Do you believe in God and why

[Peter Denis]

19 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

...

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

Thanks @Sunmaster imo, that is absolutely correct.  And it also has far-reaching consequences...

Because the question then becomes: What state of consciousness is needed, to be able to even talk about 'free will'.

The large majority of people will simply toss this question aside.  "Of course I am conscious, and therefore have free will" being the reasoning.

But just by looking inside myself and at the world around me, I am actually convinced of the opposite.  The state of consciousness that would enable free will, is actually very rare and for sure I am still very far away from that (but at least I realize this, so that's a very small first step).

 

My thinking on this is of course not 'original' as I have been heavily influenced by the teachings of the Russian-Armenian mystic G.I Gurdjieff.  And I have not yet come across anyone that did put the above more clear and more brutal than he did.

One small excerpt of what he stated on this subject.

 

"Taken in itself, a man's being has many different sides. The most characteristic feature of a modem man is the absence of unity in him and, further, the absence in him of even traces of those properties which he most likes to ascribe to himself, that is, 'lucid consciousness,' 'free will,' a 'permanent ego or I,' and the 'ability to do.' It may surprise you if I say that the chief feature of a modem man's being which explains everything else that is lacking in him is sleep.
"A modern man lives in sleep, in sleep he is born and in sleep he dies. About sleep, its significance and its role in life, we will speak later. But at present just think of one thing, what knowledge can a sleeping man have? And if you think about it and at the same time remember that sleep is the chief feature of our being, it will at once become clear to you that if a man really wants knowledge, he must first of all think about how to wake, that is, about how to change his being.
"Exteriorly man's being has many different sides: activity or passivity; truthfulness or a tendency to lie; sincerity or insincerity; courage, cowardice; selfcontrol, profligacy; irritability, egoism, readiness for self-sacrifice, pride, vanity, conceit, industry, laziness, morality, depravity; all these and much more besides make up the being of man.
"But all this is entirely mechanical in man. If he lies it means that he cannot help lying. If he tells the truth it means that he cannot help telling the truth, and so it is with everything. Everything happens, a man can do nothing either in himself or outside himself."

 

~ 'In Search of the Miraculous - Fragments of an Unknown teaching' by P.D.Ouspensky

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Thanks @Sunmaster imo, that is absolutely correct.  And it also has far-reaching consequences...

Because the question then becomes: What state of consciousness is needed, to be able to even talk about 'free will'.

The large majority of people will simply toss this question aside.  "Of course I am conscious, and therefore have free will" being the reasoning.

But just by looking inside myself and at the world around me, I am actually convinced of the opposite.  The state of consciousness that would enable free will, is actually very rare and for sure I am still very far away from that (but at least I realize this, so that's a very small first step).

 

My thinking on this is of course not 'original' as I have been heavily influenced by the teachings of the Russian-Armenian mystic G.I Gurdjieff.  And I have not yet come across anyone that did put the above more clear and more brutal than he did.

One small excerpt of what he stated on this subject.

 

"Taken in itself, a man's being has many different sides. The most characteristic feature of a modem man is the absence of unity in him and, further, the absence in him of even traces of those properties which he most likes to ascribe to himself, that is, 'lucid consciousness,' 'free will,' a 'permanent ego or I,' and the 'ability to do.' It may surprise you if I say that the chief feature of a modem man's being which explains everything else that is lacking in him is sleep.
"A modern man lives in sleep, in sleep he is born and in sleep he dies. About sleep, its significance and its role in life, we will speak later. But at present just think of one thing, what knowledge can a sleeping man have? And if you think about it and at the same time remember that sleep is the chief feature of our being, it will at once become clear to you that if a man really wants knowledge, he must first of all think about how to wake, that is, about how to change his being.
"Exteriorly man's being has many different sides: activity or passivity; truthfulness or a tendency to lie; sincerity or insincerity; courage, cowardice; selfcontrol, profligacy; irritability, egoism, readiness for self-sacrifice, pride, vanity, conceit, industry, laziness, morality, depravity; all these and much more besides make up the being of man.
"But all this is entirely mechanical in man. If he lies it means that he cannot help lying. If he tells the truth it means that he cannot help telling the truth, and so it is with everything. Everything happens, a man can do nothing either in himself or outside himself."

 

~ 'In Search of the Miraculous - Fragments of an Unknown teaching' by P.D.Ouspensky

That for sure is thought-provoking. 

Recently I read some very short quote,  which states that real freedom is reached when one's actions are motivated by love.

