Saruman
Auto-translated
Saruman, in your opinion, can a cluster of energy create something? Think about it: here sits a cluster, and it just sits there. It is absolute, and therefore it doesn't need anything; what reason would it have to create something? What reason could serve as the basis for the absolute to create the universe? Loneliness? But it is absolute, a cluster of energy that doesn't feel the emotions inherent in mortals. It is absolute, it is self-sufficient. So, what then? Just out of boredom? But it is absolute, it is above that. A higher mind that doesn't need anything. Maybe then, curiosity? What kind of curiosity can there be for something that already knows everything? I don't think so.
The absolute has existed for so long that we cannot imagine such numbers. It is most correct to say: not for one eternity. But, there cannot be anything static in the Universe. Even stones are destroyed, even the outlines of continents change. Besides, energy cannot be static by definition. Streams of energy created the primary Universe; this did not happen quickly, most likely not for one eternity either, but it did happen. With the appearance of other objects in it, the Absolute could not remain the cluster of energy it was. Changes occurred within it; with the appearance of living creatures, they became even greater; with the appearance of intelligent beings, even more. People, praying to gods, paradoxically change the absolute, creating personifications of the gods, those same clusters of energy that separated from the primary Absolute. The Christian God (and some others???) was a personification of the form that was created before people believed in it. It may be a bit rambling, but there are always many questions in the problem of the beginning of creation:rolleyes:
Pleasure and love. No, brother, love is not pleasure. Meeting a "chick" at a disco and sleeping with her - that's pleasure. But people suffer more often than they rejoice for love. Remember Helen of Troy. I don't think Paris enjoyed seeing his fellow countrymen die because of his love. I've said it before, love is not just "kisses under the moon." It is always suffering, it is always trials. And that is right. And that is wonderful. And it should be that way.
You understand the word pleasure too narrowly: Some of the sufferings for love can, in a sense, be qualified as sublime pleasure (a feeling of light sadness). Pleasure does not mean enjoyment. Trials are natural; often, to obtain any kind of pleasure, one must go through trials. But when you have gone through them, and you are left with your beloved woman, surely you will not experience sublime (moral) pleasure? Rambling again, but it's okay...
Mugaes:
It is foolish not to believe in evolution, but the fact that humans evolved from monkeys does not agree with many signs. It is impossible to interpret gods using a scientific approach, just as it is impossible to describe music with formulas. In the Bible (I will say a terrible thing!), there is almost no truth. It was initially misinterpreted, and then many rewrote it either for profit or out of ignorance. I doubt that even the general meaning has reached our days...