If God has free-will, then he's less likely to be attached to any single religion

[amorphous_constellation]

I'd like to know how various religions can have wildly different and contradictory theology and all be true at the same time.

God having a free-will can never ever be any kind of reason for people having various theologies. It's the human free-will that asserts it.

If pizzas are round, then donkeys are more like "Thursdays," than cellos in the way we think of them.

I invite anyone arguing against God having such procedures to describe what God does instead if not randomness.

To any of you who may be somewhat curious, we can see that the pope is in a debate with the hermit. The hermit and strength guard the wheel of God on either side: from people one side, (who are set apart from the hermit's wisdom) and from the things that are imagined on the other. God has free-will, because he can spin the wheel any way he chooses, and stop it, if he wishes. The pope represents all religions, but he does not control the wheel. Instead, he debates the hermit : he cannot get to the wheel. The wheel is far larger than any religion, because it has rode over through eons

But religions can still be a good way to organize , I suppose , one's mind toward thinking about all of this. They have a use.

Some people also are agnostics or atheists, but they can be great thinkers as well , I don't want to say they don't have a place in this.

 

[blü 2]

God has free-will, because he can spin the wheel any way he chooses, and stop it, if he wishes.

But unless God's brain (or brain-equivalent) provides God with the mechanisms and procedures for decision-making, all of [his] decisions will be random.

Is it the case that all of God's decisions are random?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But unless God's brain (or brain-equivalent) provides God with the mechanisms and procedures for decision-making, all of [his] decisions will be random.

Is it the case that all of God's decisions are random?

To try to answer you, I suppose I would expand on the metaphor of the wheel. So then, to God, history is a road. The wheel is something that God operates. If you reason backward from the concept of the Wheel, it might illuminate something about the mind of God.. namely that it finds the wheel to be a valuable tool. And the wheel is not something that merely needs to go one place, at one speed, and in one direction. There are variables that can be adjusted in how the tool is used, and one might assume that God makes use of this mechanism in such a manner

Perhaps the Wheel can also be described as a flowing fractal, though one that has a Director, who can change it, and arrive at places in it, and stop it

 

[blü 2]

To try to answer you, I suppose I would expand on the metaphor of the wheel. So then, to God, history is a road. The wheel is something that God operates. If you reason backward from the concept of the Wheel, it might illuminate something about the mind of God.. namely that it finds the wheel to be a valuable tool. And the wheel is not something that merely needs to go one place, at one speed, and in one direction. There are variables that can be adjusted in how the tool is used, and one might assume that God makes use of this mechanism in such a manner

Perhaps the Wheel can also be described as a flowing fractal, though one that has a Director, who can change it, and arrive at places in it, and stop it

But my question is directed to HOW ─ by what process ─ God's brain, or thinking equipment, makes decisions. For example, the decision-making processes of the human brain are much studied, and feature complex biomechanisms, but they're all sequences of cause+effect (though some eg Roger Penrose, have suggested that events at the level of quantum mechanics are involved). Just as in this sense human will is never truly "free", so the same must be true of God, since the alternative to mechanism is randomness.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

But my question is directed to HOW ─ by what process ─ God's brain, or thinking equipment, makes decisions. For example, the decision-making processes of the human brain are much studied, and feature complex biomechanisms, but they're all sequences of cause+effect (though some eg Roger Penrose, have suggested that events at the level of quantum mechanics are involved). Just as in this sense human will is never truly "free", so the same must be true of God, since the alternative to mechanism is randomness.

From what I can tell, or from what I hear, the mathematicians and physicists and other people who measure the universe might still be perplexed about how it all works. Let's leave that aside. In any case, we'll have to, because I'm not good at that stuff

The only answers I can give you are probably going to be considered mystical in grade. You may not like that, and if so, it's probably best to move on. At the end of the road, before and after all matter, I think maybe there were just 'Words.' And I think that plain words, even before anything visible existed, have something to do with creation. Someone uses words. So then, something had to exist to use words. Words imply that things exist that attach themselves to description. So things became

With some things it seems reasonable to infer what is happening, from what I see in a plainer way. I think that maybe if I were to say that humans have no freewill, that might be second-guessing what I see. We appear to make a wide range of choices. Maybe that is mixed in with impulses not to make some choices. The wheel implies an operator, and it implies a road - or really, a variety of roads. And it would have a chooser directing it, for it be a proper tool

If you want to talk about math and science laws, I can't do that very well. It's best to seek out someone who majored in those subjects

 

[blü 2]

At the end of the road, before and after all matter, I think maybe there were just 'Words.' And I think that plain words, even before anything visible existed, have something to do with creation. Someone uses words. So then, something had to exist to use words. Words imply that things exist that attach themselves to description.

But before there are words there must be brains capable of sending them and receiving them, and that occurs late in the history of the earth. Perhaps the first word was the mating sound of a land animal (birds included) that was recognized by its fellow creature and drew a response. Or perhaps it was a warning cry such as meerkats use. But the earth had been around for more than 3.5 bn years before that was even possible, and the universe had been around for maybe 9.5 bn years before our solar system came into existence.

So I don't see how words would be possible at the beginning. While we need to understand words to understand physics (or anything else), physics will be what it is independently of our view of it from time to time.