Einstein is loosely quoted as saying,
“God does not play dice with the universe”.
Einstein held quantum mechanics to be dubious, because laws were not established; rather, they were broken and there seemed to be random events or contradictions; that while the majority of the known universe appears to be deterministic and even measurable, in quantum mechanics the theory is that a universe of tiny particles exists, and it is governed by absolute randomness.
What Einstein said was—
“[Quantum mechanics] says a lot, but does not really bring us closer to the secret of the ‘Ancient One’. I, at any rate, am convinced that He is not playing at dice.”
In private letters to Paul Epstein (a theoretical physicist at Caltech) in 1945, Einstein wrote:
“God tirelessly plays dice under laws which he has himself prescribed.”
This second statement would “seem” to be contradictory to his first statement; however, it is not, when you realize that the stipulation “under laws which he has himself prescribed” removes all elemant of chance / randomness, and therefore, it is not really playing dice any more (dice being defined as a game of chance). The two statements in this one sentence actually cancel each other out; sort of like the understatement expressed by a double-negative (the only form of acceptable double-negatives, in English, of which I am aware): “not unlike” (which is actually saying “like”). Secondly, one needs to understand that Einstein did not believe in the God of the Bible; nor truly in any traditional concept of God at all. “God” to Einstein was either a metaphor or some inexplicable mysterious force. Physicist Vasant Natarajan, in an essay, wrote:
“Einstein of course believed in mathematical laws of nature, so his idea of a God was at best someone who formulated the laws and then left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws.”
This would seem to be more akin to Deism; but upon further investigation Einstein did not even believe in that (and Natarajan misspoke). Like many atheistic, agnostic, or naturalistic Jews, Einstein believed in some impersonal force or energy, not actually God or Creator or even Intelligent Designer. Einstein said:
“But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”
Einstein here showed several of his many areas of ignorance, in that he considered understanding of “science” to be a gateway to religon, “feeling” (emotion) with religion; and that those who did not understand this “religious” emotive dynamic with advanced scientific understanding, was somehow inferior. But what if that “good feeling” was based on “science falsely so called” (I Timothy 6:20) ...? That is, what if such scientists are wrong, and their theories and ideas, which they even consider “laws” are entirely false...? What then is that “religious feeling”...? It then is delusion, which is even a step below naïveté.
God is a “religious feeling”. However, Einstein’s “religion” was science—or what Einstein “thought” was science. Thus, Einstein’s God was the “good feeling” or satisfaction that he derived from the recognition of and appreciation for scientific law (or what he thought was scientific law). However, I wonder how he would have experienced that “feeling” once he realized that nearly all understanding of scientific law of physics, has changed, and his (allegedly “his”) theory of relativity is about to be replaced with something else. Indeed, there are physical laws that God created—and true law does not change. Therefore, the issue is not that scientific law changes, but that man has not accurately discovered scientific law. Man has found many approximations of law, which “work” under specific laboratory conditions or in certain circumstances (to a certain degree of efficacy and reliability); but which are like a capricious goat—no matter how well you fence the field he will find a way to get out. Much of what such scientists have discovered is like that tiny donut of a spare tire in your trunk, which is not really made to travel on, but only to help you hobble safely, at a lower speed, home or to the nearest garage / tire store.
Einstein himself expressed with greater clarification (what I interpreted above about his “God” being a “feeling”) in a letter that he wrote in 1954:
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Thus, as all pagans, liberals, new agers, and otherwise confused people, they falsely equate good feelings with “spirituality”. Einstein’s was a God of pagan philosophy, not the God revealed in the Bible, in true theology. Einstein also clarified in a reply to Rabbi Goldstein, in 1929:
“I believe in [Baruch] Spinoza’s* God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” (as quoted in Einstein: His Life and Universe)
[* Spinoza was a philosopher, a marrano, that is, his ancestors had been Sephardic Jews in Portugal, who “converted” (conversos; which “conversions” were often merely feigned for status in the community) to Catholicism. Spinoza was born in Amsterdam, Holland, as his ancestors had relocated there around a century earlier. Spinoza was raised Jewish, studying the Talmud* (which is not actually a “spiritual” commentary on the Old Testament—but blasphemy against The Bible, against God and Christ, and against Christians*).
