The true nature of the creator of the cosmos

[SolitaryWalker]

The revelationists Mycroft lampooned are making a category mistake. Two types of things exist in the world, the mental and the physical. If we want to make an argument about something that exists in the physical world, we have to start with premises based on evidence collected in the physical world. Similarly, if we want to discover facts about the mental world, we'd need to start with observations of mental experiences. The fact that I had a dream about a dragon may mean something about my mental world, namely the fact that I have imagined a dragon. However, the dragon has been observed in my mental and not the physical world, hence, it can't be used to prove any conclusion about the physical world. The only way this would not be so is if we knew that there is no distinction between the mental and the physical, or that the mental parallels the physical in all cases. However, that is not so. Many entities conceived first in our minds do not mirror the physical world. For example, I can imagine dragons and unicorns, but this does not show that such creatures exist in the physical world. Thus, it is a mistake to assume that because I imagined that Steve the unicorn is the creator of the universe that he truly is the creator of the empirical, physical world that we inhabit.

 

[Chunes]

What do you mean by "enforce"?

Am I forcing my beliefs onto others by simply believing that the tenets of my faith are universally applicable?

Yes, though particularly when you make that belief vocal.

The only thing that's universal is that the conveyance of understanding takes forms too differing for us to identify as universal. There is practically no commonality between what makes one wise and what makes the other wise, moral precepts or not. And yet underneath all the window dressing there would seem to be that perfect essence of universality, but people are usually too ignorant to understand how it interplays with the subjective side of things.

 

[heart]

I believe that human life is valuable and that murder is morally wrong. I support a state that enforces my values through imprisoning people who murder.

Apart from anarchy I don't know how individual beliefs cannot be forced upon others.

I never made any comments about laws governing human behavior for the sake of safety and order in society. I was speaking strictly of spiritual beliefs.

 

[Chunes]

The revelationists Mycroft lampooned are making a category mistake. Two types of things exist in the world, the mental and the physical. If we want to make an argument about something that exists in the physical world, we have to start with premises based on evidence collected in the physical world. Similarly, if we want to discover facts about the mental world, we'd need to start with observations of mental experiences. The fact that I had a dream about a dragon may mean something about my mental world, namely the fact that I have imagined a dragon. However, the dragon has been observed in my mental and not the physical world, hence, it can't be used to prove any conclusion about the physical world. The only way this would not be so is if we knew that there is no distinction between the mental and the physical, or that the mental parallels the physical in all cases. However, that is not so. Many entities conceived first in our minds do not mirror the physical world. For example, I can imagine dragons and unicorns, but this does not show that such creatures exist in the physical world. Thus, it is a mistake to assume that because I imagined that Steve the unicorn is the creator of the universe that he truly is the creator of the empirical, physical world that we inhabit.

I find this interesting, especially in the context of your signature. The apparent contradiction doesn't bother me, since existence is inherently contradictory, but I'm curious what you think about Spinozism. The physical and the mental are too married to be reliably discernable, and would better be described as woven from the same fabric. What would you think if I said anything you can possibly imagine exists somewhere other than your own thoughts? What if you weren't able to fathom a concept if it didn't preexist solidly? The quoted line of reasoning would cease to hold any meaning.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I find this interesting, especially in the context of your signature. The apparent contradiction doesn't bother me, ..

There is no contradiction, even if I did endorse all of Spinoza's views, there would be no contradiction. Nothing in his metaphysics implies that any entity that we have imagined actually exists in the physical world.

since existence is inherently contradictory, but I'm curious what you think about Spinozism. The physical and the mental are too married to be reliably discernable, and would better be described as woven from the same fabric..

Spinoza held that the the mental and physical entities are inextricable from one another. This means that every physical entity is mental to a certain degree. The explanation for why the case is such is metaphysically complex and because I have not read Spinoza for several years, I may have a mistaken conception of it.

Spinoza holds that the ultimate reality of the Universe is singular; it is known as the substance or God or nature. It is neither physical nor mental and in modern philosophy known as neutral monism. I don't have much sympathy with this. Even if the ultimate reality of the universe is singular, it does not follow that it is neither mental nor physical. It could be purely physical or an infinite plateau of space. I just don't see any reason to believe that some entities are neither physical nor mental.

