Adding reason to faith

Understanding Reality - Audio/Visual Presentations

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:09:22 -0500

For 5 minute presentations regarding Understanding Reality see:

http://youtube.com/user/AcademyofMetaphysics

The presentations are given by this site's metaphysicist.

Q & A

Daniel J. Shepard — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:34:45 -0400

If you have specific questions you would like to have addressed:

Use the 'Leave Comment' icon of this post to ask your question:

What does ecological niche reinforce about the significance of existence, life? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0500

What does ecological niche reinforce about the significance of existence, life?

Part II of II

There is far more to the human organism than described by the physical niche it fills.

There is the spiritual side of humanity, the idealistic side, the aspect of humanity wrapped in dreams, hopes, and sense of connection to something beyond the boundaries of the universe.

The physical aspect of the universe creates ecological niches that living organisms with ‘local’ awareness fill.

But humanity seems to have more than local awareness.

Humanity seems to have a sense of, a possible connection to, a form of universal awareness that goes far beyond the physical universe within which we function.

•

We acknowledge the existence of our universe as an absolute in terms of perceiving its existence.

In addition, we acknowledge the existence of life existing within the niches created by the physical aspect of the universe.

Both define each other.

If there is more to existence than the physical universe and life, and if life and the universe exist within ‘something’ that lies beyond the boundaries of the universe, then both the universe and life would seem to have a function within and to this ‘thing’ within which they lie.

Studying the two, life and the physical aspect of the universe, should help us understand what lies beyond the universe.

But we need more information than what we observe about life and the universe.

We need to also study the strong sense of purpose of humanity.

End

What does ecological niche reinforce about the significance of existence, life? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0500

What does ecological niche reinforce about the significance of existence, life?

Part I of II

Niches reinforce the concept of belonging.

Organisms are members of the universe. Organisms fill a place created within the universe.

•

Does humanity belong and, if it does, to what does it belong?

Organisms fill ecological niches within a universe and, when studied, the niche they fill can be understood both generally and in great detail.

The same concept applies to life.

Even if a life form were removed to an environment totally alien to them, biologists could gain great insight into the nature of the surrounding within which that life existed just by studying the life form.

The same applies to humans.

When studying the human biological organism, both body and brain, one could learn much about the individual’s and the species’ environment.

But one would have little insight into the motivation, drives, conscious needs, and desires on an intellectual level unless one also examined the accomplishments, hope, dreams, and knowledge the human organism had established

To be continued: Part II of II: There is far more...

Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part V of V

Daniel J. Shepard — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

From the Logician: Part V of V

... So you dismiss the truth of the ancestors? They fought and died for nothing? For a small child the truth of the matter is the biscuit jar is way to high to reach, but this changes as it grows.

Djs: I would take this as a compliment if I didn’t know you believe in everyone’s beliefs, rational dialectics, statements, arguments, conclusions, morals, ethics, fundamental premises, As you say: Everyone is right.

            In their own way

Djs: I do not know how a belief-krig could start from this site since the concept of belief is not the foundation of this site.

            I know you don’t believe that your site could start a belief-krig, but believe me if you wish, I know it could as not everyone has the same perception of your work as you. Ever had someone send you a death threat because they believe that what you write would mean the end of their way of life?

Djs: The point of this site is to bring us as individuals and a species to a new level of understanding regarding reality and our role within reality. This site does not act as a catalyst for our demise.

            You know that and I know that but there are some who will see it as a threat.

The point is to prepare us to respect the uniqueness of the individual as opposed to verbalizing the individual being unique but taking actions to force the individual to conform.

            “Forcing the individual to conform” ? You thinking like God again?

The point is to prepare us for an interaction with life forms outside our planet.

            Who says we haven’t already?

We have a choice. We can either attempt to understand reality and understand our role within reality or we can, out of fear of offending anyone, simply say everyone is right.

            I offended everyone with what I wrote and that was with telling them they were all right as well. Humans are fickle beings who don’t even like it when they get what they want.

Djs: As always your insights have been interesting. Again thanks for your interest.

            You’re welcome

A piece of friendly advice, drop this “I think like God” trip.





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

Peace, Love and Respect

With Respect comes Love, with Love and Respect comes Peace

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

J °C

Logician

Reply to follow

End

Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part IV of V

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400
From the Logician: Part IV of V

...An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are art is to suggest there is no such thing as art.

            To suggest that everyone’s paintings are not art, is to believe that art can only take a certain form. When a child draws a picture that makes no sense to anyone else but the child it is true art, to believe that art can only be found in certain places is not only being a snob, but a fool as well.

To suggest everyone’s pounding upon the piano keys is music is to suggest there is no such thing as music.

            It is music to the person pounding upon the keys, just because sometimes its more melodic than others does not mean it’s not music. Thrash metal is to some an unholy racket, but to others it is the sweetest sound. How you get to the bit about it suggesting there is no such thing as music is I am afraid beyond be, it’s all music. Narrow mindedness I suppose.

To suggest everyone’s solution to the equation 2 + 2 = ? is correct even if they answer 3, is to suggest there is no such thing as mathematics.

            Irrelevant statement to the argument that all answers are correct.

Djs: You speak of belief. This site demonstrating the model of reality called symbiotic panentheism, has nothing to do with belief. Reason, dialectics steeped in reason and rationality are the bases of the model.

            Yes it does, can’t you see that? It’s your belief. Colour it as you will, there is no difference between what you have written on your site and any other form of dogma. All beliefs validate themselves through reason, their own reasoning, just like yours does.

Beliefs may be reasonable but they are not based upon reason. Beliefs are still beliefs even if they are unreasonable because they are what they are, namely beliefs.

            All beliefs are based upon reason, the reasoning of the individual involved.

Djs: That is as it should be. Your belief is your belief. Your have the right to believe whatever you wish to believe but that does not make it a reasonable or rational concept.

