agrees with that concept.  The most famous one being Albert Einstein, with his well-known quote that 'God does not play dice'.  It was addressed by Einstein to Max Born (one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics) in a letter that he wrote to Born in 1926.

The full quote goes like this, “Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One’s secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Are you not confusing that 'very tiny amount of randomness' with the notion of free will?

I am probably opening a new can of worms here, but imo 'free will' only relates to how we stand in life and perceive things.  So even though we are predetermined, we are also totally free.

This has nothing to do with randomness, as randomness does not exist (see my previous post).

As you wrote and very true > In my best moments,  everything looks absolutely perfect and in the right place.

Not confusing,  in fact what you call free will is just an aspect of what I called randomness. 

[Sunmaster]

The fact that we influence energy/matter just by observing it (not just in a quantum field accelerator, but in everyday life...like holding a pen or being with another person)...how would that affect the idea of randomness?

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

But you understand where I am going? If complex heritage material as DNA arrived from somewhere in the universe, it could by time evolve in to everything thats have been on this planet just by coincidence, time and at right time?

 

And again, here it comes, if we send out small spaceships with robots with "building stones" to every planet we discover that is earth alike, wouldnt it be possible we create life on another planet? Of course it is highly alike if any close ro planet earth, there will be life there already which we do not know yet! 

Everything is possible,  even that something happens "by coincidence " imho.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The fact that we influence energy/matter just by observing it (not just in a quantum field accelerator, but in everyday life...like holding a pen or being with another person)...how would that affect the idea of randomness?

I think that in 99% or more of the cases, we call "random" what we can't explain rationally,  yet it would be hard to completely deny that randomness may exist.

Edited February 3, 2021 by mauGR1
Grammar

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Everything is possible,  even that something happens "by coincidence " imho.

Personally, I don't believe in coincidence (randomness), but I believe in synchronicity (2 seemingly random events converging at the right time in the right place, to fulfill a specific purpose).

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Personally, I don't believe in coincidence (randomness), but I believe in synchronicity (2 seemingly random events converging at the right time in the right place, to fulfill a specific purpose).

What I'm trying to say, apparently without much success,  is that absolutely denying the possibility of the existence of randomness,  it's alike to put some limits to the powers of God. 

It's too bold if you ask me.

[Peter Denis]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I think that in 99% or more of the cases, we call "random" what we can't explain rationally,  yet it would be hard to completely deny that randomness doesn't exist at all.

But that's exactly my stance > randomness / coincidence simply does not exist, not even a tiny little bit... Everything happens according to universal laws, when we do not understand these laws we rationalize this by bringing in the notion of random occurence or coincidence.

Or to put it differently > everything happens for a reason, and of course this is irrespective whether we know the reason.

[mauGR1]

16 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

But that's exactly my stance > randomness / coincidence simply does not exist, not even a tiny little bit... Everything happens according to universal laws, when we do not understand these laws we rationalize this by bringing in the notion of random occurence or coincidence.

Or to put it differently > everything happens for a reason, and of course this is irrespective whether we know the reason.

I'm not saying that you're wrong,  but I can agree only 99%.

Sometimes people do things without a reason (I know I do) so why deny the absolute that possibility  ?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

But that's exactly my stance > randomness / coincidence simply does not exist, not even a tiny little bit... Everything happens according to universal laws, when we do not understand these laws we rationalize this by bringing in the notion of random occurence or coincidence.

Or to put it differently > everything happens for a reason, and of course this is irrespective whether we know the reason.

The implication of what you are saying appears to be  that there is no actual free will and we are automatons. It was preordained that you wrote your post and that I am replying.  

Other options are:

1 There is a god. People have free will but god is inside us whispering to us, if you like, about what is the best thing to do. Some may believe other spirits are there too. It is up to us to act on it or not. There are some people with mental illness who thought this was the case but sadly it was not. 

2 There is a god. People have free will but the external non-people world around is controlled by god - god has his reasons for earthquakes, tsunamis etc. He chose the baby to die instead of the cynical old man. 

Often, people who believe in god have had bad things happen to them, leading them to the church. The irony is that by accepting god  they accept that their trusted saviour did bad things to them. People might decide they deserved whatever bad thing God dished out. 

