Religion as a coping mechanism

[Koroviev]

I'm open to principled arguments, Koroviev, meaning arguments coming from the view that principles or monads cast their shadows into our minds (monads). The material world is shadow to principled fire.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by this. You are open to arguments from the view that fundamental truths, or gods cast their shadows into our minds? So..no? you're only open to arguments that are based around god? Also, is the idea that we cannot understand anything but what a god would allow us to understand, i.e. the shadow that a god would cast onto our minds?

 

 

Is this wrong? It's the basis for human profit, for human creativity, for a solid basis for political freedom. So, no, that's not wrong. There are many things I don't know, including most principles, but the principle of human creativity in terms of the primary relationship between the creative monad and the universe is not wrong. If it were, I would not bother posting here, or anywhere of any import.

 

Again not sure where this is coming from or what it even means? God is also the basis for creativity and political freedom?

 

 

The arguments never “seem to get anywhere,” because I am operating on the basis of what I have just described, and others are debating their ideology. We're not “on the same page” because there is no principled belief, no belief in principles. We're not working together, we're working at cross-purposes.

 

your arguments are based on god and everyone else is just debating their beliefs which don't have associated fundamental truths? Wouldn't the fundamental truths that everyone you are arguing against be basing their "beliefs" on be that violence is immoral, and you can only know something exists or is true if it  is rationally consistent and empirically supported?

 

again not criticizing just trying to understand.

Your rant reminds of some lyrics from an Aesop Rock song called "Babies with Guns" in which he says:

"If the Jesus piece around your neck is bigger than your pistol

 It makes homicide okie-dokie and your God will forgive you

 Just show the saints at Heaven's gate

 You should be on the list

 I hear he overlooks manslaughter for a tattooed crucifix"

 

First time I head that I got the shivers.

 

That definitely goes along with it nicely, I'd never heard that before. 

 

I wasn't, however, necessarily looking at it from the stand point of I can get away with whatever I want because I can just ask for forgiveness on Sunday (premeditation?), but more of they feel bad about the things they've done up until they ask for forgiveness. More along the lines of "I've made a mistake" religion seems to give you an out without actually having to make amends with those you've wronged.

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't really understand what you mean by this. You are open to arguments from the view that fundamental truths, or gods cast their shadows into our minds? So..no? you're only open to arguments that are based around god? Also, is the idea that we cannot understand anything but what a god would allow us to understand, i.e. the shadow that a god would cast onto our minds?

 

 

 

Again not sure where this is coming from or what it even means? God is also the basis for creativity and political freedom?

 

 

 

your arguments are based on god and everyone else is just debating their beliefs which don't have associated fundamental truths? Wouldn't the fundamental truths that everyone you are arguing against be basing their "beliefs" on be that violence is immoral, and you can only know something exists or is true if it  is rationally consistent and empirically supported?

 

again not criticizing just trying to understand.

 

That definitely goes along with it nicely, I'd never heard that before. 

 

I wasn't, however, necessarily looking at it from the stand point of I can get away with whatever I want because I can just ask for forgiveness on Sunday (premeditation?), but more of they feel bad about the things they've done up until they ask for forgiveness. More along the lines of "I've made a mistake" religion seems to give you an out without actually having to make amends with those you've wronged.

 

Principle, Koroviev, that's what is basic, what should be looked for.  If we can't agree on that we can't agree on anything, and if principles don't exist there's nothing to agree on anyway.  Consider this as a basis for understanding principle and see what you can see.

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2917gauss.html

[Koroviev]

Principle, Koroviev, that's what is basic, what should be looked for.  If we can't agree on that we can't agree on anything, and if principles don't exist there's nothing to agree on anyway.  Consider this as a basis for understanding principle and see what you can see.

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2917gauss.html

 

Right, and as I understand it, at least in this context, a principle is a fundamental truth. Briefly looked at that link and it seems a bit over my head but I should have some time tomorrow to dig more into it.

[Koroviev]

Yeah I saw the angle you were approaching from in your rant. After reading it those lyrics immediately popped into my head so I figured I'd just drop them here even if they didn't match up completely. I think it's a valid point to say people use religion to cope. I myself never believed in a God but did pray a few times in my teens when I felt really hopeless. Also when my dog died the first thing my atheist friend at the time said to me was "He's in doggie heaven now" which incidentally didn't make me feel any better. I think this comes from a deep and desperate desire to have had good parenting in your childhood. When you think about it a lot of the time praying is attempting to comfort your inner child.

