Identity vs Character

We don't know everything. The unfortunate reality constantly forces us to judge and act on incomplete information. We form opinions and worldviews with neither a complete sweeping general picture nor an exact conception of the details of our circumstances. So then what happens when new information is brought to our attention? There are two options.

We can use previous conclusions to reject new premises. This is irrational and amounts to a denial of reality. It is a deception of our own psyche to believing that reality is something other than what it is. This option may sound ridiculous when it is explained in these terms, the easy option for a dull mind.

We all have a inclination to create our own identity - a self-image - as a conglomeration of the characteristics of many external entities. It's as though we are programmed with a need to know where we are and where we are going. Defining ourselves is such a laborious, taxing, and time-consuming experience that we do not wish to repeat it. Some may feel that were they to redefine themselves they would appear wishy washy. Or they might be intimidated by not having a clearly outlined destination in the process and they might worry they'd get lost in the middle, like a computer operating system attempting to reprogram itself.

The real problem is when people identify themselves with transient entities, things that change. Examples might include people that think of themselves as the stylish one, the unemployed one, or the leprous one. Character is when one forms his identity based on eternal and unchanging principles: of a man with character it might be said "he is good, kind, meek, courageous, passionate about truth."

Possession of character is predicated on an absolute and unequivocal embrace of reality, eternity, truth (all one and the same). In order to function an intelligent agent must draw conclusions based on incomplete premises (knowledge of reality). But as more knowledge is brought to light it is embraced as well as all previously held knowledge; it is welcomed as a premise and any contingent conclusions are reconsidered.

My fellow author in this blog was once told, "you don't always have to be right" to which he had the ready rejoinder, "why would I ever want to be wrong?" This is a powerful expression of character well-founded in correct philosophical premises. This is the only attitude any truly free man will have. The free man maintains his freedom by giving no allegiance to any political party, ideology, position or principle except truth. As new truth is learned all opinions, prejudices, worldviews and paradigms are modified as necessary into consistency with this truth. And the truth shall make you free.

Autonomy and Slavery

In every association of two or more people the challenge of creating a society can be boiled down to the establishment of a balance between the extremes of anarchy and slavery. The individuals of every social system desire maximum autonomy for themselves. If an individual was living in complete isolation then he would have complete freedom to choose every facet of his life, living conditions, lifestyle and conduct for himself answerable only to the natural laws of the reality in which he lives. The existence of intelligent third-party agents introduces many new dimensions of two-way accountability for each pair of individuals in the system.

Political and social strife are always the result of the dissonance created by differences between individuals' beliefs as to where the anarchy-slavery balance should be drawn. These beliefs are always predicated in some fashion on the values and philosophical premises of the individual. In order to foster a society that relishes thought, creativity, and successful pursuit of happiness, no man can be a slave or create slaves. No man can be expected to live (work or actively support contrary to his expressed wishes) for any other man. Corollary to that, no man can expect to be supported by any other contrary to their wishes. No man can expect, much less demand, what was not rightfully earned.

It is reasonable that in order to allow a man freedom to pursue his happiness he must also be allowed to pursue his own demise and misery. Freedom to pursue one is freedom to pursue the other. This is as natural a conclusion as that a choice with only one option is not a choice at all. It is a natural law that every freedom necessarily comes with accountability for use of that freedom. We are always accountable to ourselves, to that part of ourselves that cannot be deceived or rationalized into blindness. Mere desire can never change reality.

All processes for progress/improvement or regression/deterioration are cyclical. All causes have effects and effects reinforce the causes. A man is creative, has a good idea, implements it, improves the lives of a community, the community rewards him with money, veneration, and whatever else might just be a part of this man's realization of greater happiness than he previously had which only motivates him to continue to work because he knows it will make him happier. Conversely a depressed man may lose his job, get on welfare, feel sorry for himself and lose all sense of self-respect, stop contributing in any way to his social system and become a pitiable nothing. Forced welfare for such a person does neither him nor the forced taxpayer any good.

'Victim' cannot be universally defined for a society without the creation of slaves. Maximization of freedom for all agents in a social system occurs when all agents are autonomous: all people must have the freedom to act and reap the natural rewards of their actions (i.e. society should not work to oppose natural law) and all people must have complete stewardship over those rewards. A state welfare system is a sign of social slavery. For a free society all unearned aid can only be the result of charitable donations: goods or services willingly ceded by those with full title and stewardship.

In order to have a successful/happy society that society cannot quell the willful actions and behaviors that must lead to happiness.

The Simple Rule

A lot of people like to make it clear that all opinions are of equal value; right answers do not exist for real-world issues and such. Sometimes it turns out that certain opinions are more equal than others: some opinions should not only be tolerated, not only accepted, not only promulgated but in fact if you do not embrace this particular opinion you are a monster, a bigot, or an ignoramus.

While the notions of 'right' and 'good' require painstaking definition and a proper framework for meaning, logic and reasoning should be more straight-forward for the honest and sincere soul. A person's reasoning reveals his values and his conclusions make known his premises. If we are to properly embrace freedom of speech and thought and be adamant proponents for physical and ideological liberty then we must recognize the diversity of values and premises that people will bring to the table. The only way to consistently recognize the freedoms and liberty enjoyed by each citizen is to abide a simple rule: no man can live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for him.

My values and philosophical premises can be whatever I choose... so long as they are not predicated on you. If I were to believe that health care is a universal right of man then I would have to back up my belief by myself and not rely on you for a dime. Your belief that you are financially obligated to each member of humanity does not and can not obligate me. Else I would not be at liberty to choose my own values independent of yours. You are not only implying but demanding that your values take precedence over mine in the running of my life.

Besides that you are miserable because your premises suggest that you are afraid of death (which you cannot avoid) and your implied value is that your life should be primarily spent prolonging your and everyone else's life, which is circular and devoid of meaning.

If you want to be happy then accept the inevitable and become a proactive controller and director of your own life. Choose to help others as you can but do not force your 'help' on anyone. If I cannot convince you to think correctly with correct premises and choose to be happy, then I will certainly deny you the right to obstruct my doing so.

Rights, Government and Society

We know from history and from our own natures that a large group of people cannot coexist without law. Anarchy is not conducive to individual happiness except in a society where every member is of impeccable character. But since character cannot be developed except as the by-product of the process of learning about and embracing natural law, we must conclude that anarchy is never a good social state. The process of individual progression induces a sense of achievement and well-being in a person whereas anarchy is perpetual chaos and ideas like 'progress' that imply direction lose meaning.

Too much law and too much government oppress the people they rule over. This oppression is defined as the elimination of the individual's power of choice to live, act, and do as they please. The type of law permissible is one that defines consequences for behavior and action. Civil law must be in harmony with natural law in order to work, in order for the society to be prosperous, progressive, successful and happy. An attempt to legislate contrary to natural law will bring the society to the natural consequences: the people will be forced to violate either the civil law by one action or natural law by another. Either action yields consequences for violation of law. Henry David Thoreau once observed that, "under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." He concludes that since the violation of civil law, out of harmony with natural law (unjust), will bear no ill fruit on one's character; it is far better to break an unjust civil law than to break natural law. Confucious observed that, "If a State is governed by the principles of reason, poverty and misery are the subjects of shame; if a State is not governed by the principles of reason, riches and honors are the subjects of shame." Thoreau declares, "It costs me less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it would to obey [an unjust law]."

The purpose of government is not to try to legislate arbitrary laws that they have no reason for believing will increase and safeguard the welfare of the people. Government discovers the principles of reality, prosperity, self-reliance, productivity, and happiness (and enacts laws in accordance thereto) in the same way that the individual discovers those principles. But the government is a group of people determining these principles and so is less likely to make costly and bitter mistakes than an individual drawing upon only one life's experiences. The Founding Fathers and others have spoken of a 'Tyranny of the Majority' that happens when a majority go against the principles of reality to the misery of all. The Founding Fathers relied on an elaborate system of checks and balances designed to maximize the number of people involved in major decisions.

The United States' Declaration of Independence speaks of inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are inalienable because the deprivation of these lead to misery and eventually revolution. All people must have the power to drive their own lives in order for anyone to be happy. These rights are common to American citizens because all Americans, by living in America, have chosen to acknowledge and respect these rights to each. The Bill of Rights includes the rights to free speech, press, religion, petition, assembly, own weapons to check the power of government, protection from unlawful search and seizure and from quartering troops, etc. etc. because Americans have collectively acknowledged that these rights will be respected. A right is only a right because the people and the people's government have chosen to honor it as a right. There is no 'right' or privilege afforded to anyone without the people's and the government's consent. If the people or the government do not give their consent to any 'right' then it is not a right, by definition.

