View Article  Response to the Logician: 070622: Part III of III

Response to the Logician: 070622: Part III of III

 

...So again: I will ask, for the readers’ information, will you to define God in your own words.

 

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

 

Djs: The purity of faith has no room for reason and dialectics.

 

Logician: You know you exist way before you understand anything to do with faith, faith and existence are separate entities that sometimes end up in “the mix”

 

Djs: Again I will say it: We do not ‘know’ we exist. We reason we exist. We see we exist. We believe we exist. We have faith in the concept we exist. Ancient wisdom tells us we exist. Dialectics tell us we exist. We can measure our existence. Our conclusion, we exist.

 

But we do not ‘know’ absolutely, we exist. We could be the figment of the imagination of some ‘being’ or other, …

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

Djs: If one wishes to limit the scope of understanding to faith alone, then you are correct, it is that simple.

 

Logician: Why do you think that it limits the scope of understanding to faith alone, simplicity does not limit anything, in fact it broadens the scope of people you can transfer the knowledge to.

 

Djs: Faith can be a wonderful thing. Faith is one means we use to anchor ourselves to reality as we perceive it. There is, more to understanding reality than faith alone. There is observation, measurement, reason, dialectics,…

 

As such, to rely entirely upon faith is, by definition, to limit one’s self.

 

 

  •  

 

 

Djs: The question becomes is faith alone enough to act as the cornerstone of a more advanced, higher order form of human society in the future? If faith contradicts science, reason and dialectics then I think not.

 

If as a species we decide to remain as we are, decide not to form a more advanced, higher order form of human society for the future, then yes faith is enough and science, reason and dialectics can be set aside.

 

Logician: All I stated was it is a cornerstone of all societies. There are other cornerstones too.

 

 Djs: Obviously I agree, faith is one of many cornerstones.

 

  •  

 

 

Djs: If one has never seen a tree, then yes one has to believe in a tree to know it exists.

 

Logician: What if I had put ; you don’t have to believe in your fingernail to know it exists, your retort would then be invalid.

 

Djs: Whatever.

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

So, Mr. Shepard, may I thank you yet again for your reply.

 

Peace, Love and Respect

 

Remember : Religion guides you, it doesn’t rule you.

 

 

J °C

Logician

 

 

Djs: Ditto

View Article  Response to the Logician: 070622: Part II of III
Response to the Logician: 070622: Part II of III

 

 

...Djs: This is not just semantics. There is a definite concept involved here. The concept is one regarding the structure of reality. Damnation implies reality is divided into three regions, the physical, heaven and hell.

 

Logician: Damnation makes me think of; physical and spiritual 

 

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

Djs: The phrase no better is not analysis rather the phrase no better is judgmental in nature. I am not taking offence here, rather I am simply pointing out how easy it is to digress from a strictly analytical path.

 

Logician: True, it is a very judgmental statement.

 

 Djs: So why use it? I thought we were using reason and dialectics as opposed to personal attacks.

 

 Logician: It’s not a personal attack, just very judgmental.

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

Djs: Absolutely not! The model in no way indicates the soul is the property of the creator!

 

Logician: Certainly looks like that to me, I could be wrong.

 

Djs: Can you explain why it looks like it to you?

 

Logician: I will show you by using your own words : Djs: The individual, being given consciousness, in essence is given a piece of God. Do you get it now?

 

Djs: No. I have biological children. I gave each of them some of my DNA. Half of their DNA came from me, half from their Mother.

 

At no time have their Mother or I considered any of them to be our ‘property’. The law does not consider them to be our property. Society does not consider them to be our property. Are you suggesting children are the property of the parent? If not:

 

What’s the difference? I understand that in the case of DNA we are talking about the tangible and in the case of the soul we are talking about the intangible. But other than that, again I ask: What’s the difference?

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: Isn’t believing everything the same as believing nothing?

 

Logician: No. If you write the word everything, you are in fact including nothing, or it wouldn’t be everything now would it?

 

Djs: There is a difference in ‘believing everything exists including nothingness’ and ‘believing everything’

‘Believing everything exists including nothingness’ describes what it is one considers exists within reality.

