I began my reflection to answer what is the purpose of Life or the design of life from its onset. Judging from what we observe, most people, from birth, seek to live or to overcome death itself. If one does not eat and drink or breathe, then life ceases in a short time. When a person is injured, speedy life-giving interventions are universally sought as the intention is to live or to prevent, delay, and halt death. If one's life is in danger due to a vicious animal or another human attack, it is a fundamental and universal understanding to do what is necessary to save one's life or prevent an early death. This phenomenon is universal and generational, a part of our human design. Across different classes and religious beliefs, the human desire to live persists. The wealthy and the elite are observed to go to exceptional measures trying to preserve their lives and even value their lives much more than those from lower social classes, although, as humans, each one of us, across cultures and classes, desires life and the prevention or delaying of death. We observe the powerful and extra wealthy spend large amounts of wealth to seek the most exotic life-elongating or death-slowing measures, including organ harvesting from lower class individuals to replace deteriorating organs or even consuming certain bodily fluids if they believe it will elongate their life, vigor, or delay death.
In the animal kingdom, we also observe that carnivorous animals find it just to kill and sacrifice a lower life so that they can preserve their own life or delay death. Humans, who are the most complex and intelligent of Earth's creations, sacrifice animals as food to elongate their life, vigor, or delay death. As discussed, among humans, the stronger and more powerful classes even find it justifiable to kill and waste other humans for certain desirable gains, power, or desires they perceive as valuable as life itself, such as organ harvesting, often from economically weaker or less influential classes. In the minds of the elite class, it is justified to harvest organs of those alive to steal the wealth or the strength of the weaker human through deception, coercion, abuse, and manipulation for the wealthy or powerful's personal life benefits.
We can conclude from the discussion that the purpose of the design of life, from the moment of one’s conception, is to elongate life or delay or prevent death. Furthermore, we also find that those more powerful and more affluent are willing to demand sacrifices of other lives, whether animal or even human, to preserve their own life or delay death. In other words, the stronger and more affluent the entity, the greater the demands placed on the weaker, including demands on life itself. In fact, it is common for the elite and wealthy to employ the maximum security measures including bodyguards, military, and human security forces who are trained and expected to sacrifice their own lives in defense of those considered higher class or more influential. For influencers or those in high authority and power, the demand extends to the sacrifice of even the highest form of life—not just animals but other humans, including entire military units, to preserve their lives. Whistleblowers and those who reveal secrets related to these influencers often risk their own lives, even when the revealed secrets result in less severe repercussions for the influencer, such as the partial return of finances stolen by elite scams or minimal imprisonment. Yet, the influencers would demand the life itself of the whistleblower, even though what was revealed was the truth.
We can summarize that the design of life is centered around the endeavor to live and solve the puzzle of permanently delaying and overcoming death. Additionally, those in power, who likewise harbor an extreme desire for life, demand the highest forms of living. This includes demanding human sacrifices, presenting the gift of life itself to those deemed most powerful, symbolizing their grandiose entitlement to power, influence, and value. Therefore, it is imperative to recognize that once we identify the Creator of Life, we should expect that they might demand life sacrifices from humans, particularly when their power, influence, or commands are not met or are challenged. In essence, a deity—whether perceived as benevolent or malevolent—or any significant leader like a king or president, might demand the ultimate sacrifice of life itself from the highest order of creatures, which includes humans.
Logically, we can also deduce that the designer of life must live eternally, possessing the secret to mastering life itself. Our reflections, based on logic and observable evidence, conclude that the design of life is inherently about the desire to overcome death. Thus, sacrifices, including the offering of lives to the Creator, are anticipated. Moreover, just as influential and powerful classes exert their dominance over everything, including human lives, disobedience to their demands is not simply resolved with apologies or minor offerings like the life of an animal; such gifts are deemed trivial because the powerful have ready access to them. Therefore, a satisfactory punishment for defying the highest powers often demands the highest form of life itself, including human life, to demonstrate the severity of the infraction.
