Reply from Robert
Hello again Gavin,
I have jumped to this question leaving the most difficult and yet paradoxically the easiest to a later email (the nature and mind of God). The philosopher searches for absolutes. If he does not he is not a philosopher by definition. The word comes from the Greek philo philos, lover of sopher sophia wisdom sophos wise. That is a lover of wisdom or a searcher for absolute truths.
The problem, is what is one man’s truth is another’s untruth. And how can you be certain of an absolute. Many people will tell you that there is no such thing as an absolute truth and my answer would be to quote…
What is absolutely true is always correct, everywhere, all the time, under any condition. An entity’s ability to discern these things is irrelevant to that state of truth.” – Steven Robiner
So our ability to discern/discover an absolute does not mean that it does not exist only that we do not have the relevant true information and even if we do the ability to perceive and understand. Rene Descartes said The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt. Even being without a single doubt does not mean that you are right. Take for example my existence here in this world. Neo in the film The Matrix was shown by Morpheus (They chose the name of the Greek god of dreams) that the world he thought was real was an illusion (see also two other films Open your Eyes also remade as Vanilla Sky). I KNOW for certain that I do NOT know if this world is real (including you of course). I could only know absolutely if I woke up from it. And even if it is real (whatever that means) I know that everything here that we think is natural may be the result of an evil deceiver’s manipulations. Descartes meditated on God being an evil deceiver but concluded that it could not be true as God is perfect (he meant in a good moral way). But his argument is flawed, as there is no absolute proof that God is perfect (far more proof here that he is not..look at the design/nature of his work). A perfect God complete in love, compassion, truth, caring and concerned for everything and everyone doing nothing bad would reveal itself and put right everything that was wrong. Moreover he would not let it be or go wrong in the first place. The answer to that old question if given is usually that he moves in mysterious ways and who can understand the mind of God. That answer is for unintelligent silly people who would ignore the truth before them. If it (God) were perfect in that way it would not produce/make anything inferior to itself (men/women). If you had a young child Gavin would you say…look at and admire/worship me your parent because I am clever and can do many things that you cannot. If you did, you would be mad Gavin. Now consider an entity which does exactly that…is that entity (God) mad? Or will you turn aside from an unpalatable truth? Interestingly concerning these thoughts there are two conflicting passages in the bible. God says in the Book of Daniel (4:35) that he can do what he wants in the world and its inhabitants. Satan in the book of Matthew (4:9) talking to Jesus claims ownership of the world. If both these passages are true then God aka Satan is indeed the great deceiver. The problem with all the philosophers is that they without realising it had been corrupted/flawed by the very fact that they had been born, raised and lived in the world which must have had an influence on their thinking. If you look at their backgrounds, it becomes apparent how much the society they lived in with its then understandings had influenced their thoughts. Augustine is a good example. Talking nonsense about the soul. The speculative soul is like the speculative sub atomic particles in quantum mechanics (all in the mind). They had without realising become corrupted by the world in which they were born and raised and being a part of it (as is everyone now). As the world is and was chaotic their meditations trying to make sense of it are worthless. It is like someone trying to make sense of the ravings of mad men/women in an asylum. What they should have been asking is why the world is as it is. From a distance it looks fine (the world) but does not stand up to close examination. One example. People admire ferocious predatory animals. Look at the beautiful magnificent lion they say. And when it kills its prey, they say its only nature and therefore acceptable. I see a vicious uncaring killing machine when I look at a lion. I am not fooled/deceived by its appearance. I would rejoice if it became extinct. Every thing on this planet is trying (and succeeding) in killing everything else. What we call nature is violent, vicious and cruel. Yet we not only accept it but admire it as well. I KNOW that this is ugly and wrong Gavin.
Consider sin in the sexual sense Gavin. Imagine a distant planet with two continents divided by water. On one continent, the genitals are regarded as sinful not to be exposed. On the other continent, it is only the mouth that is regarded as sinful not to be exposed (how pink and moist with its moving tongue). I KNOW that in this case as in others sin is subjective NOT objective. I KNOW that to deliberately maliciously lie and hurt both mentally and physically is wrong Gavin.
Consider the sun Gavin. A violent ball of hot hydrogen in the dark vacuum of space that by a process of nuclear fusion (turning hydrogen to helium) is producing vast amounts of energy. If it were not for the earths iron core and magnetic field no life would be possible because of the lethal radiation. Consider how weird and grotesque this is Gavin. I KNOW that it is grotesque and if it is deliberately designed and made the entities mind that did so is weird and grotesque.
As I said, I know or I do not. That which I do not know I can only speculate about in a logical intelligent manner. And while I know that I might only have a few absolutes before I die it is enough for me to understand how little I know but paradoxically just how much.
Regards Robert