Does God play dice?

[MagnetMan]

Two trains of equal power,
starting from the same distance at opposite ends of 1000 mile track
are traveling towards the same destination
since it is impossible to accurately factor in a host of random events
that may interfere with the progress of each train
it is impossible to determine which train will arrive first.
thus, analytically speaking, Bohr's argument makes sense,
randomness rules
he would be perfectly correct
and the argument between science and religion would be over
if
Einstein, tho he could not explain why, intuitively, did not agree
and so,
because the human brain is equally devided
by analytical and intuitive spheres of influence
the existence of God remains argumentative

science cannot analytically prove that there is no God
and religion cannot intuitively insist that there is

If I may
I will attempt to shed some light on Uncle Albert's intuitive reservation
by providing an analogy

Aboard each train is a man with a mission
housed at the destination of the trains is a doomsday bomb
the mission of one man is to press the button and destroy the world
the mission of the other is to get there first and stop him

The purpose of science
if it truly wants to end the ancient argument
is not simply to examine the physical variables of atomic behavior
but its metaphysical influences as well

the fact that atoms do have conscious influence
is clearly demonstrated by the existence of a permutations of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and other trace elements - a.k.a. humans

this being so
Conscious determination has to be factored into any atomic equation

So two atomic humans are on a mission with separate purposes
and the fate of the world hangs on which train gets there first

The holistic question is:
Which force of determination has the greatest influence on random atomic behavior ?

The answer is clear
inspired determination wins most of the time

The lesson here is:
It has never been a question of whether God exists or not
God is simply an idea in human consciousness
as far as we know, no other atomic permutation has that idea

Thus
God exists only if we choose so as individuals or collectively
anybody who chooses randomness
over conscious design
is free to do so
he or she will then always remain uninspired

[lavender1]

\!!

then read on
how the average expert
rages when shown their trespass

access to another one's soul
is flatly denied
while all her work and talents
are stolen and ignorantly jugded
- in public

you - do you condone that
along with allowing such
freedom?

quote imp-pulse :jesus stops you in your tracks.

i think that JESUS would at HIS convenience (not yours ) stop a BIBLE BASHER and GOD MOCKER in their tracks

a male trinity convenience, indeed.
by all means, breaking the rules, as such cowards can do since time immemorial, imho.
himself, the test tube and the holier-than-thou judgment over the you and i relationship, or the avoidance thereof!

in which landscape or biotope would god enjoy to play dice?

on thrones without proper potty training, with the freight trains carrying waste from a to b, but no further?

Es hat etwas Groteskes, wie manche
Silben "dienen" aussprechen,
als kauten sie an einer Verfehlung,
die noch nicht bekannt ist.
Ist das hier ein Staat von Ameisen
oder Bienen? Wie die Vokabel
aus einer Fremdsprache,
mühsam erworben und doch
nie verinnerlicht, so dass nichts
jemals von Herzen kommen kann.
So muss es sein, vielen Herren
zu gehorchen, Volk und Gewissen
oder Partei. Schwer zu sagen,
wem genau! Sieh sie an, wie sie
über ihrer Blöße Verantwortung und
darüber Anzug tragen - seltsam,
wie sich sich einem unterwerfen
in Worten: Wer so redet, der regiert.

hendrik rost, *1969

MM, you wrote t/here:

Thus
God exists only if we choose so as individuals or collectively
anybody who chooses randomness
over conscious design
is free to do so
he or she will then always remain uninspired

does god play dice?
or watching his creation on autopilot playing superman and hyperbole? their linearities hopelessly entangled, his dimensions on go-slow collapse?

he could ask:
what's a planet in a galaxy? with the same glee as old school boys and girls, what is sadness?

does the universe need to care about bi-polarities, when the divine law is in rather unapplied clarity showing that the whole is more than the sum of its parts?

\!!

speaking with god has alienated too many of us from each other.

no sooner said than done, here's a good example:
nihilo0.blogspot.com/2011/06/philosophical-ramblings-about-freedom.html

ramblings? rabbit talks for near-extinct eagles.
for those who "know" me.

Translate. 翻译. Traduire. Übersetzen. Переводить. 翻訳する. Μεταφράζω. 翻譯. अनुवाद करना. يترجم .

note: i am not a retired "activist", but coming to the same conclusions, and arguably not half as organized as you in repeating what's eating us inside out.

\!!

an opus magnum by an opus dei .....?

They all have it . . . they do not all express it or follow it. Suppression and repression born of life's circumstances is widespread.

hold on to what you have.
breadcrumbs from the tables of the rich.
and the parable of a camel going through the eye of a needle.

which of the two trains carries this inspiration?

[visitor]

Replying to some questions and comments from Magnetman:

First, the title question: No, God doesn't play dice. Einstein didn't like the random aspect of some interpretations of quantum mechanics. But Hugh Everett has proposed a nonrandom interpretation. In Everett's interpretation, each possible outcome of a random event, a random wave-function collapse, happens, in its own universe. The position of an electron in a hydrogen atom is described by its wave-function. The value of that wf at a particular point is proportional to the probability of the electron being at that position.

Everett points out that each possible position of that electron is valid in a different possibility-world. His quantum mechanics interpretation is called the "many worlds" interpretatioin.

The notion of possibility worlds is a valid one. The physical world we live in is one of infinitely many possibility worlds. Everett's many worlds are just possible versions of our own universe, in which random events happened a little differently. But the range of possibility worlds is broader, encompassing physical worlds with entirely different physical constants, and maybe entirely different physical laws, from those of our own universe.

Who's to sa that our own possibility world is the only real one? why should it be? The only thing that makes our possibility world seem more real and existent is the fact that we're part of it. Our own possibility world is as existent or nonexistent as all the others. And it's obvious, from our vantage point in this possibility world, that the other possibility worlds are nonexistent--What does that say about the existence of our own physical world?

the existence of God remains argumentative

All ontologies (suggestions about what is, or especially, what fundamntally and primarily is) are speculative and unprovable. That's the nature of the subject.

Yes, arguments about the existece of God can't be settled by proof, because it isn't the kind of subject that has proof.

Conscious determination has to be factored into any atomic equation

I suggest that Consciousness is what is. Period. Atoms and other physical things are part of a possibility-world, with only contextual existence--existence in its own context, and in the context of our lives.

Thus
God exists only if we choose so as individuals or collectively
anybody who chooses randomness
over conscious design

There's a point in ontological discussion or experience in which the matter of God comes up. I don't feel any need to promote or advocate God's existence to Atheists. What they believe is their business. But, because the subject is often discussed, I'll just say that experience encounters God. If someone wants to call us Atheists or Theists, then I choose to be counted among the Theists.

[lavender1]

\!!

for shared feelings ....