For instance, if an animal disobeys a command, mere confinement or punishment is insufficient for a wealthy owner who possesses many such animals; instead, executing the animal manifests the ultimate demonstration of power over its life. Similarly, with humans, a lower-class individual who defies a supremely powerful ruler might be executed to serve as a stark warning to others against disobedience, showcasing the ruler's total control over life itself.
In conclusion, when identifying the Creator of life, we expect that this entity would demand sacrificial offerings, including human lives, and exact the ultimate punishment for any breach of their commands. Since we inherit the propensity for death at conception while simultaneously desiring life and the ability to thwart death throughout our existence, we logically conclude that the Creator designed us with the potential for eternal life. However, this perpetual existence may have been provisionally revoked due to the original disobedience of our ancestors, though the desire for life remains an integral part of everyone’s nature, universally and inherently.
Furthermore, reflecting on the variation of our physical characteristics, we find that adherence to the Creator's Design to overcome death shows that human variations in physical characteristics inherited, and social characteristics either inherited or achieved during life, influence how evaluations and the attainment of permanent life will be realized, whether during life or afterward. If the achievement of overcoming the punishment is assessed during life, then life appears unfair, unequal, unjust, and unwise due to the diversity of inherited features each one is born with and the social class one is born into, which affect the result and outcome if the evaluation is during life. However, when evaluating a shared culture, it seems integral to our being to desire justice, fairness, ethical treatment, non-discrimination, and equality, despite our significant differences. Even the powerful elites exhibit these desires, though they may strip them from us, as evident at least when compared among themselves.
Furthermore, the design of this life, so intelligent and wise, provides us with air, food, light, water, and all our needs, suggesting it must have been created to help us live from the beginning. Observing the movement of the sun, the seasons, and our own bodily functions can only inspire awe at the highest Wisdom and Might that designed us. Therefore, we demand the highest levels of fairness, equality, justice, and logic, regardless of the differences we are born with or lack. The evaluation must be fair, and to achieve that, the reward of permanent life must be attained after life, although the pursuit is ongoing during each one's earthly life.
This perspective serves as another vital reason for those in authority to encourage and allow us the freedom to discuss, exchange opinions freely, and make our choices, as each one pursues a goal greater than any earthly reward or punishment, or the limitations imposed at birth. Those who place obstacles or withhold truth from us, potentially affecting our highest desire, which is permanent life, not only can and deserve to be punished by the Creator and denied the ultimate desire of permanent life, but they also harm those they have affected or encountered during life who served and trusted them. In other words, the impact, either good or bad, is so devastating and everlasting that it should be carefully reflected upon.
Another point we can logically derive through reflection is that due to the vast variations in our inherited features, which are not based on personal merit gained during life, the solution to the desire to live infinitely and overcome death cannot be limited to human suggestions or problem-solving methods. Societies face challenges and propose solutions such as vaccinations to prevent sickness and death; however, upon close investigation, a significant portion of the population may find these solutions ineffective. Comparisons between those who followed the vaccination protocols and those who did not might reveal that the vaccinated group lives sicker or even shorter lives than the unvaccinated. This observation suggests that such solutions are flawed, not universal, not applicable across all generations and cultures, and should alert us that the proposed solution does not align with the Creator’s Design. It is neither divinely wise nor infallible, but rather a human theory, not a Divine Truth or Wisdom. Therefore, we should expect that the Creator's Design to overcome death and achieve eternal life would provide a solution that is wise, just, fair, and transcends cultures and generations. These reflections and logical conclusions should guide us when evaluating others’ or even our own views, opinions, and beliefs before adopting them as reflective of the Creator’s Design when they may actually be flawed or of human origin.
Another important point derived from logical reflection is that if we spend most of our life laboring, engaging in earthly desires, entertainments, issues, hobbies, addictions, and concerns, we lose precious time. Logic indicates that we need to dedicate some of our time on a regular basis, if not daily, to reflect on the Creator's Design and our relationship within it, regardless of our current beliefs, views, and faith. This requires reflection to understand the Creator's Design if we are fortunate and confident that our adopted opinions, views, and faith genuinely reflect the Truth of the Creator's Design. It also involves examining our choices and responses during our life and their alignment with the Creator's Design to sufficiently meet and fulfill the criteria to inherit eternal life, and reflecting on our actions to further align ourselves with the Creator's Design.
