Response to the Logician: 070603:

 

Part III of III

JCLogician:

 

Who says God needs to learn anything?

 

Djs: I did not say ‘God needs to learn’, I said ‘learning’ is a rational means by which God could avoid ‘eternal recurrence’.

 

JCLogician:

 

You are far too human in your approach of what a God is and needs to exist.

 

Djs: You have a better suggestion? There are two forms of criticism, destructive criticism and constructive criticism. If you do not think the approach is rational, do you have something else to offer?

 

 

JCLogician:

 

Life exists in this universe because it is the will of the universe to be the host for life. Not the will of something you have reduced to human terms.

 

Djs: Ahhh… the ‘will of the universe’, interesting concept. Are you suggesting the universe has it’s own will and the universe is the very limit of existence? The concept I believe is called ‘pantheism’ as opposed to its opposite ‘panentheism’.

 

JCLogician:

 

You are a scientist and your endeavour for answers have led you to believe that even a God needs answers. There is no use being omniscient if you need answers.

 

Djs: Might it not be better said: There is no use being omniscient if one cannot learn and in fact one is not omniscient if one does not ‘know’ how to become more so.

 

I am aware of the apparent paradox this statement presents. The paradox, however, becomes resolved when one begins to think in terms of ‘timelessness’.

 

JCLogician:

 

Also I do not want to be reduced to a “lab-rat” and your theory makes me one.

 

Djs: Oh, but the theory does not make you a ‘lab-rat’ for the theory literally immerses the individual within an aura of free will.

 

JCLogician:

 

To say that this universe is a laboratory means even after your retirement you need an environment you felt safe and controlled in.

 

Djs: I don’t understand.

 

 

JCLogician:

 

Go beyond your creator, please.

 

 

Djs: Are you suggesting we do not explore the concept of ‘first cause’? The universe is based upon cause and effect, as such why would we ignore the very concept of ‘first cause’? Science suggests the universe emerged from a primal atom exploding – The Big Bang Theory. Are you suggesting science ignore the concept of ‘origination’? If so, how could society mandate such an investigation? Perhaps a law could be passed?

 

JCLogician:

 

We can keep religion because we have to, if we dismiss it now we will all perish. You also state that logic and religion are separate entities, well again you are wrong, religion was the logic of the time.

 

Djs: Religion by definition was never a concept of logic. Religion is not based upon logic. Religion is a matter of faith alone. Granted there are logical and rational discourses concerning religion but these discourses are elements of philosophy, metaphysics and ontology. Granted there are observable and measurable elements which confirm elements of religion but these are aspects of science, physics and cosmology.

 

 

JCLogician:

 

You state very firmly that God can do without us yet we cannot do without God. Guess what? Wrong! It is truly a symbiotic relationship.

 

Djs: This is why I, for want of a better term, label it ‘symbiotic panentheism’. As for God not needing us, that is a difficult but not insurmountable topic. Let me just say for now: God has nothing It ‘needs’ as opposed to God has abilities, has capabilities, and that is why I say God, being omniscient, knows how to expand upon what it knows as opposed to God must expand upon what It knows.

 

 

JCLogician:

 

Proof? When people stop worshipping deities, they disappear, just take a look at the amount of deities previously worshipped in the southern continent of the Americas, yet for thousands of years they truly existed! Just ask anyone who lived there in those thousands of years and they will swear its true, and if you said otherwise they would kill you where you stood. Yet the peoples of the Americas still remain today, so I am afraid your statement although well meant is folly. Society was built around the need for a deity; it gave logical sense to those who were building the societies to have a bigger threat then themselves to kerb the natural instincts of humans in large groups to become self destructive instead of nurturing each other.

 

I do not have the exact number but there are studies that have show when humans are living in large numbers and close proximity to one another, the natural competitiveness turns into a fight for survival and struggle for power. Sad but true.

 

I don’t understand your need for time to reply to my mail, and by the way you don’t have to, your initial reply was enough. Remember one very important thing my young friend, everything I have written is only an opinion and like all opinions it can be changed.

 

 

Djs: If so you are a very unusual individual, but then the very fact you think independently, demonstrates you are an unusual individual.

 

JCLogician:

 

I bet you checked out my profile on Yahoo and found my age according to it, makes me the younger of us two. Don’t believe everything you read. And you can admit it, you liked the idea of being called a young man again! You can smile now if you like.

 

Djs: Thanks, I did smile. Sarcasm is often humorous.

 

JCLogician:

 

I have written something you can rip to sheds, as I have done to yours if you like, I feel it only fair to give you the chance. Many have tried. But you have to want to read it. I have to bow to the rules of freedom of choice. Until another time my young friend.

 

 

Peace, Love and Respect

 

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

J °C

Logician

 

Djs: A separate question for you: In your thesis previously sent as an attachment, EQUALITY For ALL FOR ALL TIME A Respect For ALL Life, you state: The age old question : The meaning of life? Could be answered very simply : to survive. Everything else you could add to this definition, stems from it.

 

Question:

 

How can one survive if death is inevitable, that is ‘if we all die at some point’ – if there is no eternal soul? If one cannot avoid death again I ask how can one ‘survive’? Wouldn’t the concept of eventual death lead to the very impossibility of surviving? Relative to geological time, one day or one hundred years is basically the same and whether one dies at the age of one or the age of one hundred; one’s survival has been thwarted.

 

On the other hand, if death is not an issue, that is ‘if there is a soul and the soul lives on after death’ and if, therefore, the soul is not subject to the concept of dying, then isn’t one’s expending all one’s energy to ‘survive’ simply a waste of time itself, in essence an irrelevant activity?

 

Either way, wouldn’t the concept that the purpose of life is to survive be irrational since one’s essence is either eternal or not and there is nothing one can do about either scenario, namely: mortality or immortality.

 

End