            Again with this belief rigmarole, listen, I said I believe that when I die some part of me doesn’t, it’s not a belief I just want to believe that it could be true, I might be wrong, I’ll find out when it happens, to be honest, I don’t dwell upon my demise, I’m too busy living.

Djs: I am not telling you to believe anything. I am just proposing a model of reality based upon reason and rationality.

            You are telling me to believe in your model of reality, otherwise why did you write it if you didn’t want people to believe in it?

You have the right to believe whatever it is you wish to believe.

            Damn right, and what you have written is for the most part very believable. Your arguments are sound and your reasoning very well thought out if I may say so.

I am here to participate in dialectics based upon reason not simply what it is one believes.

            That is very obvious

Djs: Because you call it this or that does not make it so, rather it simply is a statement of what you believe.

            English speakers call it Blue, Danes call it Blå, French Bleu etc…

For instance: If a blind man feels the leg of an elephant, he may believe it is a tree but does not make the elephant a tree.

            Only if the blind man was deaf and had no sense of smell or it would be a smelly breathing tree.

            Djs: You are correct. There is life after death or there isn’t. Life after death is not dependent upon what you believe, it either is or it isn’t.

            Can’t fault you there old chap!

            Djs: Again, I am not dealing with beliefs but rather I am proposing rational arguments.



            Again

I state the following and then provide the rationale dialectics for such statements:

You exist                                                                    yes

I exist                                                                          yes

The physical universe exists                                     yes

The Whole exists                                                        so you believe

You and I are within the physical universe               yes

The physical universe lies within the Whole/God   so you believe

These six statements describe panentheism.

All that exists impacts all else that exists (including the existence of non-existence) symbiosis

Thus symbiotic panentheism.    Only if the previous seven statements were proven to be true

Symbiotic panentheism is a form of panentheism. Yes

Symbiotic panentheism is literally a model of reality, nothing more. Agreed

Symbiotic panentheism is not based upon beliefs but rather based upon reason.

A.k.a. belief in the validity of the reasoning behind the statement

That’s all, nothing more, nothing less.

All or nothing would be a better description IMHO, ok maybe not so humble.

            Djs: Truth is truth and does not change over time. Our perception of truth may change as we grow to understand reality but that does not change truth, what it changes is simply our perception.

To be continued: Part V of V: So you dismiss the truth of the ancestors? ...

Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part III of V

Daniel J. Shepard — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

From the Logician: Part III of IV

... Whoa there Sir, you haven’t got a clue how God thinks and to state that you do is one step on a slippery slope, I sincerely hope that you do not really mean it literally, if you do, our correspondence will be hereby severed.

As religions say: God created man in his image and in the image of God created He man.

            And that one statement has caused nothing but sorrow since it was first uttered. It is sheer human arrogance to believe that God or similar entity would look anything like us. Patriarchal tosh.

I am simply beginning my ontological discussions from fundamental premises of religions and proceeding from there. I am also demonstrating, using the tool of metaphysical modelling, that the fundamental ontological premises, are steeped in rationality and reason.

            Metaphysical modelling? You mean imagination, creative imagination.

Djs: all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, - This is known as relative moralism. Such a positing is based upon the fundamental: There is no such thing as absolute truth other than the statement there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Anyone and everyone has the right to believe such a fundamental principle but such a fundamental principle voids all legitimacy of opposing dialectics based upon reason.

            It does not void all legitimacy of opposing dialectics at all, that is such a narrow minded view, quite the opposite is true, it allows opposing viewpoints to have equal validity, thus giving a broader spectrum of viewpoints.

Djs: as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. That is exactly the product of your model: There is no such thing as right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical,

            You obviously have not read the model I sent you a while back, it does not state that there no such things as “right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical” at all, it asked you to put everything you have ever been taught to one side, then to read the logical text proving that we are all human way before we are introduced to religious belief and suchlike, then with that understanding give rise to the cessation of all hostilities. It then asked you to take what you put aside, back again and redefine the principles on which society can be based upon as a united, yet unique individual, nation and world. This means all previous understandings of morality are once more bought into the forum. Each nation would then be able to write the laws which specifically pertain to them, along with the basic laws of human rights. It allows the differences of nations to be celebrated and not congeal all nations under one supposed set of rules. True equality within and across all borders.

Djs: Solutions are what people are looking for, are what people have been seeking since they began thinking and they look to the thinkers to provide the answers.

If the thinkers refuse to tackle the issues, the thinkers are shirking there very reason for having been given the ability to think.

            It is not up to one “thinker” to provide all the answers/solutions, it is far better to allow all others to think for themselves.

Djs: No you provided no solution at all, to suggest that everybody is correct is to suggest there is no solution at all.

            Oh but I do provide a solution by suggesting that everyone is correct, in doing so they can for the first time understand that they might all be wrong, thus enabling the advent of their own solutions by themselves for themselves, and with every nation on Earth doing it at the same time, voila a global solution based upon unique solutions and not just one.

People are yearning for answers to the questions: What is reality? What are we? Why do we exist? Is there life after physical death? My son or daughter died, where are they now? ... To say the answer is whatever they want it to be is to suggest there is no answer.

            You really do have a problem with logic that’s not your own don’t you? Let me put it another way then; When the question of reality is raised for example, because there is no definitive answer, it opens up the floodgates for a myriad of answers all with equal validity, thus the answer of “it can be whatever you want it to be” becomes correct. Just because someone else has a difference of opinion about life after death etc… doesn’t mean they are wrong, we humans have a passion for immortality, a need to believe that we survive after death, but if you look back in history only a few select were allowed to believe that they went into the afterlife, and they were the “rulers”. The rest of them were not allowed to be immortal or even have immortal thoughts about themselves. Go even further back and no-one thought of immortality, they accepted they came and went as the world around them showed that this was the way life is. It matters not if the answer is not the same around the world, the fact it isn’t makes it all the more interesting. You could of course answer the questions with logic, so here goes:

What is reality?      Everything you can think of

What are we?         Humans

Why do we exist?   To experience life

Is there life after physical death? Of course

My son or daughter died, where are they now?   In your heart and mind

An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are art is to suggest there is no such thing as art.