Now that the California Supreme Court has decided to uphold the will of the people (which is good, but a court should never have had the power to decide one way or the other on this), there has been a proliferation of rhetoric about the 'right' that is most fundamental for any person to marry any person they love. Rights are dictated by the people and the government. If the people say it's not a right, it's not a right, by definition. If you think it should be a right then you have to convince the people to respect it as a right collectively. A right is not a right because you think it should be a right.

Of course in a more general sense we all have the right to do absolutely as we please, we just have to deal with the consequences. If I am not happy, and am living in circumstances where I cannot be happy then what's the point? The only power any man can have over me ends with my death. Just as under some circumstances the only place for a just man is in prison, sometimes the only place for a just man is on the battlefield, or in the grave. Socrates and Jesus have both made comments that the extent of man's power is to deprive a man of mortal life. Man is first responsible for himself, then his family, then his community, then his state and finally his country. If the well-being of one is costing another then we must fall back to our first duty.

Godly Love and Godly Hate

God the Unconditional Lover is another nonexistent deity. Many non-thinkers trying to push their own social agenda again try to stop rational thought by invoking emotional responses with stupid questions like "what would Jesus do?" as though the answer is invariably "hug the ax murderer a little tighter." Hogwash. "When we love we're inviting the Spirit of God into our souls and when we hate we're expelling His Spirit from us." As a generalization, wrong.

Love does not equal good and hate does not equal bad. If our culture can convince us that love defines good (godly, righteous, virtuous, etc.) and then our culture redefines love (can we say 'hippie') then our culture has successfully blinded us from our fundamental understanding of what is good and why. And life becomes an aimless journey without meaning and without a destination (can we say 'Albert Camus').

David Call has summarized the skewed perspective as the preaching of Jesus, love and service. Any good principle out of context becomes a dangerous one. You start reasoning in reverse; your conclusions become your premises and when you find the original premises to be inconsistent (due to incorrect perspective) you choose to stop thinking. For instance, service is good only insofar as it increases the well-being and happiness of the doer of the service. The purpose, or final cause, of the service is to increase the happiness of the doer. The other good effects of acting on good principles are collateral damage. But if this perspective were lost and we started to believe service were good, period, then we would find ourselves serving 18 hours per day and still not feeling like we were doing enough; we would serve ourselves into perpetual misery. And the word 'good' has lost all relevant meaning to the individual.

In all true principles, the context that makes the principles true is that of primacy. The self has primacy over others. Reason has primacy over faith. Reality has primacy over God. Happiness has primacy over duty. And so on. Primacy doesn't mean that one is better than the other or anything like that. It simply means that one principle is dependent on another. The house of truth is a house of order. Primacy connects all true principles in a web of truth that shows how true principles are true and helps us understand the applications of true principles to ourselves.

God is love. As a generalization, false. If that were true in general, there would not be two separate words for the one concept. God and love are two words manifesting two different entities. In a particular and specific context, such as the one implied by John, saying God is love sheds light on both of the principles involved, love expands our understanding of God, and God expands our understanding of love. Context is obviously important, else it would be a circular and meaningless mental exercise like standing in a bucket and trying to lift the bucket.

God is hate. This is also true in some circumstances. God abhors unhappiness and misery. God hates falsehoods. We should be preaching godly hatred as much as we preach godly love. In a more generalized form, they are one and the same idea. Like the north pole of a magnet surely must always attract all magnetic south poles and repel all magnetic north poles, the nature of God is such that all principles of goodness, joy, honor, integrity and such are attracted to him and all principles of falsehood, misery, cowardice, compulsion, and so on are repelled from him. There are no magnetic north poles that attract south poles but do not repel north poles or vice versa. Same with godly love and godly hate. They are two sides of the same coin.

Rationality of Revelation

Traditionally there have been two separate approaches to learning truth and the two camps supporting each approach have been at odds. Truth can be learned by the scientific method. Observations are made, data reflecting the observations is recorded, hypotheses are formed to predict patterns in observation and experiments are executed to support or disprove a hypothesis. Some people claim this is the only way to discover truth.

The crowd usually associated with religion espouses the discovery of truth by revelation. This is that truth, or knowledge about reality, can be revealed to us by an external influence or intelligence. Some philosophers have tried to argue that ultimate reality is something beyond what we can now perceive with our senses and that seeking this ultimate reality should be our life pursuit. What good is reality if it is other than what we can perceive through our senses at any particular moment? What good is it to label anything else reality?

The idea of revelation has been muddled through so many strange concepts and mystical thinkers through the ages that we must identify what we are talking about when we speak of revelation. Revelation is not communion with the all-being, or being 'at one' with the universe or anything else. Eternalism is characteristically individualistic. Man's progress and development are his own responsibility and the individual must make the choice to involve or collaborate with others when he sees that it is for his ultimate benefit and happiness to do so. Reality has no meaning in an absolute sense. Reality for an individual is all that we can identify and talk about; reality is what an individual perceives through his senses.

Remember faith must be rational; that is, there must be a reason for believing what we have faith in. Each truth learned by the scientific method is like a distinct point of a math function. Generally, the more points we know for a math function the better we understand the function as a whole. Revelation can help us extrapolate on distinct points of knowledge to see a continuous, differentiable function. Revelation fills in the gaps.

David Hume was a supposedly brilliant philosopher for pointing out that just because we know that a specific cause has yielded a specific effect ten out of ten times, or a million out of a million times, we have no basis for believing that that same cause will produce the same effect in the future. Just because I have burned my hand each of the ten times I've put my hand on a stove does not give me a basis for believing that I would burn my hand again if I put it on the stove again. Clearly life would not have continued to exist if this were the natural progression of thought. Living creatures would have no survival instinct. The law of causality cannot be proven to exist by experiment, but is rather revealed to intelligent beings. Putting your hand on the stove again will cause it to burn, again. This is a very rational revelation. And all people who have lived longer than two hours have done so because they have learned at least this one revealed truth.

Revelation can be described in many different ways. It works on an intuitive level. An idea forms in the mind and it feels good. It feels consistent with the other truths and beliefs of the individual. The idea does not create any cognitive dissonance; there is nothing bothering you about the new idea on any conscious or subconscious level. It is not possible to think about every truth you know to check for consistency with this new idea, so this intuitive leap is necessary.

Revelation and the scientific method bring the diligent searcher to the same truth in the same way that y=2x+1 and (0,1);(1,3) describe the same line. Both are necessary and both are rational. One cannot learn truth through one medium without simultaneously learning truth through the other. It is counterproductive to try to separate the two.

Worth of Life

Sanctity of life. The phrase is designed to stop rational thought by inciting an emotional response. Most words with religious undertones are this way nowadays. It's really very sad. If rational beings were intended to devote an inordinate amount of thought to anything I would think that it would be the eternal, fundamental, the driving forces of everything; the "what matters most." The real God would invite nothing more vigorously than intelligent beings questioning who he is and what he is like. For the subsequent investigation would reveal the principles of godliness and happiness. What could be more important, of more worth to our and his happiness, than this knowledge? Implementation is just one simple, rational step away from knowledge.

Sanctity is a word pertaining to holiness or godliness. What could be more incumbent on us to question? So if the sanctity of life is that part of life pertaining to godliness, this investigation becomes a natural follow-up to the nature of God.

The question is related to another one that's been addressed by philosophers since Plato. The dignity of man. My co-author on this blog has summed up Plato's dignity of man: man's dignity at birth lies in his potential to become as God is; man's dignity at death is his having done so. These are very natural and deliciously simple conclusions based on our already-laid philosophical foundation. Man is on a quest for progression. The dignity of man is derived from having developed his character and abilities through the honor of work of the mind and hands to produce, create and make better his condition. The dignity of man comes from having realized his potential to become more like God.

The sanctity, or godliness, of life then is the potential that rests within each human soul to CHOOSE to become more like God, to choose to develop himself, to choose to better his eternal state. The sanctity of life is derived from the choices made by that life. If the person chooses to develop and realize the godly potential, he is making his life sacred. If he chooses to debase himself and regress to the status of beast or lower, he forfeits what could have made his life sacred. Life is not sacred because it is life; life is sacred because that life chooses to make itself sacred.

Cowards that choose to try to induce fear and terror by shooting people in the back shame themselves and are not worth enough to drink the urine of honorable people. I really have no idea what is being talked about when we try to apply 'constitutional rights' or 'human rights' to terrorists. They are not citizens, and they have chosen to not be people in any more than the biological sense. Just as a person would not think twice before using disinfectant to destroy the lives of all bacteria, viruses, parasites and all creatures that we know are bent on our pain, illness and destruction if given the chance; I believe any more complex life form that chooses to put itself in the same category is worthy of the same. Death is not the ultimate evil; states of unhappiness and fear are.