* See: The Talmud Unmasked: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians [Memorial Edition to Honor a Great Lithuanian.] (1892) Rev. I.B. Pranaitis (Lithuanian Priest murdered for this book) translated by & with intro by Col. Sanctuary; 144pp., pb. (94pp. original + 30pp. Illustrated Biographical & Histor. Intro. by RAB, 11.50 + P&H; and The Plot Against Christianity (1963) Elizabeth Dilling, 8½x11, Intro by R.A.B., c.300pp., pb., 24.00 + P&H. exposes Talmud (w/ xeroxes from Talmud—my father and I personally double-checked against actual set of Talmud housed in a “special” area, “official personel only” at the University of Miami, Fla, in 1982). Also a few original Hb. in mint condition. Inquire.
Spinoza believed that Nature and the Cause of nature are one and the same; which would seem to be a form of something in limbo between pantheism and panentheism. However, neither of these systems refer to the Biblical God, but are corruptions of true Biblical Theism—which is defined by God in His Word in His Own words, not according to individualistic subjective emotional fantasies or secular rationalism. Bracketed note mine.]
Niels Bohr* (a Jewish-Danish existentialist philosopher and scientist) was one of Einstein’s friends and they frequently debated many topics, including quantum mechanics. One day, frustrated, Bohr quipped: “Einstein, stop telling God what to do.” This too, is an odd statement, when you realize that Bohr himself was an atheist.
[* his mother was daughter of David B. Adler from the wealthy Danish Jewish Adler banking family.]
Another statement Einstein made, he wrote in a letter to Eric Gutkind (the author of a book that Einstein had read, but did not agree with, Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt) in 1954:
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Be that as it may... reality is not altered due to your rejection of it and preferring your own fantasy instead. Your confused notion and definition of God does not change God.
Stephen Hawking*1 expressed, disagreeing with Einstein: “not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.” Again, this statement is revealed to be meaningless when one realizes that Hawking himself was an athiest (who used the term “God” deceptively, solely as to not alienate all those who do believe in God*2). The bottom line: Looking for truth in Hawking’s books is a “crap shoot”.
[*1 I have written about Hawking and his false statements about God and Creation and “Evolution”, in depth, in my “Stephen Hawking —Cosmic Tragedy”; online here: Stephen Hawking — Cosmic Tragedy — Hawking Fake Science... ; or available in booklet form: Stephen Hawking: Cosmic Tragedy — Hawking Fake Science... & A New Evolutionary Theory of The Universe, 78pp., 7.00 + P&H (refutes atheistic anti-God evolution and utterly shreds Hawking’s illogic).
*2 Many people modernly employ this deception of using the word God, politicians especially. However, nothing should be taken for granted. They need to be asked to define their terms. Hopefully they will do somewhat better than the savage appointed to the Supreme Court who is either a liar or a fool, who claimed to not know what a woman is (though presumably she is one herself)—how can she be fit to rule in any legal case if she is so stupid that she does not even know what a woman is, or if she is a liar? Clearly, she “pulled a Clinton”—and all of the members of Congress who did not grill her like a tough steak, on that issue are fools, traitors, or both.]
The answer to my question, the title of this article, is: All of History, Life, Existence, Reality is one seamless Daydream in the Mind of God.
However, this statement must be qualified.
The Lord is not a man that He should repent...
This means that God is not a man; and it means that God does not “repent” (change His Mind) as man repents.
Understand, there are different Hebrew and Greek words translated “repent” in the Bible, and they have different meanings. Regardless, there is univocal relation, in many areas, between God and Man, in quality of essence, though not in quantity of exactness. God is not a man, and God is Perfect and Sinless, Omnipotent and Omniscient and Immutable, therefore, nothing that God does is identical with man. However, God made man in His Own Image, after His Own Likeness—again, not in exactness, but in reflection, pattern, character, nature, in a limited fashion. Of course, a large degree of this nature and reflection in man was lost, or seriously damaged in the Fall; but there are vestigal reminiscences, like looking in a mirror that has been covered in grease and grime for a decade, and never cleaned: If you look hard, you can still see a dim, burred, corrupted reflection. However, though there is not an exact reflection, likeness, or comparison, there is an analogical, as well as a limited literal comparison; otherwise, it would be madness and falsehood for God to refer to Himself and man with various points of intersection and comparison, if some degree of similiarity or sameness did not exist. God is the father of all Adamkind; though not in the exact way that Jacob was the father of the Israelites; though not in the exact way that Jacob was father of Joseph; though not in the exact way that a male cat is the father of a litter of kittens. It is not that “father” means something “totally other” in relation to God than it does in relation to man, but that though not identical, there is true and meaningful sameness, to some degree.