3a No god. People have free will but genetic factors gives us a limited free will with boundaries based on intelligence, health, imagination and strength of character. Life experience such as wealth and education are a factor too.

3b No god. People have free will and we can change our destiny broadly and the world is just stuff that happens. Earthquake happened because big rocks moved. 

 

Laws of physics do not preclude free will in humans.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Sunmaster]

18 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The implication of what you are saying appears to be  that there is no actual free will and we are automatons. It was preordained that you wrote your post and that I am replying.  

Other options are:

1 There is a god. People have free will but god is inside us whispering to us, if you like, about what is the best thing to do. Some may believe other spirits are there too. It is up to us to act on it or not. There are some people with mental illness who thought this was the case but sadly it was not. 

2 There is a god. People have free will but the external non-people world around is controlled by god - god has his reasons for earthquakes, tsunamis etc. He chose the baby to die instead of the cynical old man. 

Often, people who believe in god have had bad things happen to them, leading them to the church. The irony is that by accepting god  they accept that their trusted saviour did bad things to them. People might decide they deserved whatever bad thing God dished out. 

3a No god. People have free will but genetic factors gives us a limited free will with boundaries based on intelligence, health, imagination and strength of character. Life experience such as wealth and education are a factor too.

3b No god. People have free will and we can change our destiny broadly and the world is just stuff that happens. Earthquake happened because big rocks moved. 

 

Laws of physics do not preclude free will in humans.

 

This is a very complicated issue and one I'm still trying to wrap my head around.

Thinking out loud here...

My understanding so far is that there is an apparent free will when we talk about this state of consciousness, where we are still bound by the ego and where time appears to be linear. Free will needs the concept of a linear time to work...choice>decision>acting.
But once the ego has been transcended and our true identity as the SELF has been realized, we discover that that free will was just another illusion in a world of illusions. In the state of Self-realization (or enlightenment), where you become the Cosmic Consciousness, time is an eternal Now. Past and future don't exist, or rather, are included in the eternal now. 
Since free will needs time to exist, it can't exist in a timeless Now.

So, does free will exist? Yes and no. It depends on the state of consciousness.

[Peter Denis]

18 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The implication of what you are saying appears to be  that there is no actual free will and we are automatons. It was preordained that you wrote your post and that I am replying.  

Other options are:

1 There is a god. People have free will but god is inside us whispering to us, if you like, about what is the best thing to do. Some may believe other spirits are there too. It is up to us to act on it or not. There are some people with mental illness who thought this was the case but sadly it was not. 

2 There is a god. People have free will but the external non-people world around is controlled by god - god has his reasons for earthquakes, tsunamis etc. He chose the baby to die instead of the cynical old man. 

Often, people who believe in god have had bad things happen to them, leading them to the church. The irony is that by accepting god  they accept that their trusted saviour did bad things to them. People might decide they deserved whatever bad thing God dished out. 

3a No god. People have free will but genetic factors gives us a limited free will with boundaries based on intelligence, health, imagination and strength of character. Life experience such as wealth and education are a factor too.

3b No god. People have free will and we can change our destiny broadly and the world is just stuff that happens. Earthquake happened because big rocks moved. 

 

Laws of physics do not preclude free will in humans.

 

As I wrote in an earlier post:

I am probably opening a new can of worms here, but imo 'free will' only relates to how we stand in life and perceive things.  So even though we are predetermined, we are also totally free.

That last sentence looks contradictory.

Look at it this way: there is no escape from your fate/destiny.  That is as good as completely predetermined, like in the ancient Greek tragedies.  But your 'free will' will determine how you experience that journey and the necessary problems you encounter on it (you could also call it your karmic luggage that needs to be fulfilled).  Life can be an endless struggle (and basically it will be yourself you are fighting with, projected on the outside world) or you can accept what is put on your way - both the good and the bad, as they both have sense and meaning - and be grateful for it.  That latter attitude will surely help you to slowly (or suddenly) awaken from the sleep in which we go through life and allow you to catch some glimpses from another reality when we are in Total Acceptance mood.  That other reality is like 'seeing God' and experiencing (more than just understanding) that everything is connected and that everything is exactly the way it is meant to be.