The Bible, by itself, is Crap

I'm really sick of people who cling to the Bible. Why do people like the Bible? It sucks. I know, I've read it. Cover to cover. That's just in English. I've read many parts of it in another language too. And I've studied enough Greek and Hebrew to know that we have no business extrapolating on English words to derive nonexistent meanings from the book. Bottom line, if the Bible is your exclusive guide then you are lost.

Asking a typical Christian about the Bible is almost universally pointless. It usually goes something like this: "Why do you believe in the Bible? Because it's the word of God. How do you know it's the word of God? Because the Bible says so." The conversation usually ends about there. How could it go on?

The most frustrating type of people are those that claim to live by the Bible, have never read more than disjoint stories in it, have never studied historical contexts for the stories, and exclusively look for justification for their already-made opinions within the Bible. Then they stop searching. They stop thinking. I mean the Bible agrees with me so I'm right, right? What?

People don't know or care about the history, formation, or specific authorship of the book. Interesting since these same people claim its infallible and universally applicable. How can you possibly know that and not know a wretched thing about the book? Who wrote it? Who compiled it? Why did they put this in and leave this out? What was on the original manuscripts? What language nuances were lost through the three or four translations to get to this thing I'm holding in my hand? What are we to learn about the love of God from the story of Lot's daughters raping Lot? Or Judah having a kid with his daughter-in-law whom he thought was merely a whore? The whole book is screwed up and makes no sense out of context. The parts that seem to make sense really mean something else in their proper context. So once again, the Bible is messed up and no good by itself.

If you can't tell, people who try to use the Bible as their foundation for authoritative assertions are my pet peeve. I think they're blind, ignorant and lazy. They're certainly not eternalists. I would never say that eternalists do not believe in revelation or inspiration because we certainly do. The God we have been discussing would certainly love for us to know about him and about everything that is true. But those who refuse to seek cannot find and those who refuse to see, won't. If you believe that God has ever wanted to speak to man then he must now want to speak to man. Any other God would be inconsistent and therefore not God. Stop believing in your Easter bunny God.

If it's possible for God's words to have been received and recorded before, then it must have been possible for other people who sought God's words and must still be possible. In short, if the Bible was originally inspired by God then there must be other scripture in existence that supports and explains it. If the Bible was about God's dealings with ancient people then let's search for a record of God's dealings with his people now in our global culture.

Do not attempt to limit God with your stupidity. See things for what they are. Look for what is missing. Always ask questions. Do not perpetuate irrational and willful ignorance that masquerades so universally as 'faith.' Faith is always rational, always logical and always leads to greater knowledge, power and happiness. Do not be scared of heresy, blasphemy, or any sort of thought-crime. The fear is blasphemous.

The Face without Guilt or Fear or Shame

It's a commonly perpetuated idea that politics corrupts even good people. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and such. For some reason the downfall of especially good people are their imperfections, their mistakes that are common to all men. To be precise, the fear of other people knowing about these mistakes compels them to things they would not otherwise do.

The only way that man can truly have full causal efficacy on his surroundings is by having complete confidence in himself. Confidence is faith and faith is confidence. The man with vision has no need to fear. The man who knows who he is and who he is becoming has no need to feel shame. The man who acts for his own happiness by systematically striving to be more upstanding and have more integrity has no need for guilt. The man who knows and likes who he is and who he is becoming is the only truly confident man, a man with full faith in himself. This man need never feel guilt or fear or shame but only move forward to be more the man he wants to be.

The inherent danger of guilt, fear and shame is the power it grants others over you. No person can afford to give such power to anyone else. All make mistakes; if you allow yourself to feel ashamed for a mistake that you have already learned from your personal progress is stalled while you leave yourself open for external extortion or internal self-deprecation which will destroy your vision of who you are and where you were going. It can take a long time to recover from guilt or fear or shame. Your recovery will be painful and it will mean lost time. Lost time to learn new things, lost time to further develop your character and lost time to be a force of positive influence, a force for truth in your environment.

The person without guilt or shame or fear is one that is steadfast and immovable. He is an anchor to those around him. He chooses to make himself invulnerable to external forces other than what he chooses to allow to affect him. He only allows positive influence to affect him, influences that enrich his own life and increase his personal happiness. By being this steadfast anchor he grants an example for others trying to gain a vision of who they can be. He stands as a light to those trying to recover from guilt, fear or shame. He chooses to be a positive force to act, create and produce; to form his environment according to his ever-increasing vision. Only the man without guilt or fear or shame can be happy without reservation.

Merit and Chivalry

Enough of the framework of eternalism has been laid out so that we can begin to build the philosophy in any direction. A philosophy is only as good as it can be practically applied to one's life for the increase of his own individual happiness. This was the basis for the assumptions made about the primacy of reality. The philosophy of truth/reality expounds on a rational process for evaluating our methods for understanding and dealing with our environment, detecting inconsistency, identifying the necessary correction and executing it.

All cultures are in constant flux. Most of what some call "general opinion" does not make sense and is incredibly inconsistent. An example fresh on my mind is Mother Teresa. Many people mentally equate Mother Teresa with the personification of goodness. Yet these same people cannot name one specific thing she has done, do not know anything about her personal life or beliefs, and do not know why they think she was such a good person. It's a groundless belief. "The masses think it and so I think it" is never satisfactory for an eternalist.

During our cultural flux in America we have two incompatible ideas that are simultaneously extolled by the 'cultured': feminism and chivalry. Let's examine them both and see what the ideas are that are consistent with truth and individual happiness.

Feminism originally was, and still in its true form is, a recognition of the equality of the potential of the minds of men and women. This is consistent with the eternalist idea of Merit. A man or woman is only what they make of themselves. If a person wants to be a great scientist then they do those things that will make them a great scientist. Same for a great athlete, engineer, doctor, judge or anything else. If a person wants to be respected then he must act respectably. The self has primacy over circumstances. The self will be a controller of his circumstances. We will not accept any idea or image that our environment attempts to project on to us.

A man is only worth what he makes himself worth. I greatly value the lives of my family and friends because they have chosen to do those things that make them of great value to me. The life of any of my sisters is of astronomically greater value to me than some drunkard bum on the street or even a stranger. If I had power to control a situation in such a way that my options were limited to choosing to allow my sister to die or a bum, the bum would die. Between my sister and 5000 strangers, I choose my sister to live. Between myself and my sister, I choose my sister to live. These are the only choices that would be in harmony with a happy life after the choice. Death is not the ultimate evil; unhappiness is.

Chivalry, as practiced by many, is wholly incompatible with any self-respecting life philosophy. I will hold this door open for you precisely and only because I have male genitalia and you have female. This is insulting to both parties. You are what you have made yourself. I will hold the door open for you because you are a respectable human being. I would hope that you would esteem me enough to treat me likewise; but if not I'm content to be who I am and will not allow an unfounded opinion of me to influence what I think of myself. For so many people chivalry is very ostentatiously displayed by young men to young women, as a wild peacock trying to attract a mate with his brilliantly colored feathers. Then after a man and woman marry there is no need for such display again. This seems opposite of rational behavior. As I get to know and respect a person more and more, I treat them better and better because they have merited that respect and courteous behavior. Following through with this philosophy, a married man and woman would treat each other best of all other men and women. They have come to the point where they know each other best and respect and admire each other more than any other. They have each merited the best feelings and emotional responses from each other.

Man is a mover and a doer; a creator and a producer. If you want to be happy then merit what you want and become who you want to be.

What The Hell Are You Doing and Why?

There are so many stupid questions with flawed premises and therefore stupid conclusions masquerading around as 'deep' nowadays. One is especially poignant in my mind today. I was in a class this morning that was discussing Dante's Purgatorio and it is said, "O human race! If you knew everything, no need for Mary to have borne a son." Hmmm.... It might be a natural human inclination to react immediately and emotionally to any theologically charged statement. So you can imagine the kind of discussion that would have ensued. It should seem obvious that before reacting to this kind of statement we need to ask what the premises of this statement are. So... why did Mary have to bear a son? Only after an answer is proferred for such a question we can analyze the validity of the statement.

All right so that aside, here's the related stupid question: Are you saved? It's so ridiculous that there's no way to respond. It's like walking up to a stranger on the street and asking "Is he guilty as charged?" Who? What are we talking about? And most importantly, why should I give a damn?

It seems as though many people try to separate religion from all else in their mind, beliefs, behavior, and so on thereby creating two personalities and constant cognitive disonnance. Someone may say consciously or unconsciously, "I believe in the scientific method Monday through Saturday but on Sunday I believe I'm drinking the blood of a 2000 year old god who is now everywhere and nowhere." Ever wonder why you feel weighed down and stressed? You suffer from the burden of inconsistency. You have made two mutually incompatible assumptions about reality and your mind can't resolve it: it is your mind verses reality and reality is winning. Reality always wins.