 

The example you brought up doesn't quite fit with the point that people use religion to cope with guilt. That's at least my thoughts and hopefully you'll hear me out as to why. Isn't the sort of behavior your father did in a way premeditated? I mean if I freak out and yell at people every time I am on my period and then after the week is over know no one is going to be mad at me or hold me accountable for my shitty behavior because I have this magic "my pussy is a get out of jail free card" that's shitty. If I then refuse to change my yelling over and over again and suggest people are immoral and evil for questioning if my yelling is abusive it makes it that much worse. It's kinda premeditated in the sense that I know what I am like on my period and I never change and revel in the glory of bullying people afterwards. Not only that but getting away with it in a way that makes me feel morally superior! People would probably begin to think I look forward to that time of the month to plan my next attack... Does that make sense? I could be wrong about this.

 

Also another thing I noticed doesn't guilt require empathy? How could your dad have felt guilty if he did those things time and time again, never apologized to you and then if it was ever brought into question that he may have been wrong he verbally attacked and abused you with threats of hell? When I, and any decent person, feels guilt you explore the emotion and what happened; why you might be reacting this way and dig more to see if you had wronged someone. Finally asking for that persons opinion and experience of the situation how they felt and apologize if you had in fact wronged them. Sounds to me more like your dad used religion to be an asshole rather than to cope with anything, least of all guilt. Just my thoughts though. What do you think? I could have very well misunderstood the last reply, if I did please by all means correct me where I went wrong. 

 

Thanks you bring up some really good and really powerful points I think. I definitely see where you're coming from and I think you're absolutely right. It's really not guilt because there's not any empathy (otherwise it wouldn't have been done in the first place). now that I think about it it's more fear than anything else. Fear of what would happen if other people found out, fear of consequences, fear of hell. Not enough fear though to stop the actions all together.

 

At least in your situation you know it is a hormonal issue and can realize and understand that and attempt to fix it. For my dad, well not so much.

[Koroviev]

Principle, Koroviev, that's what is basic, what should be looked for.  If we can't agree on that we can't agree on anything, and if principles don't exist there's nothing to agree on anyway.  Consider this as a basis for understanding principle and see what you can see.

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2917gauss.html

 

Ok, I finally had time to make it through that article and thanks it's a pretty cool and interesting lesson on math history. My question relating it back to this follows. If when you doubled a cube it turned into a living breathing giraffe would Gauss have come to the same conclusion?

[Donnadogsoth]

Ok, I finally had time to make it through that article and thanks it's a pretty cool and interesting lesson on math history. My question relating it back to this follows. If when you doubled a cube it turned into a living breathing giraffe would Gauss have come to the same conclusion?

 

First, I haven't managed to double the cube, whether it's me or it's badly explained or both I don't know.  Maybe you can shed light on that for me.

 

Second, I have managed to put the principle of squaring behind me, so I have a touchstone on a principle; do we both have the same touchstone?  Which relates to my most basic point in this thread.

 

Third, does the giraffe have the volume of the doubled cube?

[Koroviev]

First, I haven't managed to double the cube, whether it's me or it's badly explained or both I don't know.  Maybe you can shed light on that for me.

 

I'm not sure why this matters or is relevant

 

 

Second, I have managed to put the principle of squaring behind me, so I have a touchstone on a principle; do we both have the same touchstone?  Which relates to my most basic point in this thread.

 

Yes the principle of squaring is a principle 

 

Third, does the giraffe have the volume of the doubled cube?

 

The principle of squaring is ONLY a principle because it is rationally consistent and empirically supported. Yes, if when Gauss squared a cube it was a living breathing giraffe every time he would come to the same conclusions, but if it was both a cube and a giraffe and a whale and a rock, or if it sometimes turned into a rock and sometimes turned into an airplane it would cease to be either rationally consistent or empirically supported respectively. Thus something can only be a principle if it is rationally consistent and empirically supported. This makes rational consistency and empirically supported the very first principle.

 

Without rationality Gauss could not have gotten to the conclusions he did, and he was proven correct because he (and everyone else) got the same conclusions every time they did the math.

 

So are you saying that everyone you have discussions with is not using rationality and empirical evidence which is why these conversations never get anywhere, or maybe you have a different definition of principle? Or is there something else I'm missing?