.. which surely can be interpreted in different ways, just for the fact that the "love" word has many meanings.

Surely I find impossible to disagree with the sentence you picked from @Sunmaster 's post.

Edited February 4, 2021 by mauGR1

[Sunmaster]

2 hours 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. 

 

 

I can't be sure of anything. ????
But....I think the point I made about free will being connected to linear time is a valid one and makes sense to me (options>choice>action). 
As long as there is a sense of individuality, there is the concept of time. The logical next step is to take out individuality/time from the equation and when you do that, free will inevitably ceases to exist. 

 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

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

 

There's a third option which seems to me to be the correct one: God is BOTH personal and impersonal.

That's why I have no problems praying to the Divine Mother or Father, and at the same time acknowledging that beyond them is simply Being.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Thanks @Sunmaster imo, that is absolutely correct.  And it also has far-reaching consequences...

Because the question then becomes: What state of consciousness is needed, to be able to even talk about 'free will'.

The large majority of people will simply toss this question aside.  "Of course I am conscious, and therefore have free will" being the reasoning.

But just by looking inside myself and at the world around me, I am actually convinced of the opposite.  The state of consciousness that would enable free will, is actually very rare and for sure I am still very far away from that (but at least I realize this, so that's a very small first step).

 

Are you saying that true free will can be achieved at higher states of consciousness?

By true free will, do you mean acting in accordance with the divine will? Wouldn't the term "free will" become meaningless?

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Are you saying that true free will can be achieved at higher states of consciousness?

By true free will, do you mean acting in accordance with the divine will? Wouldn't the term "free will" become meaningless?

Yes, but it is a double-headed paradox.

In the normal 'waking-sleep' state of consciousness in which we live our lives, free will in the sense of a 'permanent I' making decisions to act is an illusion (see the Gurdjieff excerpt I posted).

And at the higher states of consciousness, where free will in the sense of an 'I' making decisions to act becomes actually possible, you would fully conscious and 'freely choose' to act in accordance with the divine will.  Meaningless probably not the correct word here.  Maybe more accurate that you would not have any need to exercise that free will then, because fully content and fulfilled to play your role in the divine orchestra.

Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone, but it does to me...

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Yes, but it is a double-headed paradox.

In the normal 'waking-sleep' state of consciousness in which we live our lives, free will in the sense of a 'permanent I' making decisions to act is an illusion (see the Gurdjieff excerpt I posted).

And at the higher states of consciousness, where free will in the sense of an 'I' making decisions to act becomes actually possible, you would fully conscious and 'freely choose' to act in accordance with the divine will.  Meaningless probably not the correct word here.  Maybe more accurate that you would not have any need to exercise that free will then, because fully content and fulfilled to play your role in the divine orchestra.

Not sure if this makes any sense to anyone, but it does to me...

Yes, now it makes sense, I think. ????
At higher states of consciousness and with the dissipation of the individuality, free will attunes more and more with the divine will.

Like you said earlier, free will is the choice of either living in accordance with the divine will or turning away from it. 

Once you fully merge with the Self, your free will becomes indistinguishable from the divine will.

 

Lord, not my will, but yours be done"

 

 

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, now it makes sense, I think. ????
At higher states of consciousness and with the dissipation of the individuality, free will attunes more and more with the divine will.

Like you said earlier, free will is the choice of either living in accordance with the divine will or turning away from it. 

Once you fully merge with the Self, your free will becomes indistinguishable from the divine will.

 

Lord, not my will, but yours be done"

 

 

Of course,  between saying it and doing it, there's a difference.. But on purely philosophical terms, the peak has been reached.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/4/2021 at 12:14 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Not sure what "option 2" refers to, but I don't believe in the "Garden of Eden".

 

I don't believe that God decided to create humans. The universe IMO has seen the emergence of countless life forms of vastly differing appearances- on some planets intelligent life could be a cloud of gas, or a large silicone mass. Had the dinosaurs never been exterminated would they eventually have developed a human like intelligence over millions of years?

 

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.

IMO the latter.

 

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.

Without God to create the universe there would be no "us", and the life force that makes us "alive" comes from God. When the life force in our bodies departs the body is dead.

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not sure what "option 2" refers to, but I don't believe in the "Garden of Eden".

 

I don't believe that God decided to create humans. The universe IMO has seen the emergence of countless life forms of vastly differing appearances- on some planets intelligent life could be a cloud of gas, or a large silicone mass. Had the dinosaurs never been exterminated would they eventually have developed a human like intelligence over millions of years?