Stop fighting yourself. There is no truth that is inconsistent with any other truth. Truth is real. Anything that is real, must be real. By definition. There is nothing more real than what you can experientially know for yourself to be real. Do not ever assume that any hearsay is more real than your experiences. If saved means happy then yes I want to be happy. If saved means strumming a harp and doing nothing forever with your jackass of a God who does that then no, I surely do not ever under any circumstances want to be saved. What you call hell I venture to guess will be a more happy place. I know it'll be more interesting. Check your premises.

Power of Choice

Within the framework we have established there is a fundamental governing principle: causality. By controlling our actions we control the effects that will be brought about. The effects of some actions are individual happiness. The effects of other actions are individual misery. A basic tenet of eternalism is that of consequence. By our actions we fully merit and deserve the associated consequences. The eternalist believes in the freedom of and accountability for individual choice.

By saying that the doer of an action fully merits the consequences of that action we imply that the doer has full freedom to choose his action. This is true. The eternalist is a doer, an active participant and controller of the events around him. The eternalist is an optimizer, ever working to optimize his circumstances by his choices to adhere to the laws of well-being and provident living. All of these principles are completely contrary to victimhood. The eternalist is never a victim of any kind. Unfortunate or tragic things will befall him but he is not a victim because of how he chooses to respond to such opposition. The eternalist values his power of choice more than any other. Eternalists may even thrive best in states of constant opposition because such an environment is most conducive to the constant re-evaluation of beliefs and behaviors that the eternalist craves. The environment of opposition continually reinforces the truthfulness of the principles valued by the eternalist. He will always be right and happy because when he discovers himself to be wrong or unhappy he immediately busies himself with discovering the cause and needed change and expeditiously executes the required change of belief and behavior.

Choice is the source of all power for all rational beings. Because rational beings have the freedom to choose and moreover the freedom to learn and make continually better or more informed choices, the rational being naturally merits what he gets, happiness or misery. The justice of the optimizer living at peace with himself and the perpetual misery of the victim is a natural law of reality predicated on the power and accountability of choice of the individual. A rational being will increase in knowledge and power as he chooses to do so. The same rational being will forfeit power and freedom as he chooses to do that. The state of any rational being is a result of the use of that being's power of choice. Choice is the great governing power of intelligence. Intelligence is intelligence because it possesses the power of choice.

Redefining Faith

Too many false religions, false beliefs, and inconsistent philosophies owe their existence to a ridiculous and incorrect concept of faith. Irrational faith, unsupported faith, hysterical faith, screaming faith, and fanatical faith has caused the suffering and unhappiness of billions. Faith requiring unshakable, unswerving, unquestioned, and complete dedication to unfounded, unreasonable, un-evidenced, and mystic falsehoods has given us the crusades, the jihad, the holocaust, not to mention years of self inflicted suffering and unhappiness in slavery to imposters of the truth. What's worse, the very fact that a belief is unsubstantiated often is used as evidence of faith's supposed greatness. This is absolute idiocy.

So what is faith, if not the belief in the unbelievable? Faith is an action of the rational and logical mind. Faith is anticipating an increase in truth from a source of already received truth. When we have faith, it is true we believe something we do not yet know, but there must be a consistent reason for that belief. Faith is not blind, it is not given freely, and it should never be unquestioned. Faith is an evolving, seeking, reaching thing by which we intuitively search for truths.

Furthermore, once we hold faith in a particular idea, that is not enough. Faith is not the goal, it is a tool. We attain faith and then must continue to strive for complete knowledge. Finding knowledge will be a sequential, step by step process of having faith in an apparently reasonable idea, testing and applying the idea, reevaluating our faith to adjust, reject, or confirm it and always moving forward in the search for knowledge. When we view faith as the ever-changing tool to true knowledge. Faith is useful, thought evoking, and most importantly, will contribute to our personal happiness. Finally, faith is too often associated only with religion. The principle of faith should be applied in all fields. Obviously this is only possible if faith is a consistent and useful principle, not the cow dung found in popular religion. Faith to the Eternalist is simply a continuously examined belief in logical conclusions based upon established truths. What else would be reasonable?

God the Optimizer

The God that most people believe in nowadays is a total douchebag. A complete bastard. God is supposedly the jackass that smiles at all the emaciated orphans, the Holocaust, new plagues every few years and so on. Apparently he's just doing this for his own amusement and to make you afraid. He craves your fear. He keeps you in the dark. He grants you no vision. He condemns you to be stoned for picking your nose on the ninth day of the third month; starves your family with famine because he can. It earns your fear. God paving the road of hell with skulls of unbaptized children. God condemning all people born before an apparently temporally significant saving event occurs. If this is your God then your God is a jackass whose worship will make you miserable. Have fun.

Place your definitions in proper order. Choose to make your focus your happiness. We have thus far discussed how all our frameworks for understanding and dealing with our environment must come from our fundamental assumptions about reality itself. We have explored and presented definitions for a consistent God of Happiness. The characteristics and attributes of God are contingent upon the nature of reality. These attributes have begun to be explored. The God of Happiness is a master of reality. He has all knowledge of all natural laws and uses that knowledge to live in complete harmony with what is. Complete knowledge of reality has given him power to live fully in harmony with reality (yielding a fullness of happiness) and the ability to control effects by controlling causes. This is the nature of his power. This is consistent.

All rational beings are capable of choosing to progress toward greater knowledge of and commitment to live in harmony with reality. Thus all rational beings are capable of choosing to make these attributes of God attributes of themselves. In an infinite unfolding of time these beings, through consistent choice, will be gain a fullness of joy themselves and therefore be Gods themselves (as we have defined God).

The Consistent God, the God of Happiness is God the Optimizer. Optimization in any context is the process of reevaluating methods and algorithms to accomplish specified goals faster (time optimization) or with fewer resources (resource optimization). Gods and Beings of Happiness (rational beings in the process of choosing to gain knowledge and committing to live in greater harmony with reality) thus continually optimize the process for gaining joy. A God can increase his dominion. God the Optimizer can optimize the increase of his dominion by placing rational beings (who may choose to progress) in the optimal circumstances for their progress. This is progress on an infinite timeline. Death is irrelevant. Only happiness of the individual matters. Within this context happiness naturally becomes a choice independent of externally imposed circumstance. The Being of Happiness is never a victim of any kind. The Being of Happiness will choose to act, to do those things which will bring happiness. Work, learn, understand. Above all, worship truth. The Being of Happiness chooses to be an optimizer.

Optimizers cannot be victims and victims cannot be optimizers. The optimzer will take whatever he has and through the course of living by the natural laws of hard work and rational choice will reap the natural rewards. The optimizer will always come out on top. To choose to be an optimizer is to choose to be successful. To be successful is to be in a state of happiness without reservation.

Independence.

Progression is a personal thing. There is no shortcut, no easy way around, no secrets, no possibility of progressing on someone else's merit. That is just not how it works. We are responsible for who we are every step of the way. It has become widely believed that all people have so called "rights"; rights to houses, cars, jobs, protection, health care, and all matter of things. This is completely and totally false. These things are never rights, they are privileges. The privileges of work. The only right any of us has is to progress ourselves and to strive for happiness. Anything beyond that is inconsistent and impossible.

Debt is a terrible thing in any form. It enslaves a man to his wants or supposed needs. Debt results from attempting to have what we have not achieved. To be who we are not and to claim what we do not own. It restricts happiness, retards progression, and destroys confidence. Debt should be avoided as the plague if none currently exists and fled as if from a burning building when one is in it. Still a repaid debt is far better than living at an other's expense.

To live off handouts, food stamps, taxpayer money, charity, begging, or any other form of living that comes at an other's expense when we are capable of supporting ourselves to any degree is among the most degraded thing a man can do. It is choosing to be a rock when offered the choice of progressing towards perfection. It is giving up, it is becoming worthless, and is worthy of nothing but contempt and disregard. It can never be the responsibility of another to pull someone along who doesn't have the self respect to do it themselves. Life is not valuable or sacred simply because it is life, life is valuable in direct relation to how it is used. The life of the thief, the murderer, the idle, the lazy, the willing slave, the apathetic, and the willfully useless is not equal to the life of the worker, the consistent, the truthful, the seeker, the contributor, and the independent. It is a grave mistake to think these lives are the same.

The Eternalist is strong enough and self respecting enough to never live at an other's expense. The Eternalist contributes, strives for perfection, takes personal responsibility, and expects the same of others. The Eternalist is proud of accomplishment and strives to increase it. Eternalism understands the honor of work.

Guilt And Entitlement

I will not apologize for my talents. I will not apologize for being happy. I will not apologize for things I have worked hard for. If you don't value hard work or self-sufficiency then I don't give a damn about your feelings. You are not entitled to the fruits of my labor. You will not get a cent or a tear from me if your life sucks.

