Determinism and God

Just a few thoughts on determinism and perception.

I was driving by some sprinklers in a place I’ve never been before when I got to thinking - there’s so much shit I don’t see going on. Just mundane shit. A lot of it. A lot of shit.

And then I thought that if my fate is determined, then I’m only going to perceive a certain number of things - determined events and determined perceptions.

But al of the other shit is undetermined - for me at least. So, I extended that thought and supposed that if the whole world is determined it would require an omniscient being - ie. god.

But for me - there is a whole shit load of things that go undetermined. So - for me - the world is partly undetermined. But I can’t say the undetermined parts are not determined for other beings. All I can say is that I come across random shit which I know I’ve come by accident upon. There’s no special cause relating me to a fucking bunch of sprinklers on the side of the road that have been sprinkling all day.

So, determinism seems to be wrong. AND IF IT IS - then does it follow that God cannot be omniscient? And therefore NOT God?

I don’t know if anyone can follow this. Just shit for your brain.

Determinism may be a thing, every action has been mapped out from the instant of the big bang. But it does not have to involve a god, just hard physics.

Here’s a thought ratty. In physics there is the quantum entanglement, where the rules do not seem to apply. At best we have no idea yet.

Now the mind-fuck. Determinism can explain quantum entanglement.

I determined that you were to see the sprinklers and then begin questioning determinism. It is all a part of the plan I have for you. Once you play the determinism game there is no excaping it for the escape itslef is determined. Go back to sleep ratty.


I knew you would say that…

Just curious… Has anybody ever considered Determinisn’t? Bear with me a moment…

If I understand it correctly, Determinism basically states (And I’m generally paraphrasing here.): We act the way we do because of past events over which we had no control, and our actions set in motion conditions that will cause others to act in ways over which they have no control… (Or something like that.)

Determinisn’t, on the other hand, could maybe be something along the lines of: We DON’T act the way we do because of past events over which we HAD control, and our INACTIONS do NOT set in motion conditions that will NOT cause others to NOT act in ways over which they DO have control.

It’s a work in progress, I admit. Still haven’t ironed out all the wrinkles yet. For instance, I’m trying to determine if I came up with this idea without past influence, or would I have not thought of this idea had something else not happened in the past? And will my determination to answer these questions somehow determine how others will act beyond their control in the future?


Uh…Uh it seems that you are somewhat self-determined to make a determination as to the extent of pre-determination which may or may not exist. Of course that begs the question as to whether or not it is possible, given demonstrable facts of pre-determination as illustrated by the influence of indeterminable factors, which, by their absence, indeed exert unknown but nevertheless predictably existent effect(s). Since the very act of examination introduces a degree of variability, it would behoove us all to reflect on the wisdom of Heraclitus who stated: “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” …
I hope this clears up any dis-understanding of which you may not be in possession…(further deepening of grasp may be obtained through concentrated navel-gazing)

Stop it. I can’t believe it, I am now considering the viability of “ determinisn’t” . Tin has a way of exploiting the mental weaknesses of some of us more susceptible mental masturbators.
Thanks so much. I really needed another Möbius strip of thought to replace my broken hamster wheel…

Determinism is–to me–similar to a discussion about a dice game . . . such as craps.

People believe that if you could calculate air resistance, the distance of your hand that holds the dice over the table, the force with which the dice are thrown, and so forth . . . that you could clean up in Las Vegas or Monte Carlo by winning your dice throws in a gambling game.

This actually isn’t true.

There is a rule in physics called “The Uncertainty Principle” which is way of defining the randomness of the Universe on the scale of the very small.

This means that a pin can never get balanced on it’s point, or that billiard balls can never be shot with complete accuracy.

So, even if we knew the position and velocity of every subatomic particle in the Universe, we wouldn’t be able to predict the future.

1 Like

Ah yes, additionally there is the “Observer Effect” sometimes confused with the Uncertainty Principal. So even if you determined that there could be a high degree of accuracy in your calculations, once you attempted to verify by direct observations you would introduce a new variable. Of course in your example there is always “luck”. 🧚‍♂️

1 Like

So, your saying … Those billiard balls I keep hurling at skriten as he flies by are ‘never’ going to knock him out of the sky? No wonder I fucking fling poo. It’s a hell of a lot more accurate than billiard balls.

1 Like

Not as long as you continue to aim. And that’s not why you persist in propelling your peculiarly prominent exemplification of putrid feculence anyway…

1 Like

EXPLOITING??? I have you know I would be terribly insulted by such a defamation of my character if there was any way I could counter such an astute evaluation. Be that as it may…

At least mental masturbation is less messy than alternative methods. The least I can do is provide fresh intellectual porn in an effort to stimulate those neural networks yet to be discovered. You’re welcome.


The extent of my gratitude is proliferous and somewhat perpetual. Self-stimulation is so sequestering as to render one intellectually segregated.

Edit for frontal lobotomy

1 Like

Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are both good reads on this topic. They have published mainstream books. My impression (Round and round and round we go.) The arguments and counter arguments are endless.

1 Like

Entanglement is not a postulate in quantum mechanics, it is a mathematical consequence of the postulates (just like the uncertainty principle). Entanglement doesn’t violate those postulates/rules. It also doesn’t violate special relativity (another common false claim about entanglement).