Response to the Logician: 070903:
Part I of VI
Djs: There is a lot of material here. Thank you for writing
Logician: September 1, 2007
Daniel. J. Shepard
The World Embracing Hope Foundation
Dear Sir
I will try and answer your question from the end of your last reply, but first allow me to try and clear up a few things. As previously stated I believe that your work is meant only for good, and a better understanding of life for all. I also believe that your work is a “remodelling” of previous texts to suit a modern day interpretation. This is by no means a criticism Sir, just an observation. You back up your work with years of dedication and research to achieve your goal, and justly deserve the credit for bringing enlightenment of your findings into this world.
I still however choose to believe that even though you are obviously convinced that everything you state in your work is true, there is still scope to question a few points. My main point is your belief that God “needs” to learn.
Djs: First: Regarding: ‘…your belief that God “needs” to learn’, I did not say God ‘needs’ to do anything, what I said was God can circumvent Nietzsche’s concept of ‘eternal recurrence’ through the process of ‘learning’.
I agree with you: God does not ‘need’ to do anything God does not wish to do. In other words God has free will just as humans have free will – ‘man created in the image of God’.
Second: There is no ‘belief’ here. This is not about ‘religious faith concepts’ but rather the ideas put forth by myself are about reason and rationality. The two are significantly different from ‘faith’.
For instance: Can you give me a rational explanation as to how God could avoid ‘eternal recurrence’ other than God learning?
Logician: You state that it has to, to circumvent a human understanding called eternal recurrence, but in doing so I believe you “reduce” God.
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.
Logician: Who says God is subject to eternal recurrence? Just because we humans think the way we do, why do we need to believe that God is subject to the same rules?
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.
Logician: I would like to think that God could quite easily surpass this small problem, as that is what Gods do, just how? God alone knows.
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.
Logician: You state “God, like any entity with free will can choose to stop learning” if so, what happens to us?
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 God’s 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.
Logician: When I stated it is the will of the universe to be host to life, I did not mean that the universe itself has a will, it may, it might not, what I meant is at this moment in time we know that there is life within the universe and so there must be a reason for it, …
Djs: Exactly. I would, however, go one step further and suggest we are capable of rationalizing just what that ‘reason’ is.