Guilt is an evil vice that turns otherwise good people into slaves. If you live consistent with a consistent philosophy then there is never any reason for feeling guilt. You will still make mistakes because your knowledge is incomplete. But you acted exactly how you should have according to what you knew and you should be proud of that even if you were ultimately wrong. Guilt is a waste of time. It neither helps me nor you. What's done is done and can't be undone. Since I live a consistent eternalist philosophy I will learn from my mistakes whether or not I feel guilty. Feeling guilty will merely make me miserable. I choose to be happy. I will not feel guilty.

My success does not make me your slave. Screw you. My success must surely come as a result of adherence to natural law. Everyone who exalts the honor of work of body and mind will reap the natural rewards. I have no moral or social obligation to share my duly earned rewards with anyone else. If you want to be happy then do those things which must surely lead to happiness. If you don't want to do all those things then you are welcome to have a miserable existence until you die in disgusting squalor. I will surely not obstruct your right to be miserable. And you will surely not obstruct my right to be happy. What I do with my duly earned resources is my choice. You may choose to ask for material or philosophical help. I may choose to help you because I know helping you will increase my happiness. But you cannot demand my help. And if you feel entitled to something I have earned you can fornicate yourself with an iron stick.

I will not apologize for choosing to be right. Feel free to exercise your right to be right and happy or stubbornly wrong and miserable.

Just Death, Nothing More

Death. One of the most illogical and inconsistent views persistently held by the majority of humanity is that death is a fearsome and innately evil thing. Incredibly, in so believing, people relegate themselves to unavoidable misery and failure. Everybody dies. In order to be happy, it is entirely necessary to have a proper and realistic understanding of death.

Two possibilities exist, either death is an end to our being or merely a step in our progression. The first option certainly doesn't give any reason to fear death, no existence is neither better or worse than existence, it is simply nothing and, therefore, nothing to fear. However, I believe the second possibility is the consistent option of the two.

As has been discussed previously, man is meant to progress and God acts to aid man's progression. Death, therefore, cannot be a bad thing, as God the optimizer continuously allows it to occur. Death can only be a necessary step in man's progression, certainly not a bad thing. In fact, I believe in many cases, death can be an honorable and great thing. When a man gives his life protecting his beliefs, a woman sacrifices (in the redefined sense) her life for her children, or anyone dies having understood and lived consistent and true principles, these are good deaths; deaths of honor and integrity that should be celebrated. In many cases, death is a great success.

Therefore, the media's use of death to evoke pity and concern and outrage is terribly inconsistent. Everybody dies. The portrayal of death as the ultimate evil to be avoided and feared is illogical and self-defeating. Death is a natural progression that comes at its own time, not something to fear. I am not advocating that we seek death or that things like murder are not wrong. We avoid death in order to take advantage of life and we cherish life for its goods. Still, death is not a thing to fear, it is not an evil. Eternalism necessitates this.

Redefining Sacrifice

Sacrifice. I can think of no word that is more misused and more often evokes the wrong response than the word "sacrifice". Currently, when people speak of sacrifice, they are apparently trying to point out that something has been given up, forsaken or rejected in a way detrimental to themselves but beneficial to someone else. The word is used as if something good has been given up for something not so good. The greater forsaken for the lesser. The word is used as if a sacrifice has been made and the sacrificer should therefore be admired. This is wrong.

First of all, anyone who would trade the greater for the lesser should certainly not be admired; they should be ridiculed as a fool. If at any time, someone is actively seeking to "sacrifice" their time or their money with nothing in return, that person is an idiot and a destructive force in the universe. They are untrustworthy, inconsistent, and most of all, a liar. Sacrifice is not giving something for nothing, it never is. True sacrifice is forsaking the lesser in favor of the greater.

To sacrifice time, talents, or money is to use these things in such a way as to maximize happiness. People dont sacrifice their money or time for nothing, they do it if to eliminate guilt, feed ego, assuage conscience, demonstrate "goodness", or if they are consistent trustworthy people they do it simply to increase their own happiness. If we must persist in the use of the word sacrifice, then let us change it to an honorable meaning. Let sacrifice be when a person is logical and consistent enough to make a trade in which they give something up in order to be a happier and more complete being. That is how sacrifice should be viewed and only in that sense could a sacrificer be praised. I will not praise a chosen failure, an inconsistent trade, or an idiotic lie. Let us praise sacrifice for what it is, the wisdom to give up the lesser in order to obtain the greater. This is eternalism.

The Attributes of God

We have successfully established that the modern popular "gods" are nothing even resembling a believable, consistent God, and in fact are closer to a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, magical and mythical thing. Furthermore, we have examined the postulates of atheist and agnostic viewpoints and found them to be equally inconsistent and often lazy rejections of the desire to know. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that there is indeed a God, a perfectly consistent, fully logical, and believable God. Now it is time to examine the attributes of such a figure.

First and foremost, as has been repeatedly mentioned, God is fully consistent with reality. It follows that God is the happiest of all beings. This could be termed "blessed" but I prefer happiest because of the mystic mumbo-jumbo currently associated with "blessed". In order for God to be the happiest of all beings he must exist in absolute harmony with reality. Therefore, God must have a complete knowledge of reality. This is the first attribute of God; a full and complete knowledge of reality. God's knowledge must include an understanding of all physical governing laws, all events, all causes, etc...

In every instance, true knowledge converts to power. The more we understand the better we are able to mold and shape reality as we desire. The old adage that knowledge is power is true by definition. Every form of knowledge is power in some sort or other. God, a being with perfect knowledge, must therefore be a being of power. God, through knowledge, can accomplish anything that does not violate true laws. This does not mean God can do anything, only that God can do anything it is possible to do. Therefore, God is a being of power.

Currently, the definition of God we have arrived at does not limit the number of God beings in existence. There is no logical reason there cannot be a multitude of beings with perfect knowledge and power. However, in the former argument for God's existence, the point was made that God is the first cause of our current existence. A first cause cannot be a multitude of causes but is limited to singularity. (Explanation of this point is beyond the scope of my current topic but suffice it to say that if we suppose two or more beings concurrently acting as the first cause both equal in perfection of knowledge and power and singular in purpose and causation then they are not two beings but one, being similar in all things.) Therefore, though more than one God being may exist, the God with which we have to do is singular. Therefore, our God, is one God of perfect knowledge and power.

Finally, we will briefly consider what God has to do with us. God as a perfect being, cannot increase in knowledge or power. Thus, it is reasonable to ask, what does God purpose or desire. Firstly, it is obvious that God in order to be God must have progressed to that point of knowledge and power. However, having arrived at perfect knowledge and the limits of power, what more could God do to progress and increase in happiness? Not in knowledge, not in power, but in dominion. God can progress in happiness as beings created by God progress and increase thereby adding to God's happiness. Therefore, as we are happy because of increased knowledge, increased understanding of reality, and a consistent applicable philosophy, God is happier also. Therefore, God is intimately concerned with mankind's progression and desires our happiness as if God's own. Obviously then, within the bounds of natural law, God works to maximize and optimize our opportunity for lasting and true happiness.

This is a God worth believing in, a consistent, knowing, powerful, being who desires nothing but our everlasting happiness. The only God that could possibly be God.

Affinity of Truth

Many 'wisdom traditions' speak of some sort of affinity of truth. Light for light; wisdom cleaves to wisdom, and so on. The affinity of truth is identified as a deliciousness; when a new truth is discovered it is recognized as truth because it feels good.

This affinity spoken of is the consistency of truth. There are two separate avenues to ascertain the consistency of a new truth with all truth previously discovered and canonized by the mind: follow the logical progressions of the rational mind to all the seemingly related truths and an intuitive higher level vision of how the new truth fits in with all other truths on all levels. The latter requires the faith previously discussed here. The truth is intuitively consistent, it fits nicely in the jigsaw of all other truth known to this point, and so it is accepted on faith. This faith is an acceptance of something that is true without yet being able to recognize all the causes that make it an accurate representation of reality. But as long as the causes are sought for there is faith.

The one thing that should drive every self-respecting rational being mad is when he discovers an inconsistency in his mind's canonized truth. He should not be able to think about anything else until this is resolved by rejecting the inconsistent 'truth' or by modifying things in his belief set until all is mutually compatible once again. Any being who accepts paradox, supernatural, or otherwise unreal 'truth' is destined for a life of fear and misery.

Check Your Premises

In an effort to rationally and systematically deal with our environment on a daily basis, each of us are required to form a fundamental assumption about the nature of reality. There are basically two options: dreaming and being awake.

Those who assume they are dreaming think of reality as originating in the mind, just like in a dream. The mind has primacy over reality. There can be no absolutes, no hard and fast natural laws. Mastering reality is a psychological battle. When the mind is properly controlled then reality is under control as well.