Part IV of V: To suggest that everyone’s paintings are not art, is to believe...

Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part II of V

Daniel J. Shepard — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400
From the Logician: 071016: Part II of V


... I wrote : Logician: it doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary goal in a world that is ripping itself apart.



            Where does it say that the spiritual well being is not important? It clearly states that my theory does not take it into consideration as it is a SECONDARY goal. The PRIMARY goal of the theory is to give a logical reason for the cessation of hostilities between nations. Nowhere have I stated that I think the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence, you drew that conclusion all by yourself, but I will tell you something, right now, the physical form of existence is the only form of existence everyone in the world can relate to. Right now, it is the physical, that is doing all the killing, so forgive me if I think with every fibre of my being, that right now it is more important to sort out physical problems facing our species.

Sp demonstrates both the physical and spiritual are real and significant to the dynamics of the whole of reality.

This is the third manner by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.

            Again with the validating? What is this need you have to validate your own work? Others with validate it by believing in it.

Djs: There is no inventing or new interpretations involved with symbiotic panentheism.

            Of course there is, otherwise by now everyone in the world would understand the concept of “sp” and it would be a widely know as the bible, but it isn’t. It is a new interpretation of existence, presented to the world for the very first time by YOU, so don’t state otherwise.

Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and moves forward from there.

Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is the creator of the physical universe, and moves forward from there.

            The existing definition of God is a best guess scenario to suit a human need for immortality, according to you (and some others) we do not know if we exist, let alone God, it’s a question of personal belief.

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism takes no rights away from anyone other than the right to interfere with another’s journey.

            It takes away the right to believe that God is a human invention.

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism is simply a model and as a model it clearly demonstrates there is no saving involved, for the essence of the individual is timeless, immortal, never dies.

            Well that’s a shame, my theory saves lives, the lives of everyone needlessly suffering because of ignorance and denial.

Djs: My hackles rose, as you say, when you suggested you had the right to take what I said and interpret it as you saw fit. I stated that what I said is what I meant and just because you might say I meant something else does not make it so.

            That goes both ways, my friend.

I also stated that I am human and do make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will in the future make mistakes in terms of how it is I verbalize the model.

There was no anger, resentment or sensitivity involved. I simply made a factual statement, namely: Regardless of how one personally interprets my statements, my statements are what they are, my statements are not open to the twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others.

            All statements are open to the “twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others” otherwise they wouldn’t be statements, they would be facts.

Djs: But the model clearly demonstrates not only that God can circumvent eternal recurrence but demonstrates how God can circumvent eternal recurrence. Your model only states God can circumvent eternal recurrence but has nothing to offer regarding how God can circumvent eternal recurrence other than we don’t know how God can but It can.

            You obviously have no sense of humour, you put up the “eternal recurrence” thingamajig as a problem God has to deal with, whereas I have never believed it to be a problem for a God. In my book (don’t get in a tizzy, it’s only a saying, I don’t really have a book) Gods can do things we humans cannot.

Djs: You would suggest otherwise? If one suggests God is not a rational being than there is no rational discussion to take place and this very exercise becomes irrelevant.

            God? Rational? You have got to be joking, what rational being would allow the suffering of billions? I know that in your model you state we come from the whole, only to return to give a “sit-rep” so it can learn, but tell me, how much suffering does it take before it has learned enough about the ease in which humans can hurt each other?

Djs: I am not suggesting that God thinks like me but rather that I think like God.

Part II of V: Whoa there Sir, you haven’t got a clue...

Reply to the Logician: 071016: Part I of V

Daniel J. Shepard — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

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 20^th 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

How does early Christian philosophy help us understand what life is? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

How does early Christian philosophy help us understand what life is?

Part II of II

... In short, if nothing exists beyond the boundaries of our universe, immortality becomes illogical since time permeates our universe.

With the elimination of the rationality of immortality, religions would lose their significance.

Early Christian philosophy was not about to entertain any suggestions leading to this possibility.

So it was that early Christian philosophy expanded upon the size of the Causative

Force over what western/Middle Eastern pre-Judaic faiths believed.

Early Christian philosophy established the size of the Causative Force to be greater than physical reality, our universe.

With the increase in size of the Causative Force came an elevation of the significance of the individual followed by an elevation of behavior.

•

Early Christian philosophy offered us an understanding of something greater existing than life.

Something greater than the universe existed and we had the opportunity to be a part of it if….

With philosophy questioning the qualifier, ‘If …,’ philosophy found itself in direct confrontation with religion, which refused to give up its control over the keys to the gates of ‘heaven.’

Religions, unwilling to be questioned, created a split between faith and reason.

Religion moved on with its own existence ignoring scientific or philosophical perceptions contradicting religion.

End

How does early Christian philosophy help us understand what life is? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

How does early Christian philosophy help us understand what life is?

Part I of II

There are two statements we can make regarding our universe – our reality: our universe either exists within something or it does not.

In either case, our definition of what life is becomes quite different.

•

If life exists, then the definition of life would most probably have to be derived from and account for either one of these two perceptions.

If life exists within the Causative Force (panentheism), then hope rises up and engulfs all individuals equally.

Significance becomes absolute and rational rather than a possibility beyond our understanding.

On the other hand, if life does not exist within the Causative Force because there is no outside to the universe, then hope begins to die out and eventually loses the warmth and comfort it had to offer us.