“And also the Strength*1 of Israel will not lie nor repent:*2 for He is not a man, that He should repent.”*2 (I Samuel 15:29)
[*1 This is not the word Almighty (#7706 shadaiy [shahd-ah-ee]; from #7703 shaw-dahd “to be burly, powerful”). It is #5331 neh-tsakh, “a goal, that is, the bright object at a distance travelled towards; hence (figuratively), splendor, or (subjectively) truthfulness, or (objectively) confidence; but usually (adverbially), continually (that is, to the most distant point of view):—alway (-s), constantly, end, (+ n-) ever (more), perpetual, strength, victory.” I would also suggest, Destiny as a possible translation.
*2 #5162 naw-khahm, “to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):—comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).”
“God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:#5162 hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19)
“32For He [God] is not a man, as I [Job] am, that I should answer [argue with] Him, and [that] we should come together in judgment. 33Neither is there any daysman [judge] betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.” (Job 9)
[God is Supreme. There is no one above Him in Right, Authority, Power, or Wisdom.]
In the New Testament, a different word, of course, is used, a Greek word—but it has a different meaning; though close to the same meaning by extension / implication.
“...The Lord sware and will not repent*...” (Hebrews 7:21)
* #3338 metamellomai (met-ahm-EL-lom-ahee) [from #3326 and the middle of #3199]; “to care afterwards, that is, regret:—repent (self).”
#3338 metamellomai (met-ahm-el-lom-ahee) is similar in meaning (though not etymologically related, though they share the same prefix) to the Greek word #3340 metanoeo (met-ahn-o-EH-) [from #3326 and #3539] “to think differently or afterwards, that is, reconsider (morally to feel compunction):—repent.” It is this word, #3340 that is used, and it seems to be used exclusively of man’s repenting; not of God’s.
[ = long o sound as in hope; the Greek vowel omega; all other os are omicrons, short os as in hop.]
Understand: God is not passive, nor is He re-active. He is Omnipotent and Immutable. He does not “re-act”; nothing has power or influence over Him, to move Him or force Him to move, react, retreat, etc. If any Bible verse seems to express that He re-acts, it is because God wrote the Script of His Drama, and He scripted His action, subsequent to man’s action—planning it, choreographying it in advance. God does not “repent” (think differently, regret, have “second thoughts”, have a “better idea”, make mistakes, not forsee circumstances, change His Mind, etc.) in His Nature, Promises, Purpose, or Plan. When Scripture seems to so indicate, it is special and limited in its meaning, and is a figure of speech (often an anthropopathism:* God expressing Himself in human terms, “as if” [though He is not] a human, so that man can relate to God’s Ineffable Being). God declares that if His people sin, He will chasten them; and if they repent, He will forgive and bless them (Jeremiah 18:1-11; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 27, 28; Joel 2). This is not “change” on God’s Part: It is His doing what He said that He will do.
* I disagree with those who claim that some of these instances are anthropomorphisms (God or Christ appearing in the form of a man); which they are not. When Scripture speaks of the Hand, Eye, Ears, Mind, Heart, Arm, etc. of the Lord—that is not an anthropopathism unless an actual Hand, Eye, etc. appears. God is incorporal: He has no body, no mind, no eye, no hand. He is Perfect Spirit (Pure Living Personal Energy, Truth). However, He is Omnipotent, and if He determines to appear as a human for some event, some encounter, then He does so.
An anthropomorphism is when God or Christ actually appeared in the Old Testament, such as when meeting with Abraham (Genesis 14; 18). When Scripture speaks of the Hand, Arm, Heart, etc. of the Lord, those body parts do not appear; and it is not those body parts, existentially, that are the intention. The intention is the pathos (passion) and the thought that is aroused by what those words mean. The teaching is not concerning a literal Hand, Arm, Heart, etc. Thus, the proper figure of speech is anthropopathism, not anthropomorphism. An exception may be when the Finger or Hand of God wrote the Law on the Stone Tables at Sinai (Exodus 31:18), or when He wrote Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin, on the wall of the massive banquet hall during Belshazzar’s riotious feast, when he blasphemed God and used the golden goblets stolen from the Temple of the Lord to praise the gods of gold, silver, stone, and wood (Daniel 5). That night his Kingdom, Babylon, was overthrown by the Medes and Persians, and Belshazzar slain.