Those who assume they are awake think of reality as an external state. Reality has primacy over the mind. Things are the way they are independent of the mind. If my mind did not exist or if I did not exist, reality would still exist and be fundamentally the same. The natural laws governing reality are absolute for all minds existing within that reality. Eternalism assumes primacy of reality.

You cannot make more than one fundamental assumption about your relationship with reality. If two assumptions are made and they are consistent, then one is an assumption and the other is a consistent extrapolation. If two inconsistent assumptions are made then your reality cannot be real.

Ever since the Renaissance and the renewal of the Socratic and scientific methods there have been many people who have tried to 'reconcile' centuries old ideas about supernatural phenomena and beings with logic and reason.

The trouble is that truth needs no reconciliation. All real entities, events, and causal relationships are self-consistent. When we choose our fundamental assumption about our relationship with reality, we can choose to believe what our collective experience and observation has led us to believe, which has led to our ability to live day-to-day life, or we can choose to believe something completely contrary to experience that we have absolutely no reason to believe other than it makes us more comfortable not to think and to be accepted by others who also find comfort in not thinking.

Contradictions are not 'deep' or profound. Their primary purpose is to bring to light an inconsistency in one's beliefs. Check your premises. As has previously been discussed on here, many people choose to take the inconsistency between a particular God and observable/experiential truth to mean there is no God. This is a logical fallacy. But so is concluding that observation or experience are less real than the inconsistent God.

We are each free to choose whether our existence is an inconsistent accidental delusion or that our existence is an epistemological progression to greater understanding of our universe and power and control that must accompany that understanding. In a reality where immortal beings exist within limitless space and time, any chosen point in that space and time will be at a steady-state. If it is possible for beings to progress or regress within that reality, there must be beings at both ends: beings who have progressed remarkably and beings who have regressed to pitiable states. And beings everywhere in between. A consistent definition for a God could be one of these remarkably progressed beings. God is not an assumption, but the natural result of a consistent reality. If the universe and progression of beings within the universe were modeled as a stochastic process, individual beings are constantly progressing and regressing but the net total flux in the system remains constant and at steady-state.

If you choose to waste time justifying the unjustifiable you damn yourself to a miserable life where you must lose. Choose to love truth. Choose to challenge yourself. Above all, choose to be happy.

A is A

The law of causality is necessarily entwined with the law of identity. The law of identity states that an entity is what it is. A is A. It's pretty simple which is why it's so basic to the philosophy of truth. It also proves key to the battle against self-delusion.

An entity must always act in accordance with its nature. If it did not, it would not be that particular entity. For example, if I were told that a particular entity were a tiger, I would know that it is orange with black stripes and that I should not provoke it or be near it without some sort of protection. That is the nature of a tiger. If these things were not true about the entity then the entity in question is not a tiger.

The law of identity tears apart semantic arguments. A word like 'love' can mean different things to different people. This is one of the weaknesses of language. If we identify the nature of what we're talking about by stating the causal relationships that define the entity in question, there will not be any confusion about the entity being described. In mathematics or physics the law of identity is more straight-forward. If someone mentions the number pi then the audience can immediately think of many identifying characteristics of the entity: approximated by 3.14159 or 22/7, the convergence point of the Taylor series 4 * (1-1/3+1/5-1/7+1/9-...), the ratio of any circle's circumference to diameter, etc. Any number that does not meet all these criteria cannot be pi. And there are other characteristics of the number pi that are currently unknown but that does not mean that they cannot be known or that the characteristics have not always existed.

The identity of an entity is experientially defined. We come to know the nature of an object through interaction with it. In order to systematically deal with reality we must extrapolate upon our experience to predict future experiences with the same entity. We form what may be called prejudices or stereotypes. In a past experience I remember that I did not like tuna. I may extrapolate that I still do not like tuna. I may or may not be correct but I have a reference point. And as always, the eternalist craves to know when he is wrong so that he can correct himself and not be wrong in that point again.

Because we have finite experience with entities our knowledge of the nature of the entities is incomplete. We will be wrong from time to time in our assumption about the nature of the entities but we must start with what we know by experience and always be glad to gain more experience and more knowledge. As we gain more experience and more knowledge about an entity we will be wrong in predicting its nature less and less frequently.

A thing is what it is and cannot be other than what it is. A is A, A was A and A will always be A unless some causal force changes the nature of A into another entity defined by A and the nature of the causal force. Sawing a wood board in two creates two boards, not a chicken or a ship or anything else.

Spiritual Holocaust

There seems to be a ubiquitous undercurrent of 'love' and 'peace' in modern culture. I'm not exactly sure what these 'love' and 'peace' are, but I do know that the majority of people espousing them live miserable and frenzied lives. If these are the fruits of love and peace then let it be known: I want nothing to do with them.

It's so easy to lose focus of priorities in life. We get caught up in incidental details of our lives and forget that that's just what they are: minute details that were originally designed to bring us closer to our ultimate goals. What are the ultimate goals of the eternalist? The happiness of number 1. Pure and simple. Now it's true that I will donate time and talents to helping those around me, but that is done because I know the 'sacrifice' will lift me up. It will bring me closer to my ultimate goal. When I examine possible pursuits in life (whether daily, weekly, yearly or lifetime pursuits) the first and foremost question to have answered is 'how is this endeavor going to increase my quality of life?' The amount of time and attention devoted to it is adjusted according to how directly it brings me to my goal.

I have heard many 'religious' people attempt to explain hardship or troubles in life as the 'will of God.' I have even read one figure who is quite popular in the mainstream for supposed spiritual virtues speaking of and embracing a Spiritual Holocaust as though some how it would bring one closer to God. The very idea is an offense to all self-respecting rational beings. Once again: any being that would will your misery in any degree is the foulest, most disgusting sort of creature. Such a being is a much more natural definition for 'enemy' than 'God.'

In traditions of God the Nitpicker, there are large numbers of strict rules (rather than principles) that define wrongdoing. In such a tradition it would be relatively easy to find a possible exception to the rule: where a majority of people would agree that the right or ethical thing to do in a particular set of circumstances would be to break the rule or commandment. Now imagine such a situation but on a large scale: imagine a situation where if you, personally, were to perform a single action you would guarantee the eternal well-being of your family and friends. But in the very completion of the act you would damn your own soul to misery forever. If you honestly believe that people go to a better place in death, why not send them there now yourself? You would be a savior would you not? Would this not be a supreme manifestation of love and service on your part?

If you believe that the point of life is service, then serve all the way to your hell. If you believe the point of life is to be miserable for the sake of others, by all means go ahead. No person can serve two masters. Your life will always have a central focus and you will always reap the natural rewards for your actions and the intent for which they were performed. The central focus can be happiness or something else. Simple. The self has and must always have primacy over others. Your happiness must have primacy over all else. That is, the end reason for all action is to bring about happiness. Service, compassion, generosity and all else are a means to that end and are not the ends themselves. Notice that when properly applied, the parent giving their life to save the child is correct; the soldier jumping on the grenade to save his friends is correct. These actions presuppose the immortality of the soul and eternal nature of character and exemplify the virtue of primacy of self.

Peace and love and joy, in their true sense, cannot be realized until we each establish a philosophy centered on our own happiness. If we each do what will make us happy, by lifting those around us, developing character and living a life of achievement extolling the honor of work of the hands and mind then we will have achieved something great indeed.

In Fear Is No Way To Live

We have so far assumed the law of causality and individual desire for happiness. Causality implies the consistency of reality, consistency of truth. The primacy of reality has been asserted in that everything that is real is bound by the natural laws of reality. It was shown that if a God were to exist he must abide within reality and be bound by reality.

It was just shown that since believing in a God will lead to a better life than not and since living by truth must always be followed by greater happiness than living by a falsehood (opposition to reality), a God does exist. Now we must begin to establish what this God is and what it is not.

The entire argument is based on a God that we are better off for having. The first defining attribute of God then must be that God is a being whose existence enriches our existence. This is the type of God that belief in will lead to a more happy life than not believing in.

A God being has two motivation potentials: fear and joy. These are completely opposite motivation styles and are not mutually compatible; a being that motivates by fear cannot also motivate by joy and vice versa. A God who motivates by fear would threaten things that are feared by people. Separation from loved ones, loneliness, destruction, abyss, the unknown are possible threats. All of these have been threatened by supposed Gods in history. A God who would will your misery is a bastard of the foulest kind. This God does not enrich your existence and cannot be God. In fear and misery is no way to live. These things can only be indicators of attempting to live in opposition to reality and the source must immediately be found and corrected.