Therefore, given the vast variations in our inherited features, age, comprehension, and circumstances, and considering whether we have dedicated sufficient time to reflect on the Creator's Design, it is essential to remain open to discussing our views and reflections. Such discussions might expedite or aid us in our journey. For instance, sharing the reflections we have concluded thus far may assist others who have not dedicated the necessary time to consider these matters, even though the logical conclusions may be reachable by everyone. Since each person's lifespan and experiences during their earthly life differ, we can logically conclude that the aspiration for permanent life is not necessarily granted solely to those who abide by the Creator’s Design, those who choose not to, or those who adhere to untruthful opinions, views, and faith. In other words, while primarily understanding the Creator’s Design or choosing to abide by its requirements appears individualized, each one of us can and should play a role in assisting others in understanding the Creator’s Design, but can never justify outlawing discussions of each other’s reflections or beliefs, nor forcing a belief on others.
For example, if a potion like a vaccine is claimed as a treatment to overcome death, it should never be forced on those who refuse it, as they may choose to accept it later, or the claimed potion may be faulty or even harmful as may be revealed later. Moreover, we cannot be sure that other measures those who reject this vaccine potion have used may not be more effective or equally effective. In fact, allowing those who choose not to subscribe to the assumed vaccine potion that would save, prevent, or solve death to remain unvaccinated lets the users of the potion compare the assumed treatment to what others have elected to choose, further confirming the truthfulness of the treatment. In other words, even when we reach a truthful understanding of the Creator’s Design, those who reject it play a necessary role by choosing not to abide by the means to overcome permanent death. Just because something is good or beneficial does not logically mean it must be obligatory for everyone.
Additionally, for any individual, authority, or group to ban and outlaw the sharing of our opinions, reflections, and faith related to the Creator’s Design, under the pretense of protecting everyone's opinions and freedom of choice, they are in reality targeting and infringing upon our rights and duties to share our views, faith, and opinions with those we love and care about, just as we share our talents, labor, meals, songs, dances, celebrations, or volunteer to defend against aggressors. The true target is often those closest to the truth and logic of the Creator’s Design, while false human points and opinions remain freely practiced, replacing Truth and confusing people, keeping them as servants to limited human ideas, values, and goals.
When authorities outlaw or punish people for sharing their thoughts, reflections, and faith, they are essentially imposing their own opinions and concepts on life as the sole arbiters, permitted to be shared and considered the ultimate judge of what is most important, valued, and conducive to peace among people. The argument that discussions of differing values and faith lead to disagreement and must therefore be outlawed is fundamentally flawed. However, logic indicates that each person is born with varied opportunities and life spans. If the sharing of our gained meditations and faith is prevented or outlawed, then those with erroneous faith or those busy pursuing goals dictated by powerful entities would deprive us of easing the search for each other and fulfilling our obligation to Truth and those we encounter during life. Thus, we become manipulated and used by authorities who may be the enemies of the Creator’s Design and logical Truth.
As such, we further conclude that human solutions and answers to peace and the Goal of life are faulty and even dangerous as they could keep us busy chasing inferior, authoritative goals that prevent us from logically scrutinizing claims passed by voting, political mandates, or biased judicial systems controlled by bribery, intimidation, scams, or dominating media narratives under the guise of peace or harmony. Suppose I live in peace during life but am prevented from discussing and sharing the Creator's Truth to help myself or those I meet during life to solve the Goal of life, to live indefinitely; if I die and permanently lose the opportunity for eternal life, what good does preventing me from finding out the Truth and abiding by it serve, especially when compared to the potential of gaining everlasting life? Therefore, taking regular time to reflect and discuss is logical and vital, particularly since not everyone is fortunate enough to live a long life or to stumble upon the Truth without sharing with others who may have been more fortunate or dedicated more time to reflection on this vital issue.
Another logical point we can derive is that since we observe those who die lose their earthly bodies, we would logically assume that if one were to gain everlasting life, a new body would be necessary—a body immune from aging and deterioration, designed to last an eternal life. This implies that a faith claimed to align with the Creator’s Design and professed as truthful should not drastically contradict or conflict with the logic and evidence we have deduced. If contradictions arise, they should ideally present more compelling logic and be limited to very narrow situations rather than broadly conflicting with most established logic.