 

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.

IMO the latter.

 

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.

Without God to create the universe there would be no "us", and the life force that makes us "alive" comes from God. When the life force in our bodies departs the body is dead.

 

 

You can tell we are in Oceania as we make the early posts.

You had quoted a post where there had been options, including Option 2, in a discussion of possibilities of free will and the existence of god.  

Option 2 suggested a belief in the combination of total free will in humans with the existence of a god that did not impact that free will of humans directly but might impact the outside world e.g. make an earthquake happen. 

You appear to believe god started things only e.g. created the big bang and then just watched it unfold with no further impact on you in life or death.

In the last post I just wondered why you consider there is a god at all i.e. stuff might have just happened to create the big bang rather than god creating it. If you think something had to get stuff started then what got god started.  

You refer to a life force - possibly you think that had to come from a god. But we know that life consists of   chemicals made from the stuff of the inanimate universe. Possibly you think there is something special about the fact that we are sentient  and somewhat independent living bits of stuff and that that requires a god.

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

Edited February 5, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[mauGR1]

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

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

I'm afraid we could speculate for years, without finding an answer. 

There's a theory about our DNA having been engineered by demi-gods,  or aliens if you prefer, which,  although hard to believe,  is not possible to prove or disprove. 

[Peter Denis]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

...

There's a theory about our DNA having been engineered by demi-gods,  or aliens if you prefer, which,  although hard to believe,  is not possible to prove or disprove. 

Just look @Sunmaster's ears!  What more proof do you need? ????

[Sunmaster]

11 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Just look @Sunmaster's ears!  What more proof do you need? ????

Those are just that way because when I was a kid I was very naughty and my dad used to pick me up by the ears.
See, there's a perfectly logic explanation for everything. ????????

Edited February 6, 2021 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Just look @Sunmaster's ears!  What more proof do you need? ????

Well, I believe everything,  as strange as it could be.

I'm fairly sure that my poor imagination can contain just a  infinithesimal fraction of reality. 

[Peter Denis]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, I believe everything,  as strange as it could be.

I'm fairly sure that my poor imagination can contain just a  infinithesimal fraction of reality. 

Some more proof...

 

 

[Peter Denis]

9 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Those are just that way because when I was a kid I was very naughty and my dad used to pick me up by the ears.
See, there's a perfectly logic explanation for everything. ????????

Sunmaster's sister was very naughty too...

 

[Sunmaster]

57 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Sunmaster's sister was very naughty too...

 

That ain't my sister! ????????

[thaibeachlovers]

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

You can tell we are in Oceania as we make the early posts.

You had quoted a post where there had been options, including Option 2, in a discussion of possibilities of free will and the existence of god.  

Option 2 suggested a belief in the combination of total free will in humans with the existence of a god that did not impact that free will of humans directly but might impact the outside world e.g. make an earthquake happen. 

You appear to believe god started things only e.g. created the big bang and then just watched it unfold with no further impact on you in life or death.

In the last post I just wondered why you consider there is a god at all i.e. stuff might have just happened to create the big bang rather than god creating it. If you think something had to get stuff started then what got god started.  

You refer to a life force - possibly you think that had to come from a god. But we know that life consists of   chemicals made from the stuff of the inanimate universe. Possibly you think there is something special about the fact that we are sentient  and somewhat independent living bits of stuff and that that requires a god.

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

You appear to believe god started things only e.g. created the big bang and then just watched it unfold with no further impact on you in life or death.

Correct. If God has a personal relationship with me then God must really not like me very much given I married the wrong woman and ruined my remaining life. I prefer to believe that God does not have a personal relationship with anyone.

 

If you think something had to get stuff started then what got god started.

That is the ultimate question. I hope to discover the answer after I pass over.

 

Possibly you think there is something special about the fact that we are sentient  and somewhat independent living bits of stuff and that that requires a god.

Correct.

 

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

That is taking a statement and twisting it to suit your narrative.

A room full of chemicals for a gazillion years would not IMO make something alive. That comes from the creator IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You appear to believe god started things only e.g. created the big bang and then just watched it unfold with no further impact on you in life or death.

Correct. If God has a personal relationship with me then God must really not like me very much given I married the wrong woman and ruined my remaining life. I prefer to believe that God does not have a personal relationship with anyone.

 

If you think something had to get stuff started then what got god started.

That is the ultimate question. I hope to discover the answer after I pass over.