A God who motivates by joy would do things that earn trust, that demonstrate to us how accomplishing his will accomplishes our goal of happiness. This God must be tried. Experiment is the only way to rationally build trust and what might be called faith. Faith in its true sense is believing something that is true, rationally and causally defined. It is possible to believe something is true without yet knowing how it's true; without knowing all the causal relationships that make it true. But those causal relationships must surely exist and an explanation that is wholly in harmony with natural law will be forthcoming for all true principles if sought. Those who seek the principles have faith; those who do not seek are blind and faithless regardless of the truthfulness of the principles. God must earn our trust, little by little, just like any other person. The God who will enrich our lives is different in that he will never let us down, never do anything to setback our trust like people would from time to time. This type of God surely does enrich our lives by providing an anchor to our character and establishing a perfectly happy being which we can emulate; he would want us to emulate him because his happiness is increased by our happiness.

The God Hunt Continues

The time seems right to approach and consider a very fundamental question. God. First a quick review. We have established the type of god that cannot truthfully be believed in. An inconsistent god; a god that is unknowable, incomprehensible, indefinable, contrary to law, imperfect, undeserving, vengeful, unduly merciful, or in any way deficient. Conversely, the God that can be believed in is perfectly consistent; a being that is comprehensible, definable, real, operates according to universal law, perfectly just, and in every way deserving of admiration.

But first a more basic question must be dealt with. What reasoning is there for the existence of any god whatsoever? The denial of all the inconsistent gods that have been suggested leaves two remaining options. It's either a perfectly consistent God or no god whatsoever.

First, let us examine the main tenants of atheism. Atheism proposes that no god exists. There are many implications that follow from this premise. Among them are the following. First, man is merely a part of a logical progression of natural law; another species among billions. Second, man's existence begins with birth and ends with death. There is no suggestion of an immortal soul or special significance. Third, no ultimate progressional goal exists, only our experiences in this life matter. Obviously there are more implications, however, these three will suffice for the present discussion.

I will examine these points in order. First, man's existence as a coincidental result. The study of science is essentially the study of causation. Science inquires over and over, how does this happen? What makes this occur? Why does it occur in this particular way? Chemists concern themselves with the causal relationships and interactions of different elements and molecular structures. Biologists examine the interactions of species. Physicists characterized and attempt to understand the laws of kinematics and electromagnetics. Each of these sciences works from simple causal relationships back to more and more basic conclusions. However, eventually, the chain runs out. The first cause (essentially the "why" question) in any chain has never been explained. If humanity is simply a inevitable step in a progression of causal relationships resulting from natural law, what set off the progression?

Second, the finite existence of man. Atheism argues for a definite beginning and end to a person's existence. There are a number of problems with this approach. There is not sufficient room to fully consider these problems at present. Currently, only two points will be mentioned. First, the eternal nature of causality and consistency (both of which have already been established) would be violated. The absolute end of an intelligence would supposedly release it from all causal obligations based upon prior choices and negate the consistency of the universe. Secondly, as previously discussed, happiness is my aim. The postulate of an immortal existence of my intelligent self will increase my happiness both in this life and allow for an infinite excess of happiness in futurity. As already shown, a perfect understanding of truth and life consistent with it will result in maximized happiness. Therefore, the postulate of immortality must be true, otherwise a deception would result in increased happiness, an impossibility. I take the immortality of my intelligence as a true premise.

Third, the lack of ultimate aim. Removing a perfect God from the equation results in a life without any necessity for ethics or progression. Without God, everything that exists is completely and utterly pointless. The universe degenerates into essentially a waste of time and hedonism should result in absolute happiness. As hedonism does not result in absolute happiness and a pointless universe could not come into existence according to the law of causality, there is a purpose to this life.

Therefore, I conclude that atheism is not consistent, not logical, does not increase happiness, and is not eternalism. In all truth, atheism as it is generally practiced is lazy. The common atheist has managed to conclude that some particular popular god has an inconsistency and then somehow manages to extrapolate that no god can exist. Rather than explore alternative possibilities or believing in a God that is worth believing, the atheist quits looking. Often the name of science, the most logical of human pursuits, is somehow invoked in this irrational decision with a supposed air of authority. Worse yet, agnosticism entirely denies the ability to know, conveniently releasing a supposed proponent from the obligation to try. Both atheism and agnosticism are simply an incorrect response to the fear of not understanding. The correct response is to think, the only way to understanding.

I conclude, that atheism is false. A multitude of daily evidences speaks to the existence of the consistent, scientific, and logical God. God exists. Now it's time to try and better understand God's attributes.

Habit

Habit is another one of those life-simplifying tools, same as beliefs and prejudices. Habits reduce the amount of time we need to spend planning or deciding what to do with our time. But the trade-off is similar to those for beliefs and prejudices: by reducing the time we need to spend thinking about what we're doing, we may fall prey to stopping our thinking about what we're doing completely.

Good habits enrich life. Being in the habit of getting regular cardiovascular exercise increases the total quality of life. The body adjusts to the habit and releases more endorphins and serotonin in the brain. Habits of planning daily schedules or making regular to-do lists can reduce average long-term mental stress. Keeping a journal can ensure that previously made mistakes are not repeated and also that previously made good decisions are repeated.

Bad habits are addictions. The total quality of life is decreased because of actions that we delude ourselves into thinking will make us happy for at least a little while. All addictions force us to live in opposition to reality: we strive to live in a fantasy where the addiction will make us happy and are made permanently miserable when the fantasy collides with reality as it always must. Fighting reality always guarantees a loss.

Sometimes the same habit can be good, bad or neutral depending on circumstances. What's the intention of the habit? Am I attempting to enrich my own life or to be seen by those around me? What was the source of the habit; did I choose this or is it only what I've always done?

Is it possible to have a bad addiction to something good? I believe everyone can think of an example of someone taking a good thing to excess: the track runner who runs instead of eating or the health-food nut who has become a slave to food labels. The ancient Aristotle believed that virtue and vice were not opposite extremes of one continuum but that either extreme was a vice and the virtue is attaining a mean between the vices. For example, courage is the virtue in between the extremes of cowardice and rashness. All virtues are a kind of moderation.

All habits must also be an iterative reflective process. Is this habit helping me accomplish my goals? If so, can it be modified at all to help me obtain my goals more quickly or efficiently?

Habits, like prejudices, if left unchecked will take us to one extreme or another. In everything we do let us examine what the goal of our action is and how well it is accomplishing that goal. May we always have a reason for every action we take and delight to take full ownership of every choice we make.

Start Where You Are

The realization that you don't know everything can be very unsettling. The realization that authority figures don't know and can't know everything may be even more unsettling. Every person is born into this world believing their parents or guardians are God. The helpless, clueless kid doesn't know how to do anything. He looks around trying to absorb all that is going on and notices these big people who seem to know what's going on. They know how to talk, walk, drive and seemingly everything else.

Then one day the universe is beyond comprehension. We can either run from this realization: convince ourselves that someone in authority does actually have a handle on everything going on (self-delusion) or we may try to run behind a God. No matter how we handle it, the heart is struck with awful fear and dread. And we must choose what we're going to do about it. Escape or push through.

Many people grow up being taught about a God figure. Some jolly being sitting on a cloud playing a harp everywhere and nowhere who happens to care about you enough to offer heaven or threaten hell. Or some variation thereon. But if these old people who let the idea of God enter your head don't actually know everything, how do they know about this God? There are two ways to escape this fear. They both equate to damning the mind; stopping the critical thought process. One is to cling to everything that you thought made sense. Of course you have to stop thinking because you have already concluded that it doesn't make sense but you fear that you won't be able to resolve the inconsistencies if you delve further. So you regress and live in a fantasy.

The other equally mind-numbingly idiotic escape alternative is to rebel against everything you once were taught. It's actually the same thing in the same way that A and -A are the same. Having one is having the other. Rebellion is just as idiotic because when you realize you have no reason for believing something the very obvious corollary is that you have no reason to not believe it.

A logical conclusion would be that where you are is a good place to start. You doubt and question what you already believe and how you live, keep the good things and replace or forgo the bad. Good is that which is consistent with your chosen philosophical foundation and bad is that which is inconsistent with it. Life begins to be an iterative process towards acceptance of and adherence to reality.

A very important caution for those in the pit of uncertainty and doubt: it is the most profoundly unwise thing you can do to limit your future options. You cannot undo something you have done. If it is even in the realm of possibility that one day you may wish you have not done something you are considering to do; don't do it. You can always do something a first time; you can't not do something in the past. Develop your life philosophy and let your choices be yours.

Live forward; love truth; know that you have no bounds.

A Consistent God

God has been a historically troublesome and often foolish idea. God has been an abstract label placed as an explanation for otherwise unexplainable things. Since we live in a causal reality (where reality is everything that can causally affect me and I can causally affect it), every event must and does have an explanation. Moreover all explanations of real events must be consistent. Newton's laws of motion explained the effects of forces on objects but inconsistencies were found between predicted and observed phenomena at high speeds. Therefore it was known that Newton's laws did not encapsulate all the principles of reality. Relativity has filled in the gaps. There is always a causal explanation for any real event. The explanation may not be known yet, but there surely is one. And the principles of the true explanation must be consistent with all other explanations for real events.

