If God is Omniscient then Human is not free.

If you can read you would see how the Devil entered, however you can't have God without his alter ego the Devil.
Apparently God wears black and white T-Shirts and overdoses on ganja

 

I'm not sure we need to distinguish here, since if one could partake of omniscience we might be God-like. Since we are using the Western moniker of 'God' and using Roman alphabet and and I've seen plenty of Western religious terminology then I might quote the Bible that says, "Ye are made in the image of God"->"I am one with the Father"->"He will do even greater things than these." And to be sure, I was pointing out the limitation of the rational mind and its sequential understanding of time -- not that humans could not transcend this rational mind to know things directly through honed intuition and realization.

I guess one way of looking at this (as a human problem) is to ask what about that idea really bothers people so much? Would you rather have the illusion of choice, or what you rather know how things really are (whether that be free or determined)? I think many people who voice indignation against an omnipotent and omniscient God are perhaps more interested in touting their own 'independence' or 'freedom' than to ask themselves if they are really free, or whether they are a complex of personal habits studded by family and genetic dispositions, or someone that can really look at things with open eyes and wonder. If you felt the stars vibrating in your universal body, would you find that limiting?

I think the main problem with any belief system is taking it as 'truth' when it clearly is only a model. You'll find that many people who really delve into something integrally and with heart and soul (be it music, science, etc.) will often develop a degree of wisdom and insight into life, almost regardless of what it is they focus so intently on. That's because it's not about the stale 'wrong' and 'right' ideas, the 'factual' and 'uninformed'. It is much rather about the intensity and depth of your consciousness and its integrity, what will stick and find its way in there and how it actualizes the consciousness with the forms at hand. And that goes as much for people who are religious as for science thinkers, because no adherence to particular forms could win a greater purchase on reality. It is rather in the realization ofthe relationship between forms that meaning and value is known.

But perhaps this points to the ideas we have about 'time' again. If you (or God) is omniscient, you would not be stuck in any one particular time or space. In fact, it should be considered that omniscience would be akin to time- and spacelessness. Think about the nature of light. As you know, according to relativity, the speed of light is the absolute. Upon it, all else in the relativistic universe depends. Yet, most human beings think about light and its speed in rather mundane ways. We might imagine speeding up to the speed of light, than traveling at the speed of light for a while, and then slowing down and 'stepping out' of lightspeed. But you know what, that is not the way it works. When you are light speed (as a photon, say) you are not moving. Everything that is not at light speed may regard you as moving, but you are not 'moving'. In fact, you are residing purely in no-time. The 'moment' the light leaves the star, and the 'moment' the light reaches our Earth, to the light itself it is not a span of time. Instead, it is the same, one, instance. There is no time Traveling through the universe, yet it is only one instance. Can you imagine that? Residing in a non-time/eternal instance. It is right there in scientific discovery, yet how many people truly think about it an apply it to their minds? In philosophy, something on which everything depends (as light speed is to relativity) should be considered the absolute verity. Light, in the relativistic universe, is the absolute. How apt, that it is also the very thing that sustains all life on this planet directly. Plants live directly off the light emitted by the sun, and the animals live off various forms of 'stored' light.

 

Very nice, indeed

Perhaps another way of addressing the God/fate question is to say: the idea is to realize your true nature as God (or realizing the essence of the universe in you), by means of which you will determine your own fate as God

Say that 'God' is the essence of the universe (space-time, matter, etc.). A state or being with an unmanifest and manifest state. The unmanifest state we may call 'God', and the manifest state we call 'universe'. The unmanifest state, therefore, wouldn't be 'outside' of the manifest state but it would naturally 'inform' it. Hence the Vedic adage: 1) Brahma alone is real 2) the universe is unreal 3) Brahma is the universe.

 

Your theory is truly astounding. You surely must have it peer-reviewed and backed-up by experiement, where can I read about it?

Also, there is nothing "apt" about light. Radio waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum as well, yet they don't support life. Light is only "special" to you because it matches the wavelength of radiation that your eyes can sense. Different species can sense different forms of light. You can't draw special conclusions from something because the result of that something is your existence. That's called the anthropic principle, assuming things must be special because they lead to our existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Or paraphrasing D. Adams from that article: the living puddle finds its surroundings fitting him perfectly, when in fact _it_ is fitting _them_ perfectly.

The Universe has not been "designed" around us or to support us. Our mere existence requires those properties we observe, because otherwise we wouldn't exist.

 

When I read this stuff, I wish we were still swinging from tree to tree and that would be the end of it. The arrogance to lift oneself above time and space and whatnot is truly astounding and one of the results of our unfortunate gift of complex thinking.

Enjoy the weather.

 

You said (TCM) "When I read this stuff, I wish we were still swinging from tree to tree and that would be the end of it. The arrogance to lift oneself above time and space and whatnot is truly astounding and one of the results of our unfortunate gift of complex thinking."

@TCM

If we are tethered to/confined to a thought system which does not allow for our true nature to emerge it is the complex thinking of the ego that preserves this misperception .. The ego's tiresome tedious adherence to complex thoughts that promote separation thus carving out a place in time and space for the ego to promote it's self defined space from which it delivers the harshest of terms which are but a death wish in reality .. The choice of correct perception has been ours (humanity) for thousands of years yet it holds little interest for most because their ego's will do everything in their illusion of power to hide the true nature of who we are .. We are at a moment (Now) in global history where this awareness of one's true nature will no longer live in obscurity .. Whether this has been the plan of God or simply a seedling busting through the soil in Spring you decide after all it is your perception, right?