Without an existence outside the universe, time becomes a major factor of our existence, for it permeates our universe.

With no outside beyond our reality, time, being a function of matter and energy, becomes a characteristic of all living things and, thus, immortality becomes an irrational concept.

To be continued: Part II of II: In short, if nothing exists beyond the boundaries of our universe, immortality...

What does early Christian philosophy imply about our relationship to the Causative Force? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does early Christian philosophy imply about our relationship to the Causative Force?

Part II of II

... Thus, religion was able to separate ‘evil’ from its picture of a ‘perfectly good’ being. Purpose for life emerged.

Life existed for the purpose of singing praises and bolstering the ego of the Causative Force, an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being.

One of many more paradoxes arose, that of an all present, all knowing, all powerful being needing the reassurance that it was just that.

Philosophy, reason, began its search for eternity, the Causative Force, and an understanding of our relationship to this abstract Force.

Within a thousand years, philosophy began evolving toward the concept of an omnipresent Causative Force, panentheism. And with it came a purpose, aiding the Causative Force to grow.

•

Science, observation, began its search for eternity, what lay beyond the universe, the abstract Force which initiated our universe, our reality.

Within a short 500 years, science began evolving towards the concept of entropy – all physical realities must, at some point, come to an end.

This implied there must be a beginning; we were created.

Action and reaction, cause and effect, beginning and end, a Causative Force and Her creation interacting. Science was also coming to the same conclusion.

End

What does early Christian philosophy imply about our relationship to the Causative Force? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does early Christian philosophy imply about our relationship to the Causative Force?

Part I of II:

Early Christian philosophy was concerned with the interaction of the Causative Force to reality – our universe.

With the split of reason and faith, however, faith was no longer held accountable to reason and was able to subscribe to unreasonable arguments in the name of faith.

In a sense, this was a form of religious poetic licensing granted by religion.

•

Other areas of perception were unwilling to acknowledge this process of granting religious poetic license.

Thus, observation/science and reason/philosophy ignored religions and moved on by themselves.

The end results for all three were surprisingly similar although attained by entirely different means.

Religion, using religious poetic license granted to itself, decided to declare the Causative Force to exist, to be omnipresent/all present, and humans to have an essence connected to this timeless concept of eternity.

Religious poetic license allowed religion to ignore reason and observation and declare this Causative Force to be omnipresent, but then turned around and stated that reality was not within Her.

To be continued: Part II of II: Thus, religion was able to separate ‘evil’ from...

How do the concepts of early Christian philosophy reinforce the concept of symbiotic panentheism? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

How do the concepts of early Christian philosophy reinforce the concept of symbiotic panentheism?

Part II of II

... Also keep in mind that the model being examined within this trilogy is not professed to be ‘the’ model.

The point of the trilogy is to develop a process for the creation of a model that is the most accurate model we are capable of creating at this particular point in time using faiths, observations, and logic we have been able to gather as a species.

Early Christian philosophy is definitely a part of this.

•

We can no more ignore the perceptions of early Christian philosophy than we can the faiths of one billion Muslims, one billion Hindus, three hundred million Buddhists, three hundred million atheists, tens of millions of Jews or eight hundred million people who have no particular religious orientation.

All views must be respected and the only way to do that is to build a foundation capable of rationalizing the right of all individuals to exist within a physical reality, whose intention is understood in broad principle by all.

The intention of the unified view would be the creation of a universal philosophy.

The operative phrases here are unified view and universal.

One of the fundamental principles such a model would need to embrace in order to be unifying and universal is unconditional love, a basic principle of early Christian philosophy.

End

How do the concepts of early Christian philosophy reinforce the concept of symbiotic panentheism? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

How do the concepts of early Christian philosophy reinforce the concept of symbiotic panentheism?

Part II of II:

They do not; what is actually taking place is symbiotic panentheism is reinforcing the concepts of the significance of early Christian philosophy.

•

Symbiotic panentheism simply states:

The Causative Force is omnipresent and whatever exists within the Causative Force must have some form of impact upon Her as well as She affecting what is inside Her, a symbiotic relationship.

Given the behavior they exhibit and the frailties of the human species, early Christian philosophy had a problem with the idea of humans being a piece of the Causative Force.

Symbiotic panentheism does not imply the Causative Force has to be all present in terms of its location ‘within’ the universe nor does it imply a human being has all the knowledge, power, and presence of the Causative Force.

Quite the contrary; this model of a universal philosophy, a unified view, goes as far as to say these very pieces of the Causative Force are almost totally amnesiac of their origin and past experiences ‘within’ this ultimate entity.

To be continued: part II of II: Also keep in mind that the model being examined...

What does ancient philosophy reinforce about the significance of existence, life? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does ancient philosophy reinforce about the significance of existence, life?

Part II of II

...This would lead to the concept that the whole had no choice but to be the total of all the numbers, thus the whole was equal to the sum of its parts.

Total awareness was equal to the sum of individual, unique, aware essences.

Ancient philosophy subscribed to the basic perception of what we think we understand today.

The only difference lies in the details. Ancient philosophy could not place pieces of the puzzle made up of entropy, topology, Homo, ontology, Islam, Christianity… because they did not exist.

Today, philosophy can use these pieces to construct more of the puzzle to give us a more complete view of the whole picture.

Before philosophy can do this, however, philosophy must decide to do so, and modern philosophy has not made the decision to do so.

The ancient philosophers still have much to offer us.

The ancient philosophers, like old craft masters, have an understanding to offer us that the primary purpose of philosophy is to develop an ongoing unified view, an ongoing living, universal philosophy.

•

The process of developing a universal philosophy, a unified view, is nothing less than what the ancient philosophers did thousands of years ago using the information they had available to them.

The process they used was one of combining the three means we have of perceiving what it is we are and why we exist: faith – religion, observation – science, and reason – philosophy.

