• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does God make everything happen how he plans no matter what?

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.​
Nature is composed of gunas, rajasic, tamasic and sattvic so that people fight amongst themselves: what does the God as Creator and Preserver gain from that?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Nature is composed of gunas, rajasic, tamasic and sattvic so that people fight amongst themselves: what does the God as Creator and Preserver gain from that?
The traditional answers suggest God created the world because [he] was bored / lonely / craving praise.

That seems to cover it, no?
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
The traditional answers suggest God created the world because [he] was bored / lonely / craving praise.

That seems to cover it, no?
So you are of the view that God is not Nirguna (does not get bored, lonely or desire anything like praise), that is God is without attributes and that the universe is in fact an illusion that does not realy exist?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So you are of the view that God is not Nirguna (does not get bored, lonely or desire anything like praise), that is God is without attributes and that the universe is in fact an illusion that does not realy exist?
No, I am of the view that gods and religious beliefs are products of cultural and individual imagination, quite possibly supported by evolved tendencies to do with tribal bonding.

But as a listener to religious beliefs in a Christian milieu, the three reasons I offered are the only ones I've heard.

It is true that I assume a world exists external to me, since I can't demonstrate that this is correct without first assuming it's correct; and likewise I assume that my senses are capable of informing me of that world since I can't demonstrate that this is correct without first assuming it's correct.

But having made those assumptions (and having found that everyone else agrees with them, mostly implicitly, eg by going on the net to talk to others) I've never found a counterexample. Therefore I am not at all persuaded that reality is an illusion (much as it may appear different if perceived on different scales to the human norm), hence I am not at all persuaded that reasoned enquiry about reality eg history, science, is futile or misguided.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
No, I am of the view that gods and religious beliefs are products of cultural and individual imagination, quite possibly supported by evolved tendencies to do with tribal bonding.

But as a listener to religious beliefs in a Christian milieu, the three reasons I offered are the only ones I've heard.

It is true that I assume a world exists external to me, since I can't demonstrate that this is correct without first assuming it's correct; and likewise I assume that my senses are capable of informing me of that world since I can't demonstrate that this is correct without first assuming it's correct.

But having made those assumptions (and having found that everyone else agrees with them, mostly implicitly, eg by going on the net to talk to others) I've never found a counterexample. Therefore I am not at all persuaded that reality is an illusion (much as it may appear different if perceived on different scales to the human norm), hence I am not at all persuaded that reasoned enquiry about reality eg history, science, is futile or misguided.
As long as you appreciate the value of truth, you are well on your way to the 'salvation' that you would appreciate.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As long as you appreciate the value of truth, you are well on your way to the 'salvation' that you would appreciate.
Truth for me is conformity / correspondence / accurate reflection with reality.

Nor am I conscious of any overarching need for 'salvation'. Salvation from what, exactly?
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Truth for me is conformity / correspondence / accurate reflection with reality.

Nor am I conscious of any overarching need for 'salvation'. Salvation from what, exactly?
To me 'salvation' means moksha or liberation: this is the freedom to live and act without suffering because I do not believe in an after life other than the fact that we disintegrate into our atoms to be subsequently absorbed by plants and consumed by new animals to live again.
 
I think because God is all powerful the answer is yes.Just read ephesians 1:11 and see what i am talking about.
The concept is more that God "knows" how everything will work ahead of time. Since He lives outside of time and space, He can see the end result of a person, hundreds of years before that person is born. Time is relative. Since God doesn't live in time, then He can see it both past, present and future. Therefore, He can manipulate it if He so wishes, but, He rather let it take it's course and let us humans deal with most of our actions, so we can learn from it.

In peace
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The concept is more that God "knows" how everything will work ahead of time. Since He lives outside of time and space, He can see the end result of a person, hundreds of years before that person is born. Time is relative. Since God doesn't live in time, then He can see it both past, present and future. Therefore, He can manipulate it if He so wishes, but, He rather let it take it's course and let us humans deal with most of our actions, so we can learn from it.

In peace

In convention God is light and/or symbolized by light. In physics, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity; SR says that references, at the speed of light, will see the material/inertial universe contracted to a point-instant. The affect of SR have been demonstrate in the lab.

If we combine these two theories, and God was at a speed of light reference, he would see our universe appear as a point-instant.

The implications are God would exist in a reference where the fabric of space-time breaks down into separate threads of time and separate threads of space.

eb4637aee747201e9a113982dd7d75cb.jpg




If we follow a time thread without a connection to space we can move in time without space restrictions. This allows us to know the history of the universe everywhere at the same time, or at any point in time; Omniscience. If we follow a space thread independent of time, we can be anywhere in zero time; omnipresence.

This is possible since the point-instant reference seen at the speed of light makes the universe appear like a point where all is overlapped in time and space. All you need to do is use a microscope to see more simultaneous detail.

The moral of this story is either the ancients were aware of advance modern physics concepts like SR, and anticipated the science of the future. Or the present has finally caught up to the past with concepts like SR, that demonstrate some of the classic parameters of God. There may be experiments possible using particles.

It is not either science or religion to me, as though it can only be one or the other. Rather I assume both are possible, which goes a long way toward the open mind needed for a merger of science and religion.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
To me 'salvation' means moksha or liberation: this is the freedom to live and act without suffering because I do not believe in an after life other than the fact that we disintegrate into our atoms to be subsequently absorbed by plants and consumed by new animals to live again.
An interesting take on 'salvation' ─ I guess we all dream eg of winning a big lottery, however we'd categorize a success.

And we agree on the afterlife.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
An interesting take on 'salvation' ─ I guess we all dream eg of winning a big lottery, however we'd categorize a success.