[Donnadogsoth]

I'm not sure why this matters or is relevant

 

 

 

Yes the principle of squaring is a principle 

 

 

The principle of squaring is ONLY a principle because it is rationally consistent and empirically supported. Yes, if when Gauss squared a cube it was a living breathing giraffe every time he would come to the same conclusions, but if it was both a cube and a giraffe and a whale and a rock, or if it sometimes turned into a rock and sometimes turned into an airplane it would cease to be either rationally consistent or empirically supported respectively. Thus something can only be a principle if it is rationally consistent and empirically supported. This makes rational consistency and empirically supported the very first principle.

 

Without rationality Gauss could not have gotten to the conclusions he did, and he was proven correct because he (and everyone else) got the same conclusions every time they did the math.

 

So are you saying that everyone you have discussions with is not using rationality and empirical evidence which is why these conversations never get anywhere, or maybe you have a different definition of principle? Or is there something else I'm missing?

 

The more principles we understand, the more we can understand principle.

 

These conversations never get anywhere, because we are studying different ideological source documents.  What I have studied have led me to principle, including the creative principle of human mentation, as being primary, and sense impressions being secondary generations or shadows cast by the primary interactions of the aforementioned principles.  That is my working hypothesis.  Others appear to rely in empiricism and materialism as primary, that the rock, or the orange, or the computer chip is somehow privileged to be primary, and principles are secondary, mere descriptions of empirical interactions but not above them, rather than true substance, as I hold.

[Koroviev]

The more principles we understand, the more we can understand principle.

 

These conversations never get anywhere, because we are studying different ideological source documents.  What I have studied have led me to principle, including the creative principle of human mentation, as being primary, and sense impressions being secondary generations or shadows cast by the primary interactions of the aforementioned principles.  That is my working hypothesis.  Others appear to rely in empiricism and materialism as primary, that the rock, or the orange, or the computer chip is somehow privileged to be primary, and principles are secondary, mere descriptions of empirical interactions but not above them, rather than true substance, as I hold.

 

So you are saying that when there is a contradiction between what is in the mind and what is in reality (what is material) what is in the mind always wins? Or is it that we as humans cannot know anything?

[Donnadogsoth]

So you are saying that when there is a contradiction between what is in the mind and what is in reality (what is material) what is in the mind always wins? Or is it that we as humans cannot know anything?

 

I'm saying that the principles are primary, and the sense-impressions are secondary. The principles all add up and are non-contradictory, which in total form the totality of truth.* The sense-impressions, however, are subject to paradoxes when compared with any given current state of scientific knowledge, and this paradox is the basis for a new discovery of principle. So the mind is always present as the repository of both principle and sense-impressions, but the principles are the truths we can dig out of the paradoxical earth of the senses.

 

* This totality is inaccessible, but ever-approachable, like a positive infinity is ever-approachable by an increase in a natural number count.

[Koroviev]

I'm saying that the principles are primary, and the sense-impressions are secondary. The principles all add up and are non-contradictory, which in total form the totality of truth.* The sense-impressions, however, are subject to paradoxes when compared with any given current state of scientific knowledge, and this paradox is the basis for a new discovery of principle. So the mind is always present as the repository of both principle and sense-impressions, but the principles are the truths we can dig out of the paradoxical earth of the senses.

 

* This totality is inaccessible, but ever-approachable, like a positive infinity is ever-approachable by an increase in a natural number count.

 

But how do we get the principles if not through sense data. Also, is rational consistency and empirically supported a principle or not?

[Donnadogsoth]

We confront paradoxes produced by comparing sense data with our preconceptions.  The solution is produced and checked by creative reason, a principle, which I imagine must be consistent, and in a sense empirical (even the doubling of the square is empirical), though we don't fancy ourselves empiricists as such, because empiricism is not the end of the matter, principle is the end of the matter.  Beyond this I do not know.

[Koroviev]

We confront paradoxes produced by comparing sense data with our preconceptions.  The solution is produced and checked by creative reason, a principle, which I imagine must be consistent, and in a sense empirical (even the doubling of the square is empirical), though we don't fancy ourselves empiricists as such, because empiricism is not the end of the matter, principle is the end of the matter.  Beyond this I do not know.

 

So, no rational consistency and empirical support is not a principle? What is your definition of a principle?

[Donnadogsoth]

So, no rational consistency and empirical support is not a principle? What is your definition of a principle?