Also, neither “faith” nor “repentance” originate in man, but each are an Agency of the Holy Spirit according to God’s determination (Philippians 2:13; Romans 2:4; 3:10-12; 7:18; Ephesians 2:8). Thus, there is no actual “repentance” as a “re-active” event initiated by man’s action, originating in man, but it follows exactly the Script that God planned and is possibly only by God’s moving man to believe and repent,]
“For godly sorrow worketh repentance#3341 to salvation not to be repented#278 of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.” (II Corinthians 7:10)
#3341 metanoia (met-ahn-oy-ah) [from #3340]; “(subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another’s] decision):—repentance.”
#278 ametameletos (ahm-et-ahm-el-ey-tos) “irrevocable:—without repentance, not to be repented of”; = #1 (negative participle “a-”) + #3338 metamellomai (met-am-EL-lom-ahee).
The phrase “godly sorrow” may more properly be translated, “the sorrow that comes down from God”. The word godly is a compound Greek word, kata-Theon; kata is a preposition that has a downward action or association of some type (whence we derive part of our word category, that is, “a heading under which related types of things are organized”). Thus, the sorrow or remorse (#3077 lu-pey) “according to God” or “[that comes] down from God” or “the God-downward remorse” is the intention. It is not God’s Sorrow / Remorse; but that which God gives to the elect of His people. The focus is the action and origin; not merely a “type” of; that is, “godly, goddish, god-like”—though it is those things also; that is not the focus. Knowledge of sin, conviction of sin, shame of and remorse for sin, and repentance of sin (as well as the moral integrity, submission, and obedience to do what God commanded and “go and sin no more” are all the Agency and gifts of the Holy Spirit—none of them originate in man.
“And rend your heart, and not [only] your garments, and turn unto the LORD [Yahweh] your God: for He is Gracious and Merciful, slow to anger, and of great Kindness, and repenteth Him of the evil.” (Joel 2:13)
“And it repented the LORD [Yahweh] that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His Heart.” (Genesis 6:6)
“Return, O LORD [Yahweh], how long? and let it repent Thee concerning Thy servants.” (Psalm 90:13)
Note: God is not passive. Whenever Scripture speaks of God as being passive, or uses a passive voice verb in relation to God, or speaks in terms of an action being committed upon God, or an action that is reflexive of God and anything else (any thing, any person), that is a clear indication that the words are used specially, in a limited fashion, and even figuratively. The “evil” that God “repents of” is not an “evil” that is internal to God (to God, that “evil” is Justice); but it is external to God and it is subjective to those receiving it (Proverbs 16:4); and most often that “evil” is what God brings upon His people by being invaded and oppressed by, being attacked by and having war levied against them by alien peoples (Judges 17:17,18). The “evil” (#7451 raw-aw) refers to Judgment—which the one to whom it is administered views, most often, in a negative light, as “evil, calamity, something bad”. However, those who are godly view it much differently (Psalm 119:75—and it is actually the goodness that leads to repentance). God does not “punish” His children whom He loves. Punishment is existential and terminal. God chastens / disciplines His children whom He loves, which is remedial and temporary. In other passages, other Greek or Hebrew words are used, and this “Evil” or “Day of Evil” are also called the “Day of Judgment”, the “Day of Christ”, “the Day of the Lord” and even “that Day”.
So, we see “repenteth Him”, “it repented Him” “let it repent thee” are figurative; and do not refer to God repenting of any evil in Himself, or any sin or mistake that He made (for He is Good, Perfect, and Sinless; in Him is no darkness); it refer to God, following the flow chart of His Own Decree and Promise: If you sin I will judge you (cause evil to come upon you); if you morally repent of your sin, I will “repent” of the course of action that I follow, and will then bless you; and again, the repentence of God’s people itself is a gift that God gives or they would not be able to repent; and have no desire to repent; and have no remorse or conviction of sin or the desire to obey all that God commanded.