End

What does ancient philosophy reinforce about the significance of existence, life? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does ancient philosophy reinforce about the significance of existence, life?

Part I of II

Philosophy: abstraction, ‘…numbers were the realities of the universe

Religion: life

Science: substance

•

If numbers were the true reality of the universe, then numbers such as 1, 2, 3… were elements of such a universe.

It was not the number itself that was the entity; it was the concept.

The written numeral was a hieroglyphic, a piece of chalk spread out on a piece of slate leaving the impression of a number symbol.

If it was the concept of the number, not the numeral that was the essence of reality, then even the ancients recognized the perception of existence being a summation of its parts.

The concept of oneness, the number one, was in essence the concept of the individual.

The concept of twoness, the number two, was the concept of two individuals, and so forth.

To be continued: Part II of II: This would lead to...

What does symmetry imply about our significance in eternity? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does symmetry imply about our significance in eternity?

Part II of II

...Others would have had no awareness of your existence.

But to yourself, there would be no doubt of your existence. If you stubbed your toe, you would feel pain. If you basked in the warm sun, you would feel warmth.

As you gazed into the night sky and saw the twinkling stars, you would sense awe.

Your awareness would exist.

What you experience would exist as awareness.

Once your body stopped functioning, the awareness you experienced would still be awareness.

Does this awareness become a part of total awareness?

If the awareness does not become a part of total awareness – what we call all knowing – then total awareness is not truly total because your awareness is not a part of it.

•

If we wish to retain the concept that the Causative Force is omniscient, then we appear to have no choice but to accept the idea that the Causative Force includes you.

You are a piece of the Causative Force.

The physics of symmetry leave us no understandable choice but to accept the concept of something existing beyond the universe, for the universe appears to be only a temporary state within something much bigger than itself.

The only apparent way out of this conclusion would be to reject the idea of symmetry, which science is not willing to do at this point.

End

What does symmetry imply about our significance in eternity? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does symmetry imply about our significance in eternity?

Part I of II

Symmetry implies the universe could well have been created from nothing but awareness.

As such, it is eternity that is the real essence of what exists – not the temporary state of your physical being.

•

There is no doubt you feel pain – physical as well as emotional.

There is no doubt you feel love – physical as well as emotional.

The point is, however, that without your being capable of having awareness of these events, they would not exist for you.

Without awareness, you would not exist.

As an example, if your parents were stranded on a deserted island far away from everyone and you were born ten years later, no one would know of your existence but your parents.

If they died and you went on to live eighty years before you died, no one but you would be aware of your existence.

To be continued: Part II of II: Others would have had no...

What does the conceptual framework of atheism imply about the universe within which we live? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does the conceptual framework of atheism imply about the universe within which we live?

Part II of II

...As such, life has value only for today.

This leads to actions that are directed toward self satisfaction and self-serving ends.

This is not to say atheists are all self-serving. Rather, it is saying that with atheism, the concept of a Causative Force, the soul, and eternity are missing and do not add to our understanding of why we must elevate our behavior of living for the moment.

The lack of the ideas of a Causative Force, the soul, and eternity establishes a universe lacking the idealism these ideas create.

The lack of understanding that something may exist beyond our universe leaves us with only a limited universe for our dreams, idealism, understanding, and logic.

Philosophy, religion, and science then become limited just as do our dreams and imaginations.

•

The value we place upon the individual depends upon the significance we perceive we have.

With the perception that existence only occurs in our universe, we limit our significance to just this universe.

As such, we define our own significance to exist within the boundaries of this universe.

This forces us into limiting our hopes, dreams, and creative insights to concepts that pertain to what lies in our physical reality, in our universe.

This limitation transfers into the logic we use to determine what is and what isn’t rational human behavior.

If life only exists today, then the only rational behavior is behavior that leads to pleasure.

Thinking in terms of elevating one’s behavior because it might be beneficial in the afterlife becomes an irrational act. Under atheism, intolerance of suffering, love of one another, justice being meted out in the afterlife become irrational.

End

What does the conceptual framework of atheism imply about the universe within which we live? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does the conceptual framework of atheism imply about the universe within which we live?

Part I of II

Atheism provides the beginning point of the debate regarding the size of our universe.

Atheism says the universe is infinite in size.

There are no boundaries to our universe.

There is no Causative Force for our universe.

Our universe had no beginning.

•

The existence of a Causative Force is more important to us as individuals and as a species than it would first appear.

In fact, the existence of a Causative Force has a great deal to do with how we treat each other.

Atheism begins the debate regarding the size of a Causative Force by defining that Her size as so small, She does not exist.

With no Causative Force, we have a sense that life is momentary.

We live life for now rather than for what is to follow.

To be continued: Part II of II: As such,...

What does Buddhism reinforce about the significance of existence, life? Part I of I

Daniel J. Shepard — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does Buddhism reinforce about the significance of existence, life?

Part I of I

Buddhism gives us the understanding that the significance of life and the impact it generates is so important that we must focus upon reducing suffering, the negative aspects of life.

•

The idea of all humans having a soul is tied to eternity and provides a whole new way of looking at the individual.

Now the individual is not important because they are alive, but rather the individual is important because the individual is tied to eternity.

This idea of being connected to eternity changed the direction of our behavior.

A tie to eternity meant we needed to consider our action because our actions now might affect our state of existence later.

Why this was so was not totally understood, but Buddhists sensed this to be true.

As such, Buddhists further opened up the idea that life was significant and allowing suffering in life would have a major impact upon existence in eternity.

In short, Buddhism further advanced the concept that life had value, significance.

•

As we increase the idea regarding how big our universe is and in turn how big our Creator is, we enlarge what we view as the potential of existence.

The Buddhist ideas were very significant, therefore, in terms of reinforcing the significance of life.