Even if neutral entities existed, there wouldn't be a good reason to believe that purely imaginary entities also exist. In Spinoza's neutral monism, merely the ultimate reality is neither physical nor mental, but that does not apply to entities that we experience directly.

What would you think if I said anything you can possibly imagine exists somewhere other than your own thoughts?.

Good luck.

What if you weren't able to fathom a concept if it didn't preexist solidly? The quoted line of reasoning would cease to hold any meaning.

Why wouldn't you? Does adopting this principle help us explain anything about the world that we wouldn't be able to explain without it?

 

[Chunes]

It explains why we can't think of concepts that don't exist in our reality.

 

[foolish heart]

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God.

 

[Ayeaye]

Many years ago, at a time of great confusion and difficulty in my life, the nature of the true creator of the cosmos was revealed to me in a moment of cathartic revelation: the true creator of the cosmos was a unicorn named Steve, who of His unlimited compassion beamed the universe from the horn atop His head. This experience was of such profound emotional impact, and accompanied by such clarity of vision and tremendous relief, that its truth was undeniable.

Sadly, in the years that have followed, as I've attempted to spread the word of this truth, I've had to endure mockery and abusive comparisons to some sort of nonsensical invisible man in the sky, mermaids, and even purposely-ridiculous "Flying Spaghetti Monsters". I've sought to impart the depth of the emotional impact and profundity of this revelation to others only to be accused of a lack of an empirical basis -- as though mere sense perception could be adequate to grasp the truth of Steve.

Then one day, in another moment of revelation, it occurred to me: an undeniable proof of Steve's existence. "Perfection", being after all perfection, would surely include "existence" within its definition. Steve, after all being the creator of the cosmos, must be perfect. Therefore, it cannot be logically denied: Steve exists, and he is the true creator of the Cosmos.

Having demonstrated this truth beyond any question, let us, the members of this message board, now band together in spreading far and wide the Truth of Steve.

lol

 

[matmos]

Some Like It Hot

Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God.

Of course limiting the quote to the first sentence is an old trick.

The full quote is:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” - They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.

Try Matthew 5:22 for size. Fill yer boots.

Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Some like it hot, Luckyman.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

It explains why we can't think of concepts that don't exist in our reality.

That depends on how you define a reality. If you define reality as the physical world, then your statement is false. We can think of dragons, but noone has yet observed a dragon in the physical world, nor found a reason to believe in him. If you define reality as everything that exists, than dragons can exist in our mental world. However, why not claim that they are something that we've just made up. Our mind has a certain structure, it can conceive of things that we can find in the world and it can conceive of things that probably don't exist. So, the fact that we can imagine dragons is best attributed to how our mind works rather than to the discovery that dragons exist somewhere in the world.

Altogether, I don't see why we need to believe that because we can imagine something, it must exist somewhere in the physical world when we can simply claim that we can imagine things like dragons because of how our mind works. Again, what does this principle help us explain that we cannot explain without it? It only introduces theoretical complications that we can do without; it therefore should be eliminated with Occam's razor. For the sake of avoiding unnecessary complications, its best that we choose a simply theory rather than the complex one unless the complex theory has explanatory power that the simple one lacks.

 

[sculpting]

Could this be Steve?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Could this be Steve?

You blasphemer, how dare you besmirch Steve's infinite holiness by portraying Him in such a putrid fashion!? Steve is far too great to be pictorially represented!

 

[Beorn]

Yes, though particularly when you make that belief vocal.

The only thing that's universal is that the conveyance of understanding takes forms too differing for us to identify as universal. There is practically no commonality between what makes one wise and what makes the other wise, moral precepts or not. And yet underneath all the window dressing there would seem to be that perfect essence of universality, but people are usually too ignorant to understand how it interplays with the subjective side of things.

Unbelievable. I will be starting another thread on this topic at some point in the future.

 

[Mycroft]

Could this be Steve?

Well now you've gone and done it. Followers of Steve know it's an act punishable by death to post blasphemous images of Him.

Incidentally, they know this because I told them, and I told them because I just know. Simple logic.