My 4 fundamental questions on free-will, god and omnipotecy

topic posted Wed, December 15, 2004 - 11:57 AM by  Paulius
1)Can u define what is god? 2)Is striving to be god-like worthy? 3)Can u outline your reason to live, while being a genetic program?

I think the existense of omnipotent god is immpossible. Because if god can create a stone which he can't lift, he's not omnipotent and if he cant create such a stone he is not omnipotent too. If for eg. i were a god, maybe all laws of physics would obey to me, but what would my own mind obey to? The same laws, which I create? Another god? Does even god have real free-will? Shopenhauer once said: "A man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills". Humans behave like a program (genetic code) which reacts to its environment and thus we have no free will, we obey laws which produce results dependent on our environment.. 4)I ask can there exist an entity not subject to any laws?
posted by:
Paulius
Lithuania
  • Unsu...
     
    Wow! This is a great debate. I have time and time again pondered the same questions. The only answers I can come up with is that man is free to make choices within paradigms, which by their very nature eliminate a total free will; thereofre choices are limited to man and thus his/her freedom is also limited. Perhaps the answer is man has limited free will. I suppose that's simple enough.

    The second part (or is this the first part?) of your question relates to an omnipotent being who has total free will. This I have pondered time and time again as well. I am venturing to guess that there is such a Being. I think it is feesible to say that our known Universe can probably fit into a tiny silver ball- maybe even no larger than "centimeter". If this were the case, than of course, our laws and nature is nothing more than a designed system within another system and my guess is that those systems (dimensions perhaps) are nearly endless. But I say "nearly" because I am guessing there is ONE who has total free will and yet whose will is extended into the many dimensional systems and near endless creations, limiting It's own freedom of will by choice perhaps? Hmmmm...
    • i exercise freewill all the time.. or so I experience... from my subjective reality.. which is the only reality which exists for me...

      but, ignoring that, does it matter? only to the ego... the ego needs to be an individual... and important.. and special... but, maybe even without freewill I can be important.. I would be essential to the operation of reality, as was prescribed by the controlling force.. eh.. who knows.. lol... excellent questions... but, I suspect there are no answers.. :)
      • The question is why is this discussion on the Einstein tribe? Even though people love to take his quotes like "God does not play dice with the world" and claim that these indicate that he believed in God, in his private correspondence he explained to friends that he cannot be held responsible for what others try to read into such words.

        He didn't believe in a personal God or a consciousness with a will out there directing things. And he knew better than to make public pronouncements about that. So I'm not sure why this thread is on the Einstein tribe.
        • Unsu...
           
          "He didn't believe in a personal God or a consciousness with a will out there directing things. And he knew better than to make public pronouncements about that. So I'm not sure why this thread is on the Einstein tribe. "

          I love these so called scientist who claim to know so well Einstein's personality and mind. Hmmmmm... in defense of this thread it was always my understanding that Einstein's pursuit of science was in fact an effort to understand the ONE (call that God if you would like). Therefore, this thread is not only valid but SHOULD be included in a discussion of Einstein. I do not believe that Einstein wanted humanity to live in the dark ages abut themselves and/or their conscioussness. That idea actually goes against what Einstein was doing- which WAS opening up the consciousness of himself and mankind as a result.

          So, let me get this straight- it's ok to open up a discussion re consciousness only if it is what Einstein may have theorized but not ok when other do? Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps there are geniuses on this tribe right now who are by far much more advanced than EINSTEIN himself? However, by attempting to squelch their ideas before they get off the ground you have not only limited this tribe but any potential theoretical advancements. And what point is having an Einstein tribe if that is the case?
  • According to the Upanishads, God is "Neti! Neti!" -- "Not this! Not this!" The Absolute is unfathomable, even to our older brothers the gods. He is the infinite mystery, forever being pondered by the beings who reside in abstract spaces.

    Mind is transient. That which is beyond the mind is the Self, the Atman, the Inner Master. The mind can only think in terms of duality, but the Self transcends duality. Therefore, we cannot use the mind to understand the Self.

    We see ourselves as programs because we're sleeping. Obviously, we should wake up if we don't want to be programs. We can't do this with the intellect. Just like we can't get out of bed simply by thinking about how we exist in the bed. We need to pull the covers off and swing our feet onto the floor. It's not a very heady affair, but something quite practical.

    Awareness, concentration, and meditation are good practices. These tools allow us to move beyond the false concepts of the mind. For example, if we concentrate on one and only one thought until the moment sleep arrives, we will split into the astral dimension. We don't have to ponder the mechanics of the process, we simply have to concentrate.

    Peace,
    Denny
  • Our knowledge is so infinitesimal as compared to what is necessary for understanding; liken it to a pea compared to a solar system. To understand God is to understand the universe, but to understand the universe is to understand God. What we understand is some man written fragments of conjecture of which the intent and context is hidden or obscured by the passage of time. Most of what exists in our knowledge is based on the forced and misrepresented interpretation of those fragments by persons who wish to rule. The truly devout understand why they are devout and need no further proof. Those who pursue science know they are presented with a continuous journey that proceeds from one moment of knowledge to the next. The ultimate understanding is somewhere in the infinite. The journey is the proof.
    • Unsu...
       
      "The journey is the proof."

      So we should be open to all possibilties and filter out the rubbish.

      Again, brilliently said Beowulf.
      • If we're going to filter out the rubbish, we should start with language, since it is the source of our dualistic conceptions.

        Math, logic, english, etc., are all rooted in the mind. We cannot find the Self in an equation. We cannot realize the Self through a clever argument. We cannot express the Self on paper.

