October 16, 2007
From the Logician: 071016: Part I of V
Daniel. J. Shepard
The World Embracing Hope Foundation
Dear Sir
Once more unto the breech my friend. I do feel however that we have a tendency as ships in the night to pass each other without really knowing that we are of the same mind. It maybe because I am not yet skilled enough to put my point across or we both are too set in our ways to understand the similarities as we tend to focus upon the differences. This of course is what makes a good rapport, but is ultimately negative as we still have not fully understood each other. I am having a hell of a time trying to put what I mean into words and have already edited this first paragraph umpteen times in a vain attempt to begin this answer to your previous mail, but I will endeavour to do so.
For instance: Can you give me a rational explanation as to how God could avoid eternal recurrence other than God learning?
Yes, quite easily, for God there is no such thing as eternal recurrence, it is a human invention to explain a single facet of existence.
Djs: There is no reduction here. Quite the contrary. The concept expands the ability of God over that of others who profess God cannot learn.
There is a reduction Sir, God does not need to learn from humans.
Djs: Again you rely upon faith, religious dogma, belief. I am not suggesting God cannot I am not suggesting religion is wrong. What I am suggesting is that religion is irrational in simultaneously arguing God is Omniscient and then arguing God cannot learn more.
What I am suggesting is that reason and rationality would suggest God can, reason and rationality would suggest God is capable of, God being by definition, Omniscient, would know how to and being by definition, Omnipotent, has the power to and being by definition, Omnipresent, would do so within itself as oppose to do so outside itself.
Again you have misunderstood. I do not in any manner, shape or form rely upon faith, religious dogma or belief. Logically your interpretation of God has an ability and reason to learn and it goes against what popular religious dogma states as being factual. This is also irrational as God is an entity reliant upon ones belief in such an entity, so it matters not if it can or should be able to learn.
Djs: I am arguing, not only is God capable of understanding how It can circumvent eternal recurrence but that we as rational beings made in the image of God by God , are also capable of rationalizing such a process.
But to argue this point you have to believe that we are made in Gods image and God is subject to our rationalizing process.
Djs: Within the scope of the model, if God should choose to stop learning, we would remain as we are, souls which exist with the experiences and abilities we have at our disposal.
The model demonstrates we experience uniquely and once having experienced our unique knowing of such experiencing becomes a part of total knowing, God. This does not suggest we no longer exist, rather it explicitly demonstrates that while Gods knowing advances with our experiencing, we remain as discrete entities of uniqueness. If we as unique entities should not survive as unique entities, the Whole, God if you wish, would be less than It potentially could be via our loss which would, in turn, be counter to the very concept of Omniscience and Omnipotence.
But because in your model God is “using” us to learn, if it decides to stop learning then there would no need for further human beings to be born. I agree in the model the previous beings would be part of “a whole” as you call it and they would still exist etc but it would mean logically the end of the human race a physical entities living on this planet or planets throughout the universe.
Djs: I would suggest, it is not the universe which allows anything, but rather the universe was created as a tool, to advance a specific purpose, namely, a means by which God circumvents eternal recurrence.
I would suggest that the universe is the host to all life within it, and has nothing to do with God getting around a human defined restriction called eternal recurrence. It is the medium in which all physical matter can exist/co-exist.
Djs: If it is an accurate phrase, why be careful in using it? To suggest we are lab-rats is inaccurate. Lab-rats have no free will. Lab-rats are controlled.
As are we all by our environment, be it physically or metaphysically.
The model of symbiotic panentheism is a metaphysical model of reality which clearly and emphatically demonstrates that we as individuals and thus as a species have free will. The model clearly demonstrates we are not controlled.
We, therefore, are responsible as individuals for our actions and the repercussions said actions generate.
The difference between lab-rats and human individuals:
Lab-rats are not responsible for their actions.
Humans are responsible for their actions.
How can you say lab-rats are not responsible for their actions? All the actions of a lab-rat are subject to consequences. As for humans being responsible for their actions you must mean humans who have developed a sense of right and wrong, for as far as I am concerned when a human is born it has no such sense.
Djs: I don’t know. What options other than a singularity theory specifically are you suggesting? Djs: The big bang theory is in essence a singularity theory. The creation of the physical universe.
Read “A Brief History Of Time” by Steven Hawking and his interpretation of the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity, a very worth while piece of reading and very interesting concept.
Djs: Sp (symbiotic panentheism) goes beyond human behaviour and human terms.
My theory does not, as it does not need to. Whereas your work envelops the immortal aspect of existence, mine concentrates upon the problems facing everyone alive today. Logically taking steps to allow future generations to develop beyond human behaviour and human terms.
This is the second means by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.
Seriously? You reckon you validate sp because it goes beyond human terms? If that is all it takes to validate a theory, I’ll change mine to come up with a supposed scenario of immortality.
Djs: Secularism has done more damage and been the demise of more individuals within the 20th Century than any form of religion Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao
Having said that: To suggest the spiritual well being of the individual is not to be considered is to suggest the spiritual well being of the individual is unimportant and thus non-existent. In short, to suggest the spiritual well being is not to be considered is to suggest the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence.
I wrote :...
To be continued: Part II of V