Furthermore, the Creator’s Design and the solution to overcome death should be explained logically using familiar scenarios that humans can comprehend, rather than being presented as entirely vague. While our human experiences may be simple compared to the divine and the wisdom of the Creator—regardless of culture and the discoveries of the time—if it is all explained through fantasies and theories utterly foreign to human understanding, it becomes questionable and casts doubt on its truthfulness. Mystery novel writers can imagine extremely foreign galaxies and aliens that no one has ever seen or can logically prove; hence, while any such author may claim their novel represents the Creator's Design and the solution to gain permanent life, it appears illogical as it lacks any relation to human thinking and is confined to the author’s explanation, who themselves lived and died like any other human without proving any of their claims.
In discussing a Divine design that is mysterious in how it solves the mystery of gaining permanent life, some logic or evidence to compel belief is necessary, even though we expect the final understanding to include elements of mystery and supernatural, incomprehensible explanations. Logically, we expect the answer to overcoming death and gaining permanent life to be mysterious, as the design is not attainable during our lifetime nor have we experienced it, but some form of compelling logic or evidence is required to freely believe and accept it. This logical requirement for us to be convinced enough to want to abide by it should not be too demanding to consider, given our conclusion that the Creator is ultimately wise and powerful, capable of resolving this reasonable issue that humans expect in order to faithfully believe.
We do not merely want to believe in any mysterious theory; while it may sound entirely strange, there should be compelling reasons to believe and a higher reason to logically choose belief over rejection, despite the mystery and concerns about the afterlife for which we lack concrete evidence due to no human experience of having lived it. Yes, we expect a mysterious solution and one not fully understood, but we also expect compelling logic and observable evidence to believe and choose to abide by it. At the very least, the compelling logic and observed evidence should be more logical than other opinions, beliefs, and faiths. This also underscores why discussion and sharing of our reflections, views, and faith is vital as it helps us compare which one has more logic and offers better reasons to believe and abide, potentially necessitating us to overcome and reject our own held views, opinions, and beliefs, even if inherited from trusted sources like our parents or expert opinions we admire or trust.
This higher form of truth, based on more robust logic, requires openness to discussions without fear or the threat of retaliation if they differ from expert opinions and those in authority who force them upon us and prevent questioning. Would the expert opinion and the rich or powerful authorities defend us when we are judged fairly and justly by the Creator who designed the means to gain permanent life? No, those claimed as experts and the rich and powerful who threatened us during life and controlled information are afraid to allow their demanded solutions and rules to undergo logical discussions and to face a fair and just judge and court. Therefore, their demands to prevent us from discussing different views, opinions, and faith may be severely harmful to us and cost us a permanent loss of everlasting life for the sake of gaining their approval or their offered salary, bribe, or enticement.
Additionally, we can logically infer from observing that the population decreases the further back in history we travel. In other words, it is plausible to assume that the entire human race originated from very few parents, or perhaps even a single progenitor. If the initial population arose from multiple original parents who were separate and unrelated, we must consider whether the Creator created one set of parents first and then decided to create another. This raises the question of whether the Creator maintained the same characteristics of the first prototype parents in the subsequent creation, or if there were improvements or limitations confined only to the physical characteristics in the creation of the second parent. This prompts us to wonder if, assuming the Creator embodies ultimate wisdom, the original first parent required no improvement through a second parent.
Moreover, we might ponder how long it took the Creator to complete the first parent and then to create a second parent, while the first parent was also producing offspring, or multiple offspring, especially if the Creator spent more than the equivalent of 9 months in earthly timing on the second creation. Additionally, if the Creator fashioned more than one original parent, this might justify the jealousy and conflict between one family and another parallel, independent family, which would contradict the assertion that the essence of the Creator should promote harmony and peace—just as the intelligent design of our various body organs does not involve them competing for space but rather operating in harmony. We also observe harmony in the universal movements of the solar system, and the transitions of night and day, and the seasons, all of which exhibit a wise order to creation.