Now suffering, a part of life itself, was no longer to be taken lightly or just ignored for its existence impacted upon eternity.

Life under Buddhism took on a greater significance and one aspect of life, suffering, became a focal point.

End

What does Homo- have to offer us as individuals? Part II of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

What does Homo- have to offer us as individuals?

Part II of II

...This is ‘thinking out of the box.’ We appear to be the only life form on earth capable of performing such a task.

Leaving our abstractness floating still further away from the circle filled with dots, we see something surrounding the circle, surrounding the universe.

We see abstraction bathing the sphere of the universe.

Total awareness, omniscience, seems to be the substance within which the universe is floating.

Upon closer examination, it appears that bits and pieces of abstraction are confined within the container, the universe.

The ability of man, the genus Homo, provides us with the potential to literally ‘think out of the box’ and see the significance of the individual lying outside the universe and in eternity.

•

This opens up the concept of the first of three forms of existence.

This opens up the concept of the individual.

We, the genus Homo, can see the individual as a separate entity, separate even from the Causative Force.

Separate not only because it is within the universe while the Causative Force is outside the universe, but separate also because it has its own identity, awareness, uniqueness, and individuality.

You exist.

You exist as an individual while at the same time being a part of something greater than yourself.

The whole is equal to the sum of its parts and you are a part of the whole.

While in the universe, you may be temporarily separated from what it is you are a part of, you are a part of it nonetheless and nobody has the power to take that away from you.

End

What does Homo- have to offer us as individuals? Part I of II

Daniel J. Shepard — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:13:32 -0400

What does Homo- have to offer us as individuals?

Part I of II

The genus Homo, man, has a unique ability to think originally.

To doso requires one to ‘think out of the box.’

•

Take this literally and a simple picture comes into focus.

First the dot representing individual awareness becomes visible as one floats backward away from the earth.

Floating much further away, a circle, the universe, becomes visible.

Many dots, awarenesses, inside the circle become the focal points.

An interesting perception becomes evident.

The abstract points of individual awareness appear to be confined within a physical container.

This physicality, this container, must be suspended within something.

To gain a better perspective, float even further away.

Still nothing.

Keep going, float even further away, still nothing.

Your abstraction cannot seem to float outside what the universe is suspended in.

We are going to have to apply a slightly different twist to our thinking by stepping out of our awareness and floating above it.

To be continued: Part II of II: This is...

Response to the Logician: 070903: Part VI of VI

Daniel J. Shepard — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Response to the Logician: 070903:

Part VI of VI

Logician: … Don’t worry it’s normal used by millions from the “shamans” of old to the “Pharisees” of the new, and the “charlatans” of the modern, all in a bid to impose their personal understanding of the world forward before others. If you can’t explain it, it is therefore divine or has a bit of the divine in it, that understanding has lead to more deaths then all the bombs ever dropped in history. Logically there is a part of every living thing that cannot be defined in a neat little sentence or phrase or word, and just what that is, is not for one individual to EVER define, thus taking away the mystery that is life and love and therefore (maybe) a combination of the two may possibly be. There can be a billion wonderful expressions attached to the question of life and love, so why the Hell should they be reduced to a few, let’s call them, popular phrases, which over time change no matter what.

Djs: Truth is truth and does not ‘change’ over time. Our perception of truth may change as we grow to understand reality but that does not change truth, what it changes is simply our perception.

Logician: …Because I can believe in your teachings, …

Djs: I would take this as a compliment if I didn’t know you ‘believe’ in everyone’s ‘beliefs’, ‘rational dialectics’, statements, arguments, conclusions, morals, ethics, fundamental premises, … As you say: Everyone is ‘right’.

Logician: … basically because I can understand all the aspects of it, I can also choose not to believe in it, as I have found, as I have, in all other teachings, huge holes in their theories of the reasons for everything and they clouded it in religious dogma and the ever present “divine” card played at every table when the “chips are down”. …

Djs: I hope this exchange helps to clear up some of your perceptions.

Logician: Don’t take what I’ve written personally, …

Djs: The dialogue is interesting and no personal affront is taken.

Logician: … if you do then you are not ready for what you thought you could achieve. Hey, you could be right after all and everything I have just written is false. It doesn’t mean I’m wrong though, and you still could be seriously wrong and on the verge of starting yet another “belief-krig” …

Djs: I do not know how a ‘belief-krig’ could start from this site since the concept of ‘belief’ is not the foundation of this site.

Logician: … that could quite easily result in an early exit of the human species from this planet, but who am I to tell you anything?

Djs: The point of this site is to bring us as individuals and a species to a new level of understanding regarding reality and our role within reality. This site does not act as a catalyst for our demise.

The point is to prepare us to respect the uniqueness of the individual as opposed to verbalizing the individual being unique but taking actions to force the individual to conform.

The point is to prepare us for an interaction with life forms outside our planet.

We have a choice. We can either attempt to understand reality and understand our role within reality or we can, out of fear of offending anyone, simply say ‘everyone is right’.



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

Peace, Love and Respect

With Respect comes Love, with Love and Respect comes Peace

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

J °C

Logician.

Djs: As always your insights have been interesting. Again thanks for your interest.
End

Response to the Logician: 070903: Part V of VI

Daniel J. Shepard — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Response to the Logician: 070903:

Part V of VI

Logician: … Just what that is, is up to me to find out in my own way and not to be told by someone who thinks they know more about life than I do or anyone else does for that matter. …

Djs: I am not ‘telling’ you to ‘believe’ anything. I am just proposing a model of reality based upon reason and rationality.

You have the ‘right’ to believe’ whatever it is you wish to ‘believe’.

I am here to participate in dialectics based upon ‘reason’ not simply what it is one ‘believes’.