 

‘Believing everything’ is a personal statement demonstrating one’s embracement of moral relativism, is a statement demonstrating one’s disbelief in ‘absolute truth’

 

For example: To believe everything one would have to believe two plus two base ten is four and simultaneously believe two plus two base ten is not four.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism defines God as The Whole. Perhaps you would enlighten me as to how you would define what God is.

 

Logician: God, personal as it is, is an inadequate word to describe everything.

 

Djs: Are you suggesting God is beyond discussion and therefore you refuse to discuss the concept of God? If so isn’t such a stand a form of discretionary censorship based on one person’s fundamentalism, namely your personal decision to rationalize your unwillingness to discuss a particular topic which you find uncomfortable to discuss?

 

Some would describe this form of personal censorship as a form of cop out.

 

Logician: You asked me to define what God is, I did so, then you take an absurd step towards me trying to dismiss the subject. I answered it in full first time around. If you have read any of the works I have sent you, you will see that answers given are extremely concise. As for your twist of personal censorship, utter rubbish, and the “cop out” is not warranted either. You did however cop out of posting my second mail from your blog though.

 

 Djs: You sent me a tremendous quantity of material. I don’t feel this blog site is the place for huge quantities of material to be posted in a single setting. I have a separate site for my eight books, 1000 slide presentation, hour and a half audio presentation, …

 

The site is www.panentheism.com. I would be more than happy to mention your url after your name if you would like but I think it would be inappropriate to post your work in total. I don’t even do it for myself.

 

To be continued: Part III of III: So again: I will ask, for the readers’ information, you to define God in your own words....

View Article  Response to the Logician: 070622: Part I of III

Response to the Logician: 070622: Part I of III

 

 

June 15, 2007

Daniel. J. Shepard

The World Embracing Hope Foundation

Dear Sir 

Thank you for your reply.

 

 

Logician: You did not reply to the previous mail, outlining more of your works, and I have to ask myself why? You went straight on to the third mail and put it on the blog. I hope that you have received and read the work called A Respect For All Life, in it you will see just how much we differ. 

 

Djs: It was an extensive document. I'm still digesting it.

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

 

Djs: How can truth be dependent upon ones culture, religion, upbringing, personal experience? Truth to be truth must be truth.

 

Logician: All truths are time related

       

Djs: I don’t agree. This is not a case of ‘opinion’ but rather ‘truth’. Truth is truth. The concept that ‘what is truth today is different from what was truth in the past’ does not apply to truth but rather applies to opinions, applies to perceptions, applies to social morals, applies to scientific hypothesis and theory, …

 

We are fairly, I say fairly, certain ‘two plus two in base ten is four’. We believe this is ‘truth’. It is true today. It was true a thousand years ago. We have confidence it will be true a thousand years from now.

 

Again I will say it, Truths are not time related.

 

  •  

 

 

 

Djs: Sorry, no literary discretion license here.

 

Logician: There is always a scope of literary discretion, to say there is not, leads to very negative attributes. If someone has a different version of understanding then they have a different version, nothing more or less. There is nothing wrong with having several interpretations of a piece as long as the” jist” of the message gets through.

 

Djs: When you use the phrase ‘as long as …’ you forget the other side of the equation, namely: Often the interpreter twists statements into something entirely different than the writer intended. Twisting is sometimes the result of innocent intents but often twisting is intentionally initiated to reinforce the position and opinion of the interpreter.

 

One may say: Negative and false interpretations are not acceptable. But who is to be the universal judge overseeing all interpretations?

 

Sorry but again I will say it: ‘… no literary discretion license here.’

 

  •  

 

 

Djs: Your interpretations are simply what they are, namely: your interpretations.

 

Logician: Exactly

 

 

 

  •  

 

 

To be continued: Part II of III:

 

Djs: This is not just semantics. There is a definite concept involved here. The concept is one regarding the structure of reality. Damnation implies reality is divided into three regions, the physical, heaven and hell.

 

Logician: Damnation makes me...