And we agree on the afterlife.
Truth is the only thing that liberates and thereby is the only salvation.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
That thought, which I'm still considering, would make me glad I use an objective test for truth.
Is the objective test whether you have done what it takes to live another moment with your head held high in dignity?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Some of the misunderstanding between science and religion, that raises questions likes this topic, is connected to brain function. Science is more left brained while religion is more right brained. Conscious use of the right brain came first and conscious use to the left brain came later, which explains why religion was first and science follows later.

The left brain is more associated with the differentiation of reality and with language. The left brain is better at noticing the details of the universe and then documenting these through the subtlety of language. The right brain is more spatial and integrates what we learn and observe into theory and concepts. Concepts like God are integral or spatial concepts; omniscience. God is from the right brain.

The unconscious mind uses both sides of the brain at the same time. The ego or conscious mind is conscious of only one side at a time, with left side more popular due to it being easier to train differential thinking, than spatial thinking.

Spatial thinking requires adding another dimension to 2-D cause and affect. For example, if I said that one day we will have a theory that unites all of physics, we can sense this at some level, but we cannot yet differentiate this and write it down. We can sense the possibility in the future, by an intuitive feeling that goes beyond the limits of the immediate cause and affect. This is a learned skill used all the time by religion. This exercise is for the third dimension of thought, needed by all theoreticians so they can anticipate.

Specific religious doctrines/orientations are more left brained; we learn the details, while the spiritualism attached to the religion is more right brained. This is a balanced use of the brain. Spiritualism is full of intuitive feelings, but due to the inability to differentiate the intuitive third dimension and make it differential, it can become esoteric and confusing to the audience; paradox.

In the New Testament, forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit were connected since the 3-D Holy Spirit; truth, can lead one into new area of thought and behavior that are not yet differentiated and may be misunderstood by left brain thinkers. The peer pressure is in the here and now but not yet the future. So forgiveness was a way to allow the 3-D dimension to develop.

Science typically judges the left brain religions; differential, by the left brain standards of science. It compares the claims to science reality and data. There is validity to this. It is harder to use the same standards on right brain religion, since right bran religion is 3-D; spatial, instead of 2-D; cause and affect. It is hard to use science to measure intuition and the anticipation of the future.

All innovation uses right brain or 3-D thinking when it is in the development stage. Science rarely embraces the seeds of good future ideas, until the 3-D is processed down to 2-D; publish. Science falls short of an immediate analysis of 3-D, since we do not yet do 3-D science. That is the future and that future will blend science and religion in terms of how the brain, used in spiritualism, can also be used by scientists.

We currently generate more data than theory that can integrate the data. Someday science will be able to keep up via more use of the right brain in science. Then theory will become far more spatial and universal, unlike what we have today. Statistical based theory anticipates an extra set of parameters beyond cause and affect, but this does not go all the way to 3-D. This is left brain procedure and now yet right brained.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is the objective test whether you have done what it takes to live another moment with your head held high in dignity?
No, the objective test is whether the statement
'A has done what it takes to live another moment with head held high in dignity'​
is sufficiently clear to be meaningful, and if it is, whether it accurately reflects what A has in fact done and the manner in which A has done it.

It invites testing the truth / accuracy of a further statement along the lines of
'Most people in A's society admire people who live their lives with self-possession and dignity'.​

(A statement such as
'People should live their lives with self-possession and dignity'​
is not capable of being true under my definition, whereas
'X thinks (or, most people in A's society think) people should live their lives with self-possession and dignity'​
is capable of being true.)
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
No, the objective test is whether the statement
'A has done what it takes to live another moment with head held high in dignity'​
is sufficiently clear to be meaningful, and if it is, whether it accurately reflects what A has in fact done and the manner in which A has done it.

It invites testing the truth / accuracy of a further statement along the lines of
'Most people in A's society admire people who live their lives with self-possession and dignity'.​

(A statement such as
'People should live their lives with self-possession and dignity'​
is not capable of being true under my definition, whereas
'X thinks (or, most people in A's society think) people should live their lives with self-possession and dignity'​
is capable of being true.)
When one lives in devotion and faith that God will lead one to a life of survival with dignity, He is the only judge of what is dignity.
 
Scie
In convention God is light and/or symbolized by light. In physics, Einstein's theory of Special Relativity; SR says that references, at the speed of light, will see the material/inertial universe contracted to a point-instant. The affect of SR have been demonstrate in the lab.

If we combine these two theories, and God was at a speed of light reference, he would see our universe appear as a point-instant.

The implications are God would exist in a reference where the fabric of space-time breaks down into separate threads of time and separate threads of space.

eb4637aee747201e9a113982dd7d75cb.jpg




If we follow a time thread without a connection to space we can move in time without space restrictions. This allows us to know the history of the universe everywhere at the same time, or at any point in time; Omniscience. If we follow a space thread independent of time, we can be anywhere in zero time; omnipresence.

This is possible since the point-instant reference seen at the speed of light makes the universe appear like a point where all is overlapped in time and space. All you need to do is use a microscope to see more simultaneous detail.

The moral of this story is either the ancients were aware of advance modern physics concepts like SR, and anticipated the science of the future. Or the present has finally caught up to the past with concepts like SR, that demonstrate some of the classic parameters of God. There may be experiments possible using particles.

It is not either science or religion to me, as though it can only be one or the other. Rather I assume both are possible, which goes a long way toward the open mind needed for a merger of science and religion.
Science in it's purest form goes hand in hand with God. But since science has taken God out of the picture, they are force to go against what Science actually stands for just to prove their side is right (similar to religion). I think if BOTH sides can drop their doctrines that they hold onto, then they can continue finding more and more truth as we continue to discover (re-discover?) God's creation.

In peace
 
Top