Logician: …When I find out what I want to call it, i.e. a soul, it will be something that I choose. …

Djs: Because you ‘call it’ this or that does not make it so, rather it simply is a statement of what you believe.

For instance: If a blind man feels the leg of an elephant, he may ‘believe’ it is a tree but does not make the elephant a tree.

Logician: …It also allows me to be totally incorrect and in conflict with what others believe happen to them when they die, and it doesn’t matter one iota. …

Djs: You are correct. There is life after death or there isn’t. Life after death is not dependent upon what ‘you believe’, it either is or it isn’t.

Logician: … My belief is an all encompassing belief, call it omni-religious, if you will (it’s just a hyphenated word, not a rule), I represent humans and human behaviour without being a human saviour, remember when I asked you about the responsibility given to those of us who tread paths that were not meant for us? You stood and said you knew the inherent danger and were willing to put your name to it, well, it also gives you as an individual absolute “power” (within those who choose to embrace your teachings), I on the other hand disperse the “power” available to all humans and change it from “power” to responsibility of the individual and the respect of the individual to encompass all life, in other words all peoples for the first time have a reason for living, based upon the respect if the individual, the local, the national, the cultural and thus the global definition of the human species, we all become ambassadors of our species in each others eyes thus removing the inherent danger usually associated with these types of methods, by giving it freely to them all. Without changing on iota of whom they are. All become responsible for everything all do. (Scary eh!?) No one left to blame, except ourselves. No excuses for what happens after the implementation of the solution, and no going back either. (Even more scary!) A true test of all religious beliefs ever written, can humans take the reins and reign themselves? They haven’t been able to up until now, but I am one who believes that we can if we want to, we just have to want to.

Djs: I applaud your efforts and hopes for both humanity as a whole and the individual itself.

Logician: …Your works within the spiritual “sphere” of a human’s personal philosophy, are your interpretation only and “should” not to be impressed upon people who have no idea of what or who a divine entity is. As stated before you have reduced god into a pigeon hole with a label on it. God if you let God be what God is, is indefinable, just ask any true believer and they will tell you the same, therefore you have no right to tell them otherwise. …

Djs: Again, I am not dealing with ‘beliefs’ but rather I am proposing rational arguments.

I state the following and then provide the rationale dialectics for such statements:

You exist

I exist

The physical universe exists

The Whole exists

You and I are ‘within’ the physical universe

The physical universe lies ‘within’ the Whole/God

These six statements describe panentheism.

All that exists impacts all else that exists (including the existence of non-existence) – symbiosis

Thus symbiotic panentheism.

Symbiotic panentheism is a form of panentheism.

Symbiotic panentheism is literally a model of reality, nothing more.

Symbiotic panentheism is not based upon ‘beliefs’ but rather based upon ‘reason’.

That’s all, nothing more, nothing less.

Logician: … You state that there is a divine part of a human, what you mean is there is a part of a human that even you cannot explain fully and so you associate this trait with being divine. …

Djs: … but I do explain it. I have not avoided explicitly addressing any issues regarding human divinity.

To be continued: Part VI: Logician: … Don’t worry it’s normal...

Response to the Logician: 070903: Part IV of VI

Daniel J. Shepard — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Response to the Logician: 070903:

Part IV of VI

Logician: …Your work states that god is a rational being, …

Djs: You would suggest otherwise? If one suggests God is not a ‘rational being’ than there is no rational discussion to take place and this very exercise becomes irrelevant.

Logician: …what you mean is your version of god in your mind would be as rational as you think, and so will also think the way you think it should think. …

Djs: I am not suggesting that ‘God thinks like me’ but rather that ‘I think like God’. As religions say: ‘God created man in his image and in the image of God created He man.’

I am simply beginning my ontological discussions from fundamental premises of religions and proceeding from there. I am also demonstrating, using the tool of metaphysical modeling, that the fundamental ontological premises, are steeped in rationality and reason.

Logician: …My works have been around for a time now and have met all sorts of responses, all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, …

Djs: …all of them correct from the point of view of the reader, … - This is known as ‘relative moralism’. Such a positing is based upon the fundamental: There is no such thing as absolute truth other than the statement there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Anyone and everyone has the ‘right’ to ‘believe’ such a fundamental principle but such a fundamental principle voids all legitimacy of opposing dialectics based upon reason.

Logician: … and I embraced them all, some of them tore it onto shreds then reassembled the pieces into a manner they thought better suited them and their own personal situation. When they showed the result and stated that this is what is should have said if it should apply to them I simply replied, all I gave was the blueprint, no two solutions are they same, all solutions are unique, as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. …

Djs: … as long as you find a solution that helps you, then the blueprint works. … -That is exactly the product of your model: There is no such thing as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, moral and immoral, good and bad, ethical and unethical, …

Logician: …I never set out to give all life on earth a solution. …

Djs: Solutions are what people are looking for, are what people have been seeking since they began thinking and they look to the ‘thinkers’ to provide the answers.

If the ‘thinkers’ refuse to tackle the issues, the ‘thinkers’ are shirking there very reason for having been given the ability to think.

Logician: …I did however set out the availability of solutions for all. …

Djs: No you provided no solution at all, to suggest that everybody is correct is to suggest there is no ‘solution’ at all.

People are yearning for answers to the questions: What is reality? What are we? Why do we exist? Is there life after physical death? My son or daughter died, where are they now? ... To say the answer is whatever they want it to be is to suggest there is no answer.

An analogy: To suggest everyone’s paintings are ‘art’ is to suggest there is no such thing as art. To suggest everyone’s pounding upon the piano keys is ‘music’ is to suggest there is no such thing as music. To suggest everyone’s solution to the equation 2 + 2 = ? is correct even if they answer 3, is to suggest there is no such thing as mathematics.

Logician: …Your question of survival if we are doomed to die is a common one by others too. The answer is as follows : Who am I to tell you, what to believe?