 

Principle is a substance that causes an event to exist or could cause such an event, even if it is presently quiescent.  The squaring principle governs the unfolding existence and positioning of a spiral of increasingly large square roots, for example.  I said creative reason is a principle, but I don't know if that includes rational consistency and empiricism.  It seems it must, doesn't it?  But I don't want to submit that logic is a principle as such, as logic is uncreative.  Rational consistency and empirical verification appear to be necessary to creative reason, but are they separate principles or are they the rotational angle and the squared length respectively of the squaring principle?

[Koroviev]

Principle is a substance that causes an event to exist or could cause such an event, even if it is presently quiescent.  The squaring principle governs the unfolding existence and positioning of a spiral of increasingly large square roots, for example.  I said creative reason is a principle, but I don't know if that includes rational consistency and empiricism.  It seems it must, doesn't it?  But I don't want to submit that logic is a principle as such, as logic is uncreative.  Rational consistency and empirical verification appear to be necessary to creative reason, but are they separate principles or are they the rotational angle and the squared length respectively of the squaring principle?

 

By this definition aren't I a principle? I am a substance that causes events to exist, and can cause such an event. As is my wife, my dog, and everything including things like rocks (if a rock falls and hits another rock it has caused an even to exist). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by logic is un-creative since logic is a concept and concepts cannot be creative. People can be creative. To use logic you have to be creative. But to say logic is un-creative is like saying a rock is un-creative.

 

As far as your question about rational consistency and empirical support goes I do not have enough information to answer this yet. According to the common definition of a principle then they are separate principles (although I'm not sure what relevance this has). However according to your definition of principle they are neither, but the square principle is not a principle either since none of them are substances that causes events to exist or could cause an even to exits. Instead they are all simply concepts.

[Donnadogsoth]

By this definition aren't I a principle? I am a substance that causes events to exist, and can cause such an event. As is my wife, my dog, and everything including things like rocks (if a rock falls and hits another rock it has caused an even to exist). Also, I'm not sure what you mean by logic is un-creative since logic is a concept and concepts cannot be creative. People can be creative. To use logic you have to be creative. But to say logic is un-creative is like saying a rock is un-creative.

 

As far as your question about rational consistency and empirical support goes I do not have enough information to answer this yet. According to the common definition of a principle then they are separate principles (although I'm not sure what relevance this has). However according to your definition of principle they are neither, but the square principle is not a principle either since none of them are substances that causes events to exist or could cause an even to exits. Instead they are all simply concepts.

 

Indeed, we face the monadology of Leibniz, where you and I and many other things are monads and therefore principles under the definition I have given, a substance that causes events.

 

The principle of squaring would indeed be the cause of the unfolding of the square, as best I can tell, just as the principle of sufficient reason is the cause of things having reasons, and the principle of universal gravitation is the cause of gravitic effects.

[Koroviev]

Indeed, we face the monadology of Leibniz, where you and I and many other things are monads and therefore principles under the definition I have given, a substance that causes events.

 

The principle of squaring would indeed be the cause of the unfolding of the square, as best I can tell, just as the principle of sufficient reason is the cause of things having reasons, and the principle of universal gravitation is the cause of gravitic effects.

Don't you think that saying everything is a principle is a bit broad?

[Donnadogsoth]

Don't you think that saying everything is a principle is a bit broad?

 

[shrug] Materialists say everything is material.

 

I'm not sure about feldspar.  It might not be a monad, it might just be faking it.  But, that's for science to decide.

[Koroviev]

[shrug] Materialists say everything is material.

 

I'm not sure about feldspar.  It might not be a monad, it might just be faking it.  But, that's for science to decide.

 

No, as far as I know materialists do not say that concepts are material, I suppose I could be wrong there in which case I'd be having this same discussion with them.

 

So, how is Leibniz' Monadology different from Plato's higher forms? Both say that there is this "place" where the perfect forms of everything "exist" that we can know nothing about, except that it contains the perfect forms of all things. Both say that as soon as things come into being they become imperfect. Both were determinists. Yet there is no possible way that anyone could ever know if this other realm actually exists.

 

This brings us back to the issue of contradictions between what's in the mind and what's in reality. When those contradictions arise one side must defer. Either what is outside of the mind is true or what is inside the mind is true. If what is inside the mind is true then last night I really was riding on a Jamaican humpback whale through space. if what is outside the mind is true then it must be rationally consistent and empirically supported.

