The true nature of the creator of the cosmos

[Mycroft]

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.

 

[heart]

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.

This is where people go wrong. The jump from something personally meaningful to trying to make it universally meaningful.

 

[Mole]

...let us, the members of this message board, now band together in spreading far and wide the Truth of Steve.

For the Truth of Steve leads us ineluctably to the Life of Brian.

And whenever I don't know what to do I always ask myself, "What would Brian do?".

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

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.

I'm afraid the strained logic on display here is far more specious than that of any of the religious people it is intended to mock.

 

[Mycroft]

I'm afraid the strained logic on display here is far more specious than that of any of the religious people it is intended to mock.

Oh really?

 

[Ginkgo]

This is where people go wrong. The jump from something personally meaningful to trying to make it universally meaningful.

YES. BINGO.

I mean, to understand what you just said on a superficial level is one thing, but to know it from actually experiencing it and dissecting that flaw is another.

This thread is attempting to extract the meaning and substitute it for something erroneous so that we may understand the pitfalls of meaning for the sake of universal.. inconsistency? Viewpoint analysis. Ontological argument, as you would call it. I need to stop synthesizing my own definitions for shit.

Bravo.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

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.

Have you ever considered that your experience might be a total figment of your imagination? The only way that your experience can truly be as you say is to prove it to me, a complete stranger on the internet.

 

[Chunes]

This is where people go wrong. The jump from something personally meaningful to trying to make it universally meaningful.

nodnodnod

People focus on how their packages are different and forget to open them!

If they did, they'd find that they all contain the same thing.

But this one's green, and that one has a bow, and pretty soon, people start squabbling over insignificant details—precisely in the attempt to impose personal understanding onto others.

People mistake the conveyance of understanding as understanding itself.

 

[Andy]

For the Truth of Steve leads us ineluctably to the Life of Brian.

And whenever I don't know what to do I always ask myself, "What would Brian do?".

He'd look on the bright side of life.

 

[Mycroft]

This is where people go wrong. The jump from something personally meaningful to trying to make it universally meaningful.

More pointedly, they fail to recognize the boundary between reality and the contents of their respective imaginations.

 

[Chunes]

If only it were so simple.

 

[Southern Kross]

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.

:suspicious:

So where is this so-called Steve now?

Exactly where in the Void did he live before he created the universe out of nothingness?

And is he pretty and white like most unicorns?

 

[Blackmail!]

And is he pretty and white like most unicorns?

You mean an ENFP would have created this universe?

Well...

 

[heart]

More pointedly, they fail to recognize the boundary between reality and the contents of their respective imaginations.

The poisonous thing is when people try to enforce something that has meaning for themselves onto others. This includes when atheists do it. Finding meaning and spiritual belief is a vital part of the human psyche and very individual. I can't say it better than he does though:

[YOUTUBE="T-Ab3tlpvYA"]The Folly of Limiting the Psyche[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Beorn]

The poisonous thing is when people try to enforce something that has meaning for themselves onto others. This includes when atheists do it. Finding meaning and spiritual belief is a vital part of the human psyche and very individual.

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?

 

[heart]

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?

I mean enforce, in all the ways that people can enforce something.

 

[entropie]

I mean enforce, in all the ways that people can enforce something.

 

[heart]

Yes, like that.

 

[Beorn]

I mean enforce, in all the ways that people can enforce something.

Does that include belief in universal applicability?

Surely you don't believe all personal beliefs cannot be forced upon others?

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.

 

[milkyway2]

I've been thinking about starting a religion for months but I hadn't come up with a good idea yet. Steve the unicorn is good. Let's convince lots of stupid people to believe in Steve and then tell them that Steve needs their money and if they give their money to Steve he will bestow upon them a little bit of his perfectness and goodness.