Djs: You speak of ‘belief’. This site demonstrating the model of reality called symbiotic panentheism, has nothing to do with ‘belief’. Reason, dialectics steeped in reason and rationality are the bases of the model.

‘Beliefs’ may be reasonable but they are not based upon reason. Beliefs are still ‘beliefs’ even if they are unreasonable because they are what they are, namely ‘beliefs’.

Logician: …I have a belief that allows me to think that when I die, it is only a physical response to prolonged exposure to physical time, yet there is still a part of me that does not die at that specific time as it is not physical. …

Djs: That is as it should be. Your ‘belief’ is your ‘belief’. Your have the ‘right’ to ‘believe’ whatever you wish to ‘believe’ but that does not make it a reasonable or rational concept.

To be continued: Part V of VI: Logician: … Just what that is, is up to me to...

Response to the Logician: 070903: Part III of VI

Daniel J. Shepard — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Response to the Logician: 070903:

Part III of VI

Logician: …It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary “goal” in a world that is ripping itself apart.

Djs: Secularism has done more damage and been the demise of more individuals within the 20^th 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.

Sp demonstrates both the physical and spiritual are real and significant to the dynamics of the whole of reality.

This is the third manner by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.

Logician: …Inventing a “new” interpretation of God and whatever it is supposed to be and represent is new paint on an old wall. …

Djs: There is no ‘inventing’ or ‘new’ interpretations involved with symbiotic panentheism.

Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and moves forward from there.

Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is the creator of the physical universe, and moves forward from there.

Logician: …What my thesis can deliver is a here and now solution to all of human suffering and allow all peoples to “redefine” just who they are, and in this process they automatically start to address they spiritual well being and what they are as an individual and as a nation and as a species. The difference between us is clear. I give all humans and everyone that has ever existed that right to believe exactly what they want to believe …

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism takes no ‘rights’ away from anyone other than the ‘right’ to interfere with another’s journey.

Logician: …irrespective of a solution that saves them, …

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism is simply a model and as a model it clearly demonstrates there is no ‘saving’ involved, for the essence of the individual is timeless, immortal, never dies.

Logician: …you version saves them too but only after they all capitulate to your way of thinking as shown in your responses over that last few months in our correspondence. …

Djs: Again, there is no ‘saving’ involved.

Logician: …You do not accept a supposed “wrong” interpretation of your work,

Djs: Sure I do, I just expect those who suggest the work is ‘wrong’ to back up their statement that the work is ‘wrong’ with dialectics steeped in reason demonstrating their statement that the work is ‘wrong’ as opposed to simply stating the work is ‘wrong’ and concluding that the statement in itself is enough to prove them correct.

Logician: …to in fact even though I begged you to understand they are all correct, your “hackles” rose again and stated that there is no room for literal discretion.

Djs: My ‘hackles rose’, as you say, when you suggested you had the ‘right’ to take what I said and ‘interpret’ it as you saw fit. I stated that what I said is what I meant and just because you might say I meant something else does not make it so.

I also stated that I am human and do make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will in the future make mistakes in terms of how it is I verbalize the model.

There was no anger, resentment or sensitivity involved. I simply made a factual statement, namely: Regardless of how one personally interprets my statements, my statements are what they are, my statements are not open to the twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others.

Logician: …Hell, I don’t think that your interpretation of a god is worthy of being divine if it can’t get over “recurrence”.

Djs: But the model clearly demonstrates not only that ‘God’ can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but demonstrates ‘how’ God can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’. Your model only states God ‘can’ circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but has nothing to offer regarding ‘how’ God can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ other than ‘we don’t know how God can but It can’.

To be continued: Part IV of VI: Logician: …Your work states that god is...

Response to the Logician: 070903: Part II of VI

Daniel J. Shepard — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0400

Response to the Logician: 070903:

Part II of VI

Logician: …and quite simply put, the universe allows life to exist within it.

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’.

Logician: I use the euphemism “lab-rat” to coin a phrase, I should be more careful with the words I use to describe a situation, but this is an accurate phrase of what your work implies.

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’.

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.

Logician: I do not suggest that we should not explore the concept of first cause, I think that it has merits and could quite easily be true, but then again there are other options than a singularity theory, should they be summarily dismissed?

Djs: I don’t know. What options other than a singularity theory specifically are you suggesting?

Logician: The big bang theory is a very, very recent development in human philosophy, and so exploring it is a “must” if we are to evolve in our thinking.

Djs: The big bang theory is in essence a singularity theory. The ‘creation’ of ‘the’ physical universe.

Logician: You state “Religion by definition was never a concept of logic. Religion is not based upon logic.” I totally disagree. I believe that religion was the logic of those who wrote it, or to put it in other words, it was the understanding therefore the logic of the time, which tried to explain life.

Djs: I suppose one could argue such a premise.

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



I take this as a compliment

Djs: As intended.

Logician; Now for your question;

My thesis is totally different from yours. I deal with real things in real time, I have an answer that works within a small time frame, and within my own lifetime.

Djs: In terms of ‘a small time frame’ we think similarly although the model I am proposing also has answers that work with a large time frame as well as no ‘time’ frame and also extends understanding beyond our own physical lifetime and ‘beyond’ our immortal existence frame.

This is the first means by which the metaphysical model ‘symbiotic panentheism’ demonstrates its validity through its broader abilities to answer age old metaphysical questions.

Logician: …I take all of human behaviour and explain life as a human in human terms.

Djs: Sp (symbiotic panentheism) goes beyond ‘human behavior’ and ‘human terms’.

This is the second means by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.

To be continued: Part III of VI: Logician: …It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well...

Response to the Logician: 070903: Part I of VI

Daniel J. Shepard — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0400

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.

To be continued: Part II of VI: Logician: …and quite simply put...