 

@TCM: I would answer your every query (if indeed they were such) if you could manage to keep from snarking your way around human beings in this thread like a common bottom feeder. You accuse people of arrogance when they explore things like consciousness and time, yet you say it is your wish we were all still swinging from trees like primitive primates. If anything, what I've seen you do in this thread is far worse than I've seen people do who ascribe a more central role to consciousness, and indeed kind of like one of those primate bullies. As for radio waves, as you might know, their energy level is extremely poor. It is said that all radio wave radiation detected by all telescopes in the world is less than the energy released by one single snow flake touching the ground. Furthermore, my point about light wasn't about how 'unique' it was, but that the very life-sustaining phenomenon for life on Earth also acts as the universal absolute. May that is not 'apt' to you but it is certainly apt to me

Your points about anthropic principle exemplify very well how you think, but what you forget is that the universe is happening as you. To think otherwise, is -- actually -- arrogant to the extreme. Funny how you accuse me of anthropic thinking, while that is exactly what you are doing, and much more so than I am My 'apt' comment was not a scientific statement as much as it was a poetic one, you know, like a celebratory thing. Perhaps feelings like that are wasted on you, I don't know. I do know one thing, if Einstein, say, would have been a cynic that was hemmed in by the obvious and the established, we'd all be the worse for it. This thread is not about how well you can march in line with established science (and even true science is not honored by your attitude, as my comment about Einstein would suggest to you) but rather we are discussing what the nature of God could be, how free will plays into that, and every possible topic that connects to these ideas. In other words, I don't understand why you are trolling this thread since obviously you have nothing to contribute here except things every thinking person here already knows or has considered. It's not about what we already know or have considered, it's about exploring what we as yet don't and perhaps have not.

 

Why the vitriol Sid ?

You said "Mr Redroad, these are I think valid question while we are discussing the God existence."
Which I think were in reference to your post here .. http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...ot-free/page15?p=752429&viewfull=1#post752429

If we are discussing something as broad as God's existence as you have said then how can you be seemingly frustrated when the conversation/debate takes on a life of it's own

I think it is time for you to ask yourself what your intention for posing such a thought provoking question to begin with .. I don't need the answer .. It is for your information only

After all we are neighbors here .. There is no right or wrong in this discussion however there is a tenant/tone of respect which we have agreed to, right?

 

If you (not you personally) disconnect from all the results that science has given us so far, you are not a scientific explorer, you're just a quack. Einstein explored by thinking up a theory that could better explain what science already had established. He didn't sit there and wander off about some grand spirituality and his place in the universe and whatever fictional nonsense could have entered his mind. He thought about the existing theories and came up with a new one that explained all that was established, deeply shook some other theories and most importantly, stood test to verification.

To compare the egomaniac ramblings in this thread disguised as theories to Einstein's takes the cake for today. I don't know what more to say.

 

I was talking about the attitude of exploration and thinking outside the box. Not that I am a scientist and am equal to Einstein. I respect him greatly and have studied his theory a lot, and I know myself and my own mind sufficiently to not think I'm up to par with his mind

Look, if we cannot discuss certain topics or possibilities, perhaps you would be more comfortable in the era of the Inquisitors or the Gestapo. We don't need your mind-policing, nor your condescension. If your motives were indeed pure, than I would say 'don't worry'. But since they are clearly not and you are more interested in condescension as fortified by your understanding of science and rational thinking, I would say 'why bother?'

If your ego becomes so much second nature to you that you take it as the basis of truth, I could see how you could typify anyone talking about transcendental matters as ego-maniacal, but then you might have to consider one day that you are actually the ego-maniac. Another feature of ego-maniacs is that they don't particularly care about others and talk to them condescendingly (or would you say that is the action of a selfless person?). Also, it is a feature of ego-maniacs to stick their big fat nose into matters they want no (conscious) part of, just for the purpose of shooting down 'idle dreams'. Don't fool yourself, your ego is getting something out of being here the way you are. No one requests you to be here, it is your action alone.

In ending, I would say that we are not claiming to be on par with an Einstein or other genius of science. Nor are we claiming to be prophets. We are discussing a matter about God, predetermination, free will, etc. We are not talking about how unscientific something is If you consider the very topic to be ridiculous, then why take part in the discussion? This is what I don't understand. You are acting like a bully, not a person who cares about others and wants to discuss matters of life and universe. So what is your deal?

As I've said several times before, there is no human mind that is 'right'. We are all employing symbolic thinking and have our own personal models. Just as the old saying, "a thousand monks, a thousand religions", so it is that "a thousand scientists, a thousand sciences" holds true. Yes, they will agree on certain principles, but the actual way they view and intuit the universe and their life in it is highly personal. As such you can't take such a caustic stance against the ideas of others. To do so, is in fact highly ego-maniacal and dictatorial. It's so baffling that you continually manifest the very things you accuse others of. I don't get it.

 

I think It would be wise to have a more generous perception of each other

 

Given what you know about omniscience, don't you find the concept of a being that is omniscient a bit ridiculous at best ?

 

have a look here Sid and TCM Bohmian Mechanics also Einstein's Philosophy of Science

 

That quote was spot on with my thoughts on God and Religion.