 

View Article  Respoonse to the Logician: 070611: Part IV of IV

Response to the Logician: 070611: Part IV of IV

 

 

...Djs: I did consider putting the concepts out there anonymously. I decided if I was to throw ideas into the pool of human knowledge I should take responsibility for what it is I did. As such I reluctantly accept the responsibility and put my name to the work.

 

Logician: Kudos and respect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: You do not know there is a God. We do not know anything for certain.

 

Logician: Don’t I? Very presumptuous of you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: We don’t even know for certain we exist.  

 

Logician: Yes we do.

 

Djs: The purity of faith has no room for reason and dialectics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: We observe we exist. We measure our existence. Science, for the most part, tells us we exist. We believe we exist. Ancient wisdom tells us we exist. Religion, for the most part, tells us we exist. We reason we exist. Dialectics conclude we exist. Philosophy, for the most part, tells us we exist. These three tools, observation, faith, reason, lead us to conclude we exist. And that is the best we can do regarding truth.

 

Logician: Or you can just accept that we do, it really can be that simple.

 

 

Djs: If one wishes to limit the scope of understanding to faith alone, then you are correct, it is that simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: When you say, You think there is a God I KNOW THERE IS ! what you are actually saying is you believe with your whole being that God exists. That is faith, that is religion.

 

Logician: No, sorry you are the one with a possible misunderstanding here. When I stated I know there is God, it is because there is. 

 

 

Djs: Faith is as beautiful as it is abhorrent. Faith gives humankind eternal hope and eternal hopelessness. Faith stands on its own. Faith has no need of science, reason or dialectics. But faith bolstered by science, reason and dialectics is more likely to represent truth than faith alone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Djs: There is nothing wrong with having faith.

 

Logician: The cornerstone of all human society.

 

Djs: The question becomes is faith alone enough to act as the cornerstone of a more advanced, higher order form of human society in the future? If faith contradicts science, reason and dialectics then I think not.

 

If as a species we decide to remain as we are, decide not to form a more adanced, higher order form of human society for the future, then yes faith is enough and science, reason and dialectics can be set aside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: What is lacking in today’s understanding of God and Reality, however, is the reinforcement from the other two tools, namely: observation and

measurement/science and reason and dialectics/philosophy.

 

Logician: Not really, to believe that you can measure everything is I.M.H.O. a foolish endeavour.

 

Djs: I agree but I would also add, to believe we can measure nothing is also a foolish endeavor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: The difference, however, between you and I appears to be, you believe in God.

 

Logician: Yet again, I do not believe in God, I know God exists, I do not understand your misinterpretation of this simple logic. Hopefully this can explain it for you; you do not have to believe in a tree to know that it exists.

 

Djs: If one has never seen a tree, then yes one has to ‘believe’ in a tree to ‘know’ it exists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: I on the other hand both believe in God AND have added the tools of reason and dialectics/philosophy and observation and measurement/science to reinforce faith’s fundamental principle that God exists and then moved forward to use the tools of cosmology, ontology, and metaphysics to understand how it is we each have a direct role to play in the very growth of God and as such we, each and every one of us, has immense significance in this thing we call Reality and as such we, each and every one of us, has an immense responsibility.

 

Logician: Kudos and respect.

So, Mr. Shepard, may I thank you yet again for your reply.

Peace, Love and Respect

Remember : Religion guides you, it doesn’t rule you.

J °C

Logician

 

Djs: My pleasure

 

End

View Article  Response to the Logician: 070611: Part III of IV

070611 Reply to the Logician: Part III of IV

 

 

Djs: You totally misunderstand the model if this is what you conclude.

 

Logician: I don’t think I totally misunderstood anything. I may have misunderstood some of it.

 

Djs: Again you are correct.

 

 

 

 

  

 

Djs: The model clearly demonstrates that you “add” to the creator while at the same time demonstrating you create your own self and the soul is what you created and exists as your discrete self  which adds to the whole, the creator.

 

Logician: So the creator gives a piece of itself, to you, and then you become, and what you become, becomes a piece of the creator again, and yourself, thus one becomes two, correct?