I have had the privilege to experience such moments and they are of a total different caliber than any intellectual understanding.  But such eye-opening moments are very very rare (at least for me), and it is easy to sleep-live my life again after it (currently when writing this I am in a somewhat transient state - surely not Awake, but also not as deep asleep as during my normal day-to-day activities).

Not an answer to your question of course, but some might have had similar experiences and will then surely recognize what I am talking about.

 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

As I wrote in an earlier post:

I am probably opening a new can of worms here, but imo 'free will' only relates to how we stand in life and perceive things.  So even though we are predetermined, we are also totally free.

That last sentence looks contradictory.

Look at it this way: there is no escape from your fate/destiny.  That is as good as completely predetermined, like in the ancient Greek tragedies.  But your 'free will' will determine how you experience that journey and the necessary problems you encounter on it (you could also call it your karmic luggage that needs to be fulfilled).  Life can be an endless struggle (and basically it will be yourself you are fighting with, projected on the outside world) or you can accept what is put on your way - both the good and the bad, as they both have sense and meaning - and be grateful for it.  That latter attitude will surely help you to slowly (or suddenly) awaken from the sleep in which we go through life and allow you to catch some glimpses from another reality when we are in Total Acceptance mood.  That other reality is like 'seeing God' and experiencing (more than just understanding) that everything is connected and that everything is exactly the way it is meant to be.

I have had the privilege to experience such moments and they are of a total different caliber than any intellectual understanding.  But such eye-opening moments are very very rare (at least for me), and it is easy to sleep-live my life again after it (currently when writing this I am in a somewhat transient state - surely not Awake, but also not as deep asleep as during my normal day-to-day activities).

Not an answer to your question of course, but some might have had similar experiences and will then surely recognize what I am talking about.

 

That makes total sense too me. Thanks ????

[Elad]

4 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Yes, you are referring to the fundamental concept of Quantum Mechanics, which states that at the quantum (i.e. atomic) level, nature and the universe are totally random, namely events happen by mere chance.

But not every scientist agrees with that concept.  The most famous one being Albert Einstein, with his well-known quote that 'God does not play dice'.  It was addressed by Einstein to Max Born (one of the fathers of Quantum Mechanics) in a letter that he wrote to Born in 1926.

The full quote goes like this, “Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One’s secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”

Einstein didn't like the idea of indeterminacy, but I'm afraid he was proven wrong. Also, he didn't belief in god, he used those words like hawking did, he was an atheist. 

[Peter Denis]

26 minutes ago, Elad said:

Einstein didn't like the idea of indeterminacy, but I'm afraid he was proven wrong. Also, he didn't belief in god, he used those words like hawking did, he was an atheist. 

Einstein actually resented being called an atheist.

He preferred to call himself an agnostic, a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/3/2021 at 4:46 AM, Elad said:

There's a few examples of indeterminism but I think the best one is how photons of light behave in a device that's based on a half silvered mirror.

 

When single photons are fired at the mirror which is at an angle of 45 degrees, then there's an equal probability that the photon land at detector '1' and detector '0'. Which of the two detectors fires when a photon is incident on the mirror is completely random.

If you ran an experiment like this, you will never find any sequence or pattern in the way the photons are detected, not in a million years or until the end of time in the universe, a pattern will never emerge.

 Notice how the detectors are labelled '0' and '1' this can be interpreted as binary code in computers and they are used today for science and engineering, cryptography and they're also used in gambling or slot machines. They are known as 'Quantum Random Number Generators'. 

 

Are you telling me that's not pure randomness?

Somewhat a stretch to equate human behaviour with photons.

Humans are born with genetic imperatives and become programmed on top of that soon as born. Everything that happens to a human influences how they will behave , or what they will believe.

IMO if we know every influence a human has we would have a good idea as to how they will live their life, and what their politics will be.

I believe psychiatrists, psychologists, advertisers and political scientists use that information to earn a living.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

the world is just stuff that happens. Earthquake happened because big rocks moved. 

If one accepts that God created the world one also accepts that the ability of rocks to move was also designed into it. While God created a planet where rocks move, IMO God does not decide which human gets killed when they do.

If one accepts that we are part of God's life force, one also accepts that death is irrelevant as one's life force returns to God after the body dies. We mourn another's death because we lost someone that we loved, but it doesn't mean that their spirit is also gone.