Most “Christians” are humanists who invent a false god (idolatry) and false christ (idolatry) in their own mindd, and then project that false, humanistic notion onto God / Christ and expect Him to conform to modern polluted notions (and in essence, bow down and worship man). Theology centers around God; humanism centers around man and what sinful man thinks is “fair” and what sinful man determines God is and is not allowed to do. However, God rebukes such:
“...thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself:* but I will reprove thee, and set them [truth] in order before thine eyes.” (Psalm 50:21)
[* That is, a sinful, fickle, ambivalent, vacillating, compromising, weak, self-contradicting, backsliding, changing man.]
“8For My Thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My Ways, saith the LORD [Yahweh]. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My Ways higher than your ways, and My Thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55)*
“20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 21Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5)*
[* God does not operate based upon the polluted, ever-changing, liberal, sinful notions of “equality” and “fairness”. He operates upon His Perfect, Immutable, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Nature and His unchanging Decrees, Covenants, Promises, and Law (the only Standard of Morality—the unchanging difference between good and evil), which are demonstrations of Perfect outflow of that Nature.]
In the superb and fascinating*1The Presbyterian Philosopher: Dr. Gordon H. Clark,*2 Doug Douma quotes and summarizes a few thoughts from Dr. Clark:
[*1 that is, for those who are Clarkian, students / readers of Clark’s insurpassible works; those who love truth and who actually want to learn, who want to know truth, who want to learn how to actually truly think, who want to learn how to think truly, who want to learn how to know and please God according to reality and God’s dictates of that reality. Thus, this book may not be fascinating to those who are merely content to maintain the comfortable status quo of their own complacent ignorance. Those who read Clark grow to love Clark; and thus, desire to know more about him.
*2 (in stock) 320pp., pb., 32.00 (reg. 37.00) + P&H; Hb. 50.00 (reg. 57.00) + P&H. Email or send SASE for a full list of Clark’s titles that are in stock; and recommendations on which to read first.]
“This theory* goes hand-in-hand with the theory of occasionalism held by Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715), a French theologian whom Clark admired. According to the theory of occasionalism, God is the sole and indefeasibly effective cause of everything throughout the universe. God speaks** and it is done. God produces mental events and physical events simultaneously.12 Created things are at best ‘occasions’ for divine activity.”13
[* That is, the theory of Divine Illumination noted by St. Augustine, in that God gives understanding directly to the elect via the Holy Spirit’s Agency in the individual minds of the elect in regard to the facts of God’s Word (faith cometh by hearing* and hearing* by the Word of God). The understanding of experience / sensation is not the cause of truth (as per “Empiricism”), but knowledge and sensation are simultaneous, though independent of each other are sensation is a stimulus to intellectual intuition.
* Note further: Hearing, here is figurative. It is not the existential sound vibrations on the drum and bones of the inner ear that is what is being discussed. The hearing is in reference to understanding in the mind. This does not mean that the eyes in reading cannot be a medium through which the Word of God is experienced and impacted upon the mind. However, in the time that this was written, books (scrolls) were rare and expensive and only few people had direct access to them (either being in the Temple or in the possession of the priests, pastors, wealthy individuals). The average person, in Christ’s day (and for all time, before that time), learned through hearing, not reading (nor feeling Braille with their fingertips, nor from merely watching someone speak). Again, the focus is not hearing, but the WORD OF GOD, via whatever means it enters the brain and mind; whether fingertip sensaton, ocular sensation, or otosensation / auditory sensation. It is not the method, but the material.
** In reality, God thinks, or actually, wills—and it is done. God does not need to speak: He speaks that we might know that all is done by His Agency (even as when He said, “Let there be light”. See also John 11:41-44; and note in this passage, events took place of which we are not told; but which are logical inferences (even as, as I shall explain, God first declared, “Let there be darkness”, though we are not so told in the Biblical Record in Genesis). We are not told so, but Christ first resurrected Lazarus by the Power of His Will. Otherwise, a dead man could not have heard, much less obeyed Christ’s Command to “come forth”. Indeed, a rotting corpse would have come forth if Christ had commanded it; but that is not what Christ called forth. I heard one preacher, decades ago, say, that Christ said “Lazarus, come forth” otherwise all of the dead bodies in that tomb would have come forth. However, that is not really true. Christ / God is not ignorant, and “reality” could not be confused by Christ’s Command. Christ / God is in perfect, full-time control of reality; reality not independent of God; reality is not an autonomous entity. Again, God / Christ does not even need to speak a word—but does so for our benefit in understanding the events that He wills into reality. Notes mine. R.A.B. / A.H.F.]
“12. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man, [p.]91.