 

Possibly you think there is something special about the fact that we are sentient  and somewhat independent living bits of stuff and that that requires a god.

Correct.

 

But it appears that by your theory god just started things off in the universe so either way humans were just created from the existing universe of inanimate objects and not directly from a god.

That is taking a statement and twisting it to suit your narrative.

A room full of chemicals for a gazillion years would not IMO make something alive. That comes from the creator IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

On the last point I am not attempting to push a narrative.   I just meant if god pushed that first domino to start things off, but took no further action, then what we know of, say, the big bang and what happened after that, is god free from that point on.

You don't seem to like the option  that  life just happened and it was just that chemicals happened to mix in a certain way. Other options are:

1 God in creating the dominoes and pushing over the first one had done so in a way that would inevitably result in life; or

2 God came back a second time and created life. 

It is just a bit of fun to discuss  and follow the logic of those theories. 

 

[mauGR1]

In my honest opinion, for the man to fully understand himself is a tremendous effort, and apparently one life is not enough. 

Trying to understand the Absolute is simply out of reach, for most  humans, perhaps one has more chances teaching a dog to play the violin. 

Yet, there are vehicles which are said to be apt to travel to higher realms, to get closer to the truth. The most appreciated seem to be devotion and/or meditation .

 

 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A room full of chemicals for a gazillion years would not IMO make something alive. That comes from the creator IMO.

 

Maybe a single room full of chemicals for a gazillion years might not be sufficient for life to evolve. However, considering the vast size of the universe with the estimated billions of galaxies, each of which has many billions of stars or suns, many of which likely have revolving planets, then the possibility that life could evolve in at least one of those gazillions of rooms, under varying conditions over gazillions of years, must increase exponentially, wouldn't you agree?

 

An analogy I've used before in this thread is the casino game of Roulette. Imagine a huge roulette wheel with a billion or more different numbers. The chances of the spinning ball falling into the one number chosen by any gambler, would be extremely small.

 

However, if there were gazillions of similar roulette wheels across the entire universe, operating continuously 24 hours a day, the total number of wins would be quite substantial, even though the total number of losses would be billions of times greater.
Even if you increase the different numbers on the roulette wheel to trillions, there is still a good chance of someone winning if there are a trillion or more roulette wheels in operation.

 

The mistake that many people seem to make is assuming that our planet is the only roulette wheel in the universe and that because the chances of the first form of (possibly RNA) life arising in a 'soupy sea' of many different chemicals, is extremely slim, a Creator God is perhaps a better explanation for them.

 

However, those historical, imaginative creators of such concepts of the various types and forms of God, had little understanding of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which modern science has revealed.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Maybe a single room full of chemicals for a gazillion years might not be sufficient for life to evolve. However, considering the vast size of the universe with the estimated billions of galaxies, each of which has many billions of stars or suns, many of which likely have revolving planets, then the possibility that life could evolve in at least one of those gazillions of rooms, under varying conditions over gazillions of years, must increase exponentially, wouldn't you agree?

 

An analogy I've used before in this thread is the casino game of Roulette. Imagine a huge roulette wheel with a billion or more different numbers. The chances of the spinning ball falling into the one number chosen by any gambler, would be extremely small.

 

However, if there were gazillions of similar roulette wheels across the entire universe, operating continuously 24 hours a day, the total number of wins would be quite substantial, even though the total number of losses would be billions of times greater.
Even if you increase the different numbers on the roulette wheel to trillions, there is still a good chance of someone winning if there are a trillion or more roulette wheels in operation.

 

The mistake that many people seem to make is assuming that our planet is the only roulette wheel in the universe and that because the chances of the first form of (possibly RNA) life arising in a 'soupy sea' of many different chemicals, is extremely slim, a Creator God is perhaps a better explanation for them.

 

However, those historical, imaginative creators of such concepts of the various types and forms of God, had little understanding of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which modern science has revealed.

Yes, except that life is not created by playing roulette, or badminton,  or whatever. ????

[VincentRJ]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, except that life is not created by playing roulette, or badminton,  or whatever. ????

 

The point I'm addressing is the 'chance' of life forming, and the argument that the chance is so remote or small, on a single planet, that a Creator God of some sort is a better explanation. You do understand the concept of an analogy, don't you?

[mauGR1]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

 

The point I'm addressing is the 'chance' of life forming, and the argument that the chance is so remote or small, on a single planet, that a Creator God of some sort is a better explanation. You do understand the concept of an analogy, don't you?

