142. Fate versus Free Will. Part Nine
We were discussing another theory, which may be the correct solution, and satisfy the paradox stated in blog 139.
How does God have foreknowledge? There are two possibilities:
1. He knows it because He has an infinite mind that can compute all the possibilities.
2. The play is being played a second time. First time in a computer, similar to some sort of simulation, or actually in our planet or some other planet. What is going to happen now, in our planet, will be the same as happened the first time around. Suppose you are watching a film second time, you can easily tell how the plot will proceed. What the actors are going to say? If you play the film thousand times, every single detail will occur exactly the same way. The drama of this world is something like that, except that we write, direct and act in this drama, and not the decrees of God.
Men of God tell a particular future event. Because God wants them to tell. God gives them permission to tell and they always seek permission from God before they tell, because they fully know that it is a divine law to have the future hidden from mankind (otherwise mankind would not put their full effort). They violate the law with divine sanction. When Brunton asked Chandi Das to tell him his future, Chandi Das rebuked him and said, “Why do you seek to know? The Creator has kept the future hidden for a fit reason” (blog 91)
Let us now restate the paradox:
1. Some persons can see future, therefore it exists somewhere
2. Future does not and cannot exist, because it has not been made yet.
Both statements are true. There is no paradox!
What is required is to restate 1, as:
1. Some persons can see future, therefore it exists somewhere, but not the actual future, but how is it going to transpire, in a screen play, which these persons can access.
There is one small puzzle to be settled. When Chandi Das told Brunton his future, he also said that he can only see a part of the future:
“Only in part. The lives of men do not move so smoothly that every detail is ordained for them.”
Did he mean the two-tier hypothesis of Ramakrishna?
‘Just as, when a cow is tied to a post with long tether, it can go to a distance of one cubit, or it can go up to the full length of the tether according to its choice, so too is the free will of the man….God has given man some power and freedom to utilize it as he likes.
That is why the man feels himself free…’
This mote thinks that the solution to this problem is not the two-tier hypothesis of religion but that the things get clearer as the event approaches ( a seer told me this fact ). It is as if one was witnessing a city from far distance. One can only see a mass consisting of thousands of house. As one approaches nearer, one can see separate houses and buildings. Still nearer, one can see the multiple storeys and windows in the buildings. As one approaches further, one can see occupants of the houses and whether they are men and women or children.
In the end, let us see what the components of hypothesis 2 (free will) are:
1. Man is free to choose his own fate
2. Nothing is preordained.
3. God started this play of universe for His inscrutable reason.
4. God sometimes interferes in the screen play for His unfathomable reason. This part appears contradictory to number 1. This will be discussed in greater detail when I discuss the “system of the world” at some future time.
5. God has foreknowledge of the future.
6. A Master screen play exists.
7. The future can be foretold by some men of God.
8. The difference from hypothesis one (fate) is that the fate is not preordained. Everything happens by the interaction of free will with Mother Nature. Future does not yet exist. The difference from hypothesis two (free will) is that future can be foretold by selected persons.
Difference from modern scientists is:
(a). That there is God, who created everything
(b). Future can be foretold (according to science, future cannot be foretold because it does not yet exist). It does not yet exist, because it has not been made yet.
What are the flaws in the components of hypothesis 2?
It is based on many suppositions but very little evidence.
Let us study this criticism. Component number one and two are not in dispute by scientists and logicians. Components number 3-5 depend upon the existence of God. I have written eighteen blogs (blogs 97-114) to prove the existence of God. I presented lot of anecdotal evidence. The reader is at liberty to read those blogs and make his/her own mind. I don’t want them to be repeated over here. Personally, I do not have an iota of doubt.
I have also presented plenty of anecdotal evidence in support of item number seven. I do not have any doubt left, after I learnt the episode of lottery numbers (blog 135), by the seer himself.
The main supposition, for which there is zero evidence, is the existence of a Master screen play. I arrived at it by logic. It is the only way to reconcile the paradox. The seers have to see something in the present, because as Saint Augustine repeatedly said (and this mote arrived at the same conclusion, independently) that the future does not yet exist. How can anybody see anything which does not exist? Therefore, it is logical to assume that there exists, somewhere in present, a record of future events (I called it screen play).
This mote prayed to God, even today, a way to access the future, at least for once, so that I can then say that I have myself seen some future event. For me, at least, then it won’t be hearsay.