“13. “While Hume denied all miracles, there was a medieval Moslem who anticipated Hume’s arguments* against causality and concluded that every event is a miracle.** Since no sensation can be the cause of another sensation, every event is immediately caused by God ... We now concur with the Islamic anti-aristotelian Al Gazali:*** God and God alone is the cause, for only God can guarantee the occurrence of Y, and indeed of X as well. Even the Westminster Divines timidly agree, for after asserting that God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, and that ‘no purpose of yours can be withheld from you’ (Job 42:2), they add, ‘Although ... all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes...’ What they called second causes, Malebranche had called occasions. But an occasion is neither a fiat lux nor a differential equation.” —Clark, Lord God of Truth, [pp.]24-25, 27.
[* More properly: He anticipated the type of argument, that individuals, such as Hume, might ever raise.
** This actually is a misperception. Indeed, every single event was conceived in and planned by the Mind of God, and carried out to exact perfection by God’s Power and Perfection. However, nothing is impossible to God—nothing is even difficult for him. It requires no more skill or power for God to lift a ping pong ball than to create a universe. Therefore, every event is certainly not a miracle—not to God; not to man. A miracle is that which is impossible through natural means, something impossible for man. Thus, there are some things that are indeed Divine miracles to man (but they are not miracles to God). No, certainly not every single event in life is a “miracle” (such as brushing your teeth in the morning; unless you were a quadraplegic and all of the sudden you regained the use of your arms to enable you to brush your teeth; but even then the brushing of the teeth would not be the miracle, but the re-animation of the paralyzed limbs).
*** Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad at-Tusiyy al-Gazzaliy; known in Persian-speaking countries as Imam Muhammad-i Ghazali; known in Medieval Europe by the Latinized Algazelus / Algazel, was a Persian polymath (1058-1111); who was born and died in Tous, Iran. Interesting, there is a DNA anomoly / disease named Al-Gazali syndrome (ALGAZ) which is characterized by prenatal growth retardation, skeletal anomalies, etc. I wonder if this is so named due to the practice of these Middle-eastern peoples of inbreeding, even brother-sister marriages. Notes mine R.A.B. / A.H.F.]
Also, God does not sleep (Psalm 121:4) and thus, He cannot have a “night-dream” (that is, a dream while a person is in a state of shallow, limited unconsciousness; which could never related to God). God can, of course, as any other person, have a “night-dream” that is simply a “day-dream” while awake during nighttime. However, God exists external to all things that He created (all things that are not God). “God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (I John 1:5) When you think about it, though Scripture does not specifically tell us in the Days of Creation, that God first declared (or simply willed), “Let there be darkness” before He declared “Let there be light”—and God then separated the light from darkness. Darkness is a created entity. God is Light and Limitless; therefore, He first created darkness before He created light. Scripture so tells us,
“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).
Furthermore, God is not a man. He does not have silly daydreams that violate reality, absurd fantasies, random thoughts, meaningless ideas, impotent “wishes”. God’s Thought becomes reality (based upon His Timetable)—which nothing and no one can thwart in the slightest (any more than a fruitfly / gnat could slow down a speeding locomotive with 100 box cars full of metal ore). Scripture tells us concerning God:
“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being...” (Acts 17:28)
“16... all things were created by Him, and for Him: 17And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.” (Colossians 1)
“The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, ‘Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand’.” (Isaiah 14:24)
“So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My Mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)
[For more in-depth discussion of this entire topic, see my books, Does God Repent...? Can God Change His Mind...? [And an Utter Demolishment of the Humanistic Myth of Man’s “Free Will” and Arminianism], 506pp., 25.00 + P&H; and God and Evil: Did God Create Sin and Evil? The Facts of My Imaginary, Evanescent Heresy Trial - The Death Knell of Arminianism at the Hand of the Word of God, 280pp., pb., 18.00 + P&H.
P&H = 10% (5.00 minimum within the U.S.)]
The Fear of the Lord, Evil, and Suffering—an important topic overlooked by most Christians [Is God In Complete Control...? Did 99% of His Creation Just “Go Bad”...? Can Anything “Take God By Surprise”...?]
See also: [P&H = 10% / 5.00 minimum within the U.S.]
- What is Man...? (Personally Speaking) & Some Thoughts on The Trinity and on The Deity of Christ — Deeper Implications Than Most May Think, 84pp., 7.00 + P&H.