God cannot be an explanation for an inconsistency. It's inconsistent. The 19th century scientists did not attribute the inconsistency between Newton's laws and observed data to God tampering with the results, tampering with reality. If a God exists, he must exist within reality and be bound by the laws of reality. A consistent God cannot operate by other than natural laws: to bring about a certain effect the associated cause must be executed.

If anything in reality were inconsistent (including a God) there would never be any evidence for believing anything. I have flipped enough light switches in my life to know that a light will turn on when I flip the switch (assuming the light has not burned out, the electrical connections are sound, etc.). Because of my experience I have come to expect a light to turn on when I flip a light switch. I have discovered the cause and effect relationship through experience. If any principle or power in the universe could operate on inconsistent principles then we would never be able to expect a light to turn on no matter how many times previously we have flipped the switch. Without the law of causality we would not be able to function. Life would be nothing if not impossible.

The reason the many prevalent ideas of God have caused so much trouble is that these ideas of God attempt to remove us from reality or cloud our perception of reality. The only consistent idea of God is one in which his existence enriches our existence. A consistent God would be bound by reality, would have mastered the laws of reality and would endeavor to help us master the laws of reality. Our happiness is maximized when we live according to the laws of reality completely and without exception. If God were anything else we would be better off without him. An existent God that we would be better off without is not a God.

Plato's Premise

Having enjoyed and completely agreed with my compatriot's arguments, the time for contribution has arrived.

Herein I seek to lay out a logical foundation for all further discussion.

Stripping everything else away, removing all preconceived notions, rejecting all priorly held beliefs, forgetting former assurances, questioning every motive, and removing every postulate is entirely necessary to obtaining any meaningful or consistent understanding of reality. And in truth, an understanding of reality can be the only thing of any importance; it is the only real thing.

But what is reality? Reality is the actual, the factual, the perfectly consistent, the unquestionable, and the true. Reality is that realm that may causally affect me and may in turn be causally affected by me. Understanding reality is to see something for what it really is; it is seeing beyond all deception, misconception, or facade.

But why do I care to know reality? What happened to "ignorance is bliss"? I want to know the truth in all things, that is to say, I want to know reality because the only possible way to come to a lasting, meaningful, thorough happiness is to fully align myself with reality, to fully accept the truth and to completely integrate it into myself. And further, to understand reality to the point that it only affects me as I desire and I am able to influence it as I wish.

Think about it. What causes unhappiness? From what does malcontent flow? Unhappiness only results from an inconsistency with reality. We may be unhappy at the death of a friend when we didn't want them to go. We may be unhappy in marriage when our spouse isn't who we wish they were. We may be unhappy at work when the hoped for promotion doesn't come. We may be unhappy with riches because of their limit. We may be unhappy with power because it's still bound. We may be unhappy with praise because it could have been better. In each of these cases, unhappiness either could have been avoided or can still be overcome by a consistent understanding of reality.

But why must everything be rejected so cleanly and completely first? If I am to understand reality then every conclusion I attempt must be based off the surest logic, premises, and foundation I can manage. It is therefore necessary to begin from the very foundation, nothing else can suffice.

But what is the foundation? The only thing beyond all doubt, the only thing that could not be a deception. As Descartes found, it must be based off the fact that I am thinking and therefore I exist. Everything else is under the shadow of doubt and must be entirely subject to question.

But at what point can something be accepted as a truth? When a belief is completely consistent with all other beliefs and may be logically deduced therefrom I will accept it is true. However, upon the first appearance of counter-example or realization of faulty logic, I will reject it. So often, fallacy is clung to where truth could be found out of mere stubbornness to change. I will change as swiftly as possible.

So what is the premise? A is A. Truth is perfectly consistent with itself formerly, now, and forever. No amount of belief, hope, faith, opinion, arguing, stubbornness, pleading, desire, anger, or protest can change it. Better then to learn it. The best thing about the truth is that it is always right. This is Eternalism. Join up.

The Bandwagon and Questioning

We come into this world completely ignorant and helpless. As we grow we learn about the world around us through experience. We learn how to eat, how to sleep and other vital skills. As we become aware of disparities of knowledge or ability between us and those around us, we ask questions and endeavor to learn these new things.

Eventually we come to questions that those older and more experienced around us can't answer or can't explain the answer. A few thousand years ago someone may have asked why the seasons happen. An answer may have been proffered: because it is the will of the gods. Of course it is the gods that periodically bless and curse according to their arbitrary wills.

The first answers are offered to the person that cannot be verified by logic or experience. What's the missing piece? Well faith of course.

Faith has been and probably will continue to be a grossly misrepresented idea. In the previous example the person should have faith that the gods control the seasons arbitrarily according to their wills precisely because there is no evidence; because there is no real reason to believe it. This is not faith. This is the cowardice of a feeble mind.

It is a common trend that beliefs and prejudices pass from parents to children. Or that they become common in a particular geographical region or cultural tradition. Beliefs and prejudices are particularly useful because they significantly reduce the amount of rational deliberation the mind must undertake on a daily basis with everyday situations. But therein also lies the problem. Because it is possible to reduce the mental stress of thinking about moral and ethical issues daily, the person decides not to think at all. The beliefs and prejudices are regarded as absolute truth and anybody's insinuation that they are not absolute and should be questioned is offensive. And "it's just my opinion" becomes the only 'logical' defense.

Opinions are not all equally valid. An opinion held by a majority does not make it true. Where differing opinions occur it should be naturally incumbent on those involved to uncover the underlying principles of the opinions/beliefs. If the conclusions of rational arguments are different then the premises must be examined. My premises will always be the consistency of truth and my desire to be happy.

The beliefs of parents or cultures do not excuse my beliefs. My beliefs are my own and if anyone else shares them I would hope it can only be because we came about obtaining them the same way. I welcome the questioning of my beliefs. If I cannot defend something I believe with a rational argument then I must either modify the belief to something I can rationally defend or eliminate it and search for something else. I would like to become aware of a false belief as soon as possible. A first set of beliefs are chosen then modified throughout life to become better and better approximations of truth. The alternative is choosing an arbitrary set of beliefs and dedicating my life to justifying them.

Eternalism

Eternalism is the philosophy that embraces all truth. Everything that is, that was, or that will be. All truth is self-consistent. Truth must be sought and discovered. New information must be compared to what is already known, and if consistent, may also be true.

The main conviction of eternalism is the lack of absolute conviction. What is believed to be true is regarded as such (life is lived according to and consistent with truth presently known) until a counterexample is revealed or a better or more encompassing/robust truth reveals itself. We live according to what we know now and actively seek better knowledge that our understanding of truth can be constantly expanded and when necessary, corrected. Every truth in heaven, earth or hell is the life philosophy of the eternalist.

Please present me with what you know or believe and your reasons for believing such. I will respond accordingly and vice versa that we both may come to better understand the truth and live accordingly. The premises for any discussion or logical argument can never be that someone or some idea is wrong. Among the fundamental premises that can be used as postulates are that all truth must be consistent and that the individual is seeking happiness. I want to be happy and will do everything I can to be happy. I believe that living according to the truth will maximize my chances of happiness. I have never yet found a counterexample.

Eternalism embraces all the natural laws of the universe, of all that is. Eternalism governs all interactions, all relationships and all consequences of actions. Eternalism is what is left when all self-deception and fantasy is removed. I know what I know because of experience and logical consistency. Knowledge of truth will be expanded by living according to truth already known (increasing experience) and developing my ability to think and analyze events and decisions rationally.

Beginning the God Question

The existence or nonexistence of a God is irrelevant without proper context. I want to be happy. Any idea of God is only useful to me insofar as it can facilitate my happiness.

God must be consistent. God can only exist if there is a philosophy and theology embracing all truth that is consistent with the existence of such a being.

If there is an unresolved inconsistency between God and reality either reality or God cannot exist.

I will define my reality as the only one I know that exists: my Cartesian reality. Things as I perceive them through my senses when my consciousness believes myself to be awake are and can be my only reality. Any other definition would not make sense for me. Reality is my perception of things as they are. Reality is truth as known through the looking glass of my existence; reality is truth as I perceive it through my senses.

Reality exists. Now only God may or may not exist.

What sort of God may exist consistent with himself (for lack of better word) and reality?

It may be useful to test out several globally and historically prevalent ideas of God for consistency with this framework. If a consistent idea exists then that idea should be examined further as a possibly accurate idea of an existent God.

I start with the assumption that there is no God and look for a possible counterexample. I must first assume the lack of a God because to believe in a God without having an idea of God is inconsistent.

God Ideas:
1. God the Punisher
2. God the Gentle
3. God the All-Being
4. God the Many
5. God the Nitpicker
6. God the Distant
7. God the Optimizer