What is the chance of life happening "by chance" ?

Pretty much remote imho.

[VincentRJ]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

What is the chance of life happening "by chance" ?

Pretty much remote imho.

I agree. The questions you should ask yourself is, 'Would those chances increase as the number of planets similar to the Earth increases', and, 'Considering the vastness of the universe and the gazillions of stars like our sun, is it likely that there are billions of planets similar to planet Earth in the universe'?

[Peter Denis]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

...

However, those historical, imaginative creators of such concepts of the various types and forms of God, had little understanding of the vastness and complexity of the universe, which modern science has revealed.

Behind all your posts there is always the unspoken assumption that modern science will eventually unveil 'all mysteries of the universe' (and thus - in one go - eradicate the need for (a) God as answer to what we do not understand yet).

Call me the Anti-Scientist, which is indeed correct in view of the arrogance of modern science as Only Way towards Knowledge and Understanding,

An excerpt from an esoteric primer that illustrates my stance in these matters:

Our modern science does not understand that all knowledge is always present.

Science labours under the delusion that each new discovery brings us closer to the truth and that it is therefore only a matter of time until we know “everything”.
From the esoteric viewpoint the opposite is the case. Knowledge is always present, but the individual has to evolve towards it in order to recognize it.

To give an example: Homer's poems have existed for a very long time. But a schoolchild who wants to read them has to evolve, through study, to the point where he or she can understand ancient Greek. For that child it is unimportant how many other people have read Homer before. Homer has been read for many thousands of years, but as far as the child is concerned it is happening for the first time.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I agree. The questions you should ask yourself is, 'Would those chances increase as the number of planets similar to the Earth increases', and, 'Considering the vastness of the universe and the gazillions of stars like our sun, is it likely that there are billions of planets similar to planet Earth in the universe'?

Yes, there must be a gazillion of planets where life can evolve, even in forms that we are unable to perceive, but if we look at our little life on our little planet, we can observe that everything which exists,  exists as a result of something which existed before, from the tiniest life-form, to the pinnacle of abstract thought... and you want me to believe that life is happening "by chance" ?

[pomchop]

The beginning of the BIG LIE that has evolved into Santa , tooth fairies, birthers, Qanon,  and stolen elections.

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, pomchop said:

The beginning of the BIG LIE that has evolved into Santa , tooth fairies, birthers, Qanon,  and stolen elections.

 

Thanks God we have you to put things straight ????

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I agree. The questions you should ask yourself is, 'Would those chances increase as the number of planets similar to the Earth increases', and, 'Considering the vastness of the universe and the gazillions of stars like our sun, is it likely that there are billions of planets similar to planet Earth in the universe'?

We are just a biproduct of something bigger an alive, same as we are a planet, galaxy or universe to ?

 

"

Scientists Wednesday unveiled the first catalog of the bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms that populate every nook and cranny of the human body.

Researchers hope the advance marks an important step towards understanding how microbes help make humans human.

The human body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only maybe one in 10 of those cells is actually — human. The rest are from bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms."

 

Read more here

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/06/13/154913334/finally-a-map-of-all-the-microbes-on-your-body?t=1612666756609

Edited February 7, 2021 by Tagged

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Yes, there must be a gazillion of planets where life can evolve, even in forms that we are unable to perceive, but if we look at our little life on our little planet, we can observe that everything which exists,  exists as a result of something which existed before, from the tiniest life-form, to the pinnacle of abstract thought... and you want me to believe that life is happening "by chance" ?

You seem to be falling into the dichotomy of 'either/or'. Chance or randomness is often a part of many events and processes. It is defined by 'degrees of probability'.

 

The number of atoms, molecules, sub-atomic particles, photons and electromagnetic waves, just in the room where you are sitting, is absolutely enormous, in the trillions upon trillions; and those particles and waves are continuously bouncing around, emitting and absorbing electromagnetic energy every microsecond (millionth of a second).

 

Theoretically, or hypothetically, if we had control over the movement of every particle and wave in our surroundings, and also within our own body, we could call ourselves 'God'. ????
In that sense one could argue that what is chance or randomness is no more than our inability to understand and observe all the minor details that would enable us to predict a particular chain of events.

 

You've probably heard of the 'butterfly effect'. If a butterfly flaps its wings in South America, then a hurricane could result in Europe (or some other location).
This is an analogy (you do understand an analogy, don't you? ????  ), which emphasizes that a very small initial event can gradually lead, through many processes of 'cause and effect', to a much more significant result.