Furthermore, since we concluded that the Creator represents Life and eternal Life—mirroring our desire to live permanently, albeit having somehow lost this capability but not the original desire—it brings about the possibility that if one of the original human families violated a certain commandment of the Creator and thus merited the inheritance of death, the other original and separate families would have observed the severe punishment for disobeying the Creator’s mandate by an original family and avoided committing the same transgression. However, the logical evidence observed indicates that every human being dies during their earthly life, suggesting that all inherited the same punishment, which leans towards the hypothesis that the origin of the human race must be a single family. Furthermore, if the Creator originally created separate families, it would necessitate separate communications with them, especially if they lived apart and were unrelated.
Additionally, if we assume that the Creator created more than one original family, male jealousy and competition could lead males to fight to the death over leadership or additional mates, potentially resulting in only one family surviving anyway. The logic of having more than one original family does not seem favorable or wise, which might imply an unwise design. Even if we consider the possibility that multiple families were located in far-apart areas, it still does not explain why all humans inherited the same punishment of death during life, which begs the mystery: Did they both deserve the same death punishment at the same time, and should they have received the same communication of the Creator's Design to maintain the essential characteristics of equality, fairness, and justice?
On the other hand, if originally the Creator designed only one family, and then, by disobeying a demand or commandment of the Creator, they merited a singular unified death, this scenario appears to hold a more logical and wiser design especially since the evidence clearly indicates that every human died during their earthly life, pointing to an inherited similar punishment for an inherited similar disobedience.
If some of the offspring were born before a parental disobedience, then it would be unfair for the already born children to inherit death during life when they were too young or had not committed the same disobedience. However, we find that all humans on Earth have inherited death during life, which leads us to expect that if parental disobedience occurred to merit the same punishment of death during life, it would have had to be committed before any of the original family birthed a child.
Additionally, we can reflect on whether the original family both committed the disobedience together or if only one parent did. If only one of the original parents committed the disobedience, it would not be just for the other parent to be equally punished with the loss of permanent life, just as the disobedient parent, since the Creator is expected to abide by the highest possible levels of fairness, equality, justice, and wisdom. As such, we would expect that the original singular parent logically must have committed the same disobedience and done so before any of their children were born, to merit a similar punishment and a similarly designed solution to overcome death.
As indicated, our logic, which is an integral part of our design, should not be contradicted when we examine a dogma, view, opinion, faith, or interpretation to discern which is the most logical truth and which may be illogical but still expects us to hold it equally to logic. Therefore, when we evaluate views, opinions, beliefs, theories, and dogmas, if they are truthful, they should not conflict with the logic and observable evidence we have concluded as logical; logic is also factual and appears universal and generational. If we abandon logic, then views, opinions, dogmas, theories, and those who interpret for us can deceive us or falsely convince us by presenting themselves as the definitive expert opinions and, as such, must be facts regardless of how contradictory they are to the truth. This could deceive us permanently without enabling us to honestly discover and abide by the Creator’s Design to overcome death and gain permanent life. In other words, a lack of logic can waste our time on false opinions, costing us the permanent loss of the opportunity to overcome death.
While certain false opinions may only affect our life on Earth, when our intention is to overcome death itself, false opinions may result in tragic and everlasting loss of the highest desire that is universal, transcending all social classes, cultures, and generations. False opinions or beliefs may keep us chasing after facades and mirages that are opposed to or deadly harmful to the most desirable goal, which is the gain of permanent life itself by overcoming or preventing permanent death.
Finally, if the discussion and conclusion differ from your current beliefs or even offend them, rather than attacking me, you should feel fortunate as somehow our paths crossed and you were exposed to a profound discussion while you are alive and can undertake further research, studies, reflections, and any other necessary actions to either ensure it is false and reject it—assuring yourself that your prior view withstood the discussion and scrutiny—or to consider yourself fortunate to amend and follow it. Either choice you make, the ultimate benefit or loss is yours, just as I value truth, logic, and evidence as equally important for my own journey. In other words, all I offer is love for you and it takes courage to share my reflections and conclusions, especially with those who differ in opinion.