 

Seems to me that some people think God should have made the planet a Garden of Eden where nothing ever went wrong, no one had to strive for anything. Hungry? Just pick fruit from the trees and vegetables from the ground. Never too cold or too hot. No enemies- no harmful bacteria or viruses, no dangerous animals, no disease. All is peace and love.

Humans would die out quite quickly as no need to strive for anything, no ambitions, no desires etc.

Humans IMO need adverse things to develop and improve. We have to overcome to be better, to advance.

Without a desire to become better no one would try to attain nirvana as the world would be nirvana. Bit pointless creating a universe where nothing happened.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If one accepts that God created the world one also accepts that the ability of rocks to move was also designed into it. While God created a planet where rocks move, IMO God does not decide which human gets killed when they do.

If one accepts that we are part of God's life force, one also accepts that death is irrelevant as one's life force returns to God after the body dies. We mourn another's death because we lost someone that we loved, but it doesn't mean that their spirit is also gone.

 

Seems to me that some people think God should have made the planet a Garden of Eden where nothing ever went wrong, no one had to strive for anything. Hungry? Just pick fruit from the trees and vegetables from the ground. Never too cold or too hot. No enemies- no harmful bacteria or viruses, no dangerous animals, no disease. All is peace and love.

Humans would die out quite quickly as no need to strive for anything, no ambitions, no desires etc.

Humans IMO need adverse things to develop and improve. We have to overcome to be better, to advance.

Without a desire to become better no one would try to attain nirvana as the world would be nirvana. Bit pointless creating a universe where nothing happened.

It appears you believe in option 2 although you consider God set in motion events that resulted in the earthquake by pushing over the first domino of the universe's creation and took no further role.

As people have free will it was there bad luck if they died. Not God's fault. As humans use their free will and use it to learn about the universe things that had been set in motion can be stopped e.g. we learn how to predict earthquakes and volcanoes so less people die and deadly bacteria can be stopped.

An interesting issue is by your theory did god create people or did he just create the universe that then resulted in people through physics and chemistry.

Not sure you even need a god in your approach for life on earth as no matter your actions god does not intervene in your lifetime. You may believe though God is watching and will get you after you die if you are bad and hold you to account.

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

18 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Since free will needs time to exist, it can't exist in a timeless Now.

So, does free will exist? Yes and no. It depends on the state of consciousness.

That's a very deep reflection,  and perhaps some week ago I would have totally agreed. 

But.. as you recognize "free will" as a force, how we can be sure that it ceases to exist in absence of the space and time constriction?

More in general, it might be the moon effect, lately i am puzzled by the fact that, one way or another,  when we try to describe spiritual realities, the words we use invariably show their inadequacy in penetrating the veils of our conditioning. 

I think the big question could be, is God personal or impersonal?

As far as I know,  that question is being asked for aeons, and after listening for long time to the "personalists" and the "impersonalists", I have to admit that I'm stuck in the middle of the 2 theories. 

 

 

[Tagged]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's a very deep reflection,  and perhaps some week ago I would have totally agreed. 

But.. as you recognize "free will" as a force, how we can be sure that it ceases to exist in absence of the space and time constriction?

More in general, it might be the moon effect, lately i am puzzled by the fact that, one way or another,  when we try to describe spiritual realities, the words we use invariably show their inadequacy in penetrating the veils of our conditioning. 

I think the big question could be, is God personal or impersonal?

As far as I know,  that question is being asked for aeons, and after listening for long time to the "personalists" and the "impersonalists", I have to admit that I'm stuck in the middle of the 2 theories. 

 

 

Big questions and who can tell who is right? You can search all your life, and still not find what you are looking fort.

 

So easy to get lost on path of search ????

 

just reminded me of The Alchymist again when I was reading your post

Edited February 4, 2021 by Tagged

[mauGR1]

38 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Big questions and who can tell who is right? You can search all your life, and still not find what you are looking fort.

 

So easy to get lost on path of search ????

 

just reminded me of The Alchymist again when I was reading your post

I read that book,  yet i  completely forgot it, and that's a thing which rarely happens with good books, or supposedly so.

I was thinking more about Indian religious beliefs or sects.. the debate among personalists and impersonalists can reach levels of great attrition. 

Personally,  I am against every fanaticism, but one never knows... it may come the time when one has to take a position and fight for its side.