 

Djs: Religions claim one characteristic of God/the creator is knowing, consciousness. As such, if the individual has consciousness then the individual is of the same substance and essence as God since both have consciousness.

 

The individual, being given consciousness, in essence is ‘given’ a piece of God. Consciousness on its own, however, is simply a potentiality (God being capable of expanding upon Its own knowing has/is a form of, ‘potentiality’. It is acquiring consciousness of some form of experiencing which changes ‘potentiality’ into ‘substance’, a form of being as opposed to simply being potentiality.

 

If God is omnipresent then your knowing ‘adds’ to God’s knowing making God even more knowing, in short the process explains the means by which God avoids ‘eternal recurrence’ as Nietzsche would say. As such, the One remains the One

 

But what of the individual/you? Once your consciousness emerges your consciousness is composed of the same universal fabric as God’s consciousness, namely: timelessness.  Thus your consciousness not only exists but exists timelessly, eternally.

 

The individual remains a discrete entity of consciousness, unique within the whole of consciousness. The individual is therefore like the raisin within the raisin bread. The raisin, the individual, remains the raisin yet gives the bread, God, a unique flavor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: Thus you not only are responsible for “creating” what it is your soul becomes but what it is your soul becomes immersed within, the environment within which your soul is to be immersed.

 

Logician: So I did understand.

 

Djs: Perhaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: Wow, you really don’t understand do you. I have to confess I have an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.

 

Logician: It seems as if I do and I don’t, but do not have any sense of inadequacy, I think that you have become so focussed upon what you say and write that if anyone sees it from a different perspective then you berate yourself. Please don’t.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Logician: “Oh, and by the way, before you rush to the conclusion that I am an Atheist, you could not be further from the truth if you tried. I am a believer in a great many things, including all Gods.”

 

Djs: I not sure I know what that means for you, but OK. When I say the same thing I do know what that means. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you mean.

 

Logician: I can allow myself to believe everything and therefore choose all.

 

Djs: Isn’t believing everything the same as believing nothing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: I neither validated nor invalidated the creator’s ability to interfere. There is a tremendous amount that needs to be discussed here but for now let me simply state: If the creator constantly interfered then free will could not reasonable be called free will.

 

Logician: OK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: I did not say the creator has “no understanding of time as we know it and live it.” I stated, time is not an element of the universal fabric of the creator.

 

Logician: Why do you draw this conclusion?

 

Djs: The metaphysical model of Reality, symbiotic panentheism, demonstrates the physical universe literally existing within God/the Whole of consciousness. Some individual entities travel within the physical where time and space compose the universal fabric.

 

As such the discrete entities, which have literally experienced time and space, carry their knowing of such an experience into the region beyond the physical, carry their conscious awareness of time and space into the Whole of consciousness/God which lies ‘outside’ the physical.

 

This experiencing then becomes incorporated into the Whole of consciousness/God and as such the Whole of consciousness/God gains new insights which in this case means God gains an understanding of space and time as we know it without having actually experienced it as The Whole, as God.

 

This is not to say God could not enter the physical and experience space and time personally. Such a position is one most Christians would say occurred through the being of Christ.

 

But this is another topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism defines God as The Whole. Perhaps you would enlighten me as to how you would define what God is.

 

Logician: God, personal as it is, is an inadequate word to describe everything.

 

Djs: Are you suggesting God is beyond discussion and therefore you refuse to discuss the concept of God? If so isn’t such a stand a form of discretionary censorship based on one person’s fundamentalism, namely your personal decision to rationalize your unwillingness to discuss a particular topic which you find uncomfortable to discuss?

 

Some would describe this form of personal censorship as a form of ‘cop out’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Djs: As stated previously, you misinterpret what I have said.

 

Logician: As stated previously, I probably do.

 

 

 

  

 

To be continued: Part IV of IV

 

 

Djs: I did consider putting the concepts out there anonymously. I decided if I was to throw ideas into the pool of human knowledge I should take responsibility for what it is I did. As such I reluctantly accept the responsibility and put my name to the work.

 

Logician: Kudos and respect...