        The problem we face isn't the acquisition of external knowledge, but the elimination of internal ignorance. We already possess All, but we do not recognize it. We have fallen into a great cosmic slumber -- the sleep of ajnana.

        His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" Jesus said, "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
  • .
    .
    offline 3
    > 1)Can u define what is god? 2)Is striving to be god-like worthy? 3)Can u outline your reason to live, while being a genetic program?

    I think I understand questions 1 and 3.

    But do many people "strive to be god-like"? What do you mean by that? What prompted you to ask that?
    • "it was always my understanding that Einstein's pursuit of science was in fact an effort to understand the ONE (call that God if you would like)."

      Your understanding is wrong. What he wrote on the subject is available for you to learn that yourself.

      Discuss whatever you like. Just don't ascribe it to Einstein. He was not trying to understand "the ONE."

      I rarely visit this tribe because the discussions almost never are about anything that actually has to do with Einstein.
      • Unsu...
         
        Really Joel? Well I thought you might find this interesting:
        Einstein quotes on God:


        o I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

        o I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God
        The Human Side, 1954

        o People like you and I, though mortal of course like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live...[We] never cease to stand like curious children before the great mystery into which we were born. in a letter to Otto Juliusburger

        o When the solution is simple, God is answering.

        o Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.

        o He who finds though that lets us penetrate even a little deeper into the eternal mystery of nature has been granted great grace. He who, in addition, experiences the recognition, sympathy, and help of the best minds of his times, had been given almost more happiness than one

        I think "Your understanding is wrong. What he wrote on the subject is available for you to learn that yourself."

        Please know what your talking about before criticizing. Thanks
  • I stumbled into this group and opened this interesting series of questions.

    1)Can u define what is god?

    Interesting symbol the small case letter u...perhaps not "i" am even creating these answers, rather just another puppet without strings sitting next to a computer is typing in each answer to the questions posed. (LOL)

    In simple terms, any and all ideas, concepts, theories, and the like are simply manifest as thought in 3D, while only by intuition can the 4D awareness of "God" be experienced and defined. "God", being an idea, concept, theory etc. is not demonstrable in 3D.

    2)Is striving to be god-like worthy?

    All value judgements come from ego. Ego is based upon the illusion that one has "real" thoughts and feelings. Worthiness is a subjective term, and is only of importance to ego driven beings unable to fathom beyond see, hear, touch, taste, and smell.

    3)Can u outline your reason to live, while being a genetic program?

    Whether or not there is a genetic program, each being has access to the "ideas" that drive his or her own thoughts, feelings and actions. These "ideas" are promptings from a spiritual realm accesible with 4D awareness, e.g. with intuition.

    4)I ask can there exist an entity not subject to any laws?

    Each realm has its own unique set of laws. In 3D we experience gravity for example. In 4D gravity is not of issue.
  • my prescription, take 7 grams of good mushrooms and ask again in 12 hours!
    • .
      .
      offline 3
      Not a bad idea, patoloco.

      But do many people "strive to be god-like"?

      I really would like to understand what on earth "striving to be god-like" is all about!!! Can anyone enlighten me??? It seems an utterly bizarre question to me.

      There are certain politicians who have so much power they probably think they are god. However, I don't think that is quite what the original poster is asking. I am really perplexed by the original question, so any clarification would be welcome.
        • MASTERY

          Thu, May 26, 2005 - 3:27 PM
          “Mastery is reached by practicing the 3 keys to awakening - eliminating subconscious elements (egos) from within and increasing the consciousness, practicing the sacred exercise of alchemy, and giving spiritually to humanity through selflessness and love.”

          The deeper I read beyond this, the text gets even more convoluted.

          Umm…the SACRED EXERCISE OF ALCHEMY?

          Healing ones EGO includes being selfless and loving. That’s the whole journey. IMO, this additional piece about alchemy is self indulgent by the writer.

          Mastery of self is simply overcoming ones thoughts and feelings in order to allow actions to flow uninterrupted by ego desires.

          Removal of ones illusory ego filled thoughts and feelings leaves one with “prompted” cosmic ideas and resulting actions. This is simply CAUSE (idea) and EFFECT (action). Everything else is sidestepping reality, creating illusions, and making things up.

          4D flashes (promptings) received as an intuitive awareness (unfiltered by ego’s thoughts and feelings) leads to each resulting action. (3D manifestation) Mastery of self is as fundamental as this.
          • Re: MASTERY

            Fri, May 27, 2005 - 6:23 AM
            The bit about Alchemy will make much more sense if you read the free books on the site --

            www.gnosticweb.com/index.php

            "Revolutionary Psychology" is a splendid introduction.

            Peace,
            Denny
            • REVIEWING THE MASTER'S WORKS

              Fri, May 27, 2005 - 10:03 AM
              Unfortunately this man has extremely little that interests me in his written works BECAUSE of how he presents his ideas. His writing style is very weak and his organization of thoughts is poor to midling. Most of his paragraphs lack depth, being only two or three sentences in length. He feebly tries to create interesting points and has practically zero follow through on most of them. He seems to skip about in a noncoherent way. His attempts at redefining terms are extraordinarily inept. I do not recommend him as an author for he is exhausting to comprehend. At best he has presented a few unique ways of looking at topics, in an incoherenet manner, that have already been discussed more thoroughly by others. Perhaps others will have a different viewpoint. I was not impressed.

Recent topics in " Einstein"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
misquoted 1 April 29, 2008
Favorite quote 38 April 15, 2008
A little help please Paddy 6 March 24, 2008
Quote Sodoma 2 February 27, 2008