 

It is just as likely that there is a realm of perfect forms, as there is a realm of imperfect forms, as there is a realm of opposite forms, as there is of plant forms, and god forms, and dog forms. If we can't know anything about them how can we possibly say that they do exist, or that one is any more ludicrous than the other.

 

On top of that, who's to say what is perfect?? Is the same chair perfect for both me and the 500 pound guy sitting in his mom's basement? what does it even mean to be a perfect rock? Is there a perfect human? is it a man or a woman? Or is it all arbitrary because there is no way to say one way or the other so you can make up whatever rules you want?

 

Are you really saying that none of this is an issue with this theory?

[shirgall]

[shrug] Materialists say everything is material.

 

I'm not sure about feldspar.  It might not be a monad, it might just be faking it.  But, that's for science to decide.

 

Materialists don't say concepts are material, they just feel that real things you can touch are more important than the so-called spiritual values. to them concepts don't "exist", but they can still be talked about by materialists. Your analogy doesn't really apply.

[Donnadogsoth]

No, as far as I know materialists do not say that concepts are material, I suppose I could be wrong there in which case I'd be having this same discussion with them.

 

So, how is Leibniz' Monadology different from Plato's higher forms? Both say that there is this "place" where the perfect forms of everything "exist" that we can know nothing about, except that it contains the perfect forms of all things. Both say that as soon as things come into being they become imperfect. Both were determinists. Yet there is no possible way that anyone could ever know if this other realm actually exists.

 

This brings us back to the issue of contradictions between what's in the mind and what's in reality. When those contradictions arise one side must defer. Either what is outside of the mind is true or what is inside the mind is true. If what is inside the mind is true then last night I really was riding on a Jamaican humpback whale through space. if what is outside the mind is true then it must be rationally consistent and empirically supported.

 

It is just as likely that there is a realm of perfect forms, as there is a realm of imperfect forms, as there is a realm of opposite forms, as there is of plant forms, and god forms, and dog forms. If we can't know anything about them how can we possibly say that they do exist, or that one is any more ludicrous than the other.

 

On top of that, who's to say what is perfect?? Is the same chair perfect for both me and the 500 pound guy sitting in his mom's basement? what does it even mean to be a perfect rock? Is there a perfect human? is it a man or a woman? Or is it all arbitrary because there is no way to say one way or the other so you can make up whatever rules you want?

 

Are you really saying that none of this is an issue with this theory?

 

Materialists hold that the mind is an epiphenomenon, no? So there is some residual “stuff” that materialists consider non-material. Similarly, I consider the residual “stuff” of the senses to be non-principled, or principled in a secondary manner, as it were.

 

Leibniz's monads exist in no place, they are non-local, though it may appear they act on the sensory world in local fashions, as if we demonstrate the catenary principle by using it in the construction of the cupola of the cathedral of Florence. I mean, where are you? You're non-local, though your activity can be localised, the actual “you” aren't anywhere in particular—especially if you're on the telephone, your locality appears less and less. So with the catenary or any principle that exists “nowhere” and “everywhere” though subject only to lawful manifestations.

 

The Platonic forms I am willing to jettison for the purposes of this thread. I believe in them, but it's simpler to argue as if their existence as Plato had them, or as Aristotle had them, were one. I'll calve them off, here.

 

I've never heard Leibniz was a determinist but even if he was it has no bearing on principle.

 

I've never heard Leibniz considered the principles were perfect and the senses were imperfect but it doesn't matter much if it were so. I have already implied a kind of imperfection in the senses due to their secondary and misleading nature.

 

About your Jamaican whale, it's only convention that considers dreams “inside the mind” and waking sensuousness “outside the mind”. Both dream and waking life are products of the same principled interactions, even if the specifically applicable principles differ between realms. And to know we are dealing with a real principle we have to prove it, as by experiment, which implies tests of consistency/repeatability in the empirical realm.

[Koroviev]

And to know we are dealing with a real principle we have to prove it, as by experiment, which implies tests of consistency/repeatability in the empirical realm.

 

Thank you, this is the absolute and fundamental key. That which is real, that which exists, and that which is true must be able to be proven through tests of consistency and repeatability. Outside of that is unknowable and has no bearing on us.

[Donnadogsoth]

Thank you, this is the absolute and fundamental key. That which is real, that which exists, and that which is true must be able to be proven through tests of consistency and repeatability. Outside of that is unknowable and has no bearing on us.

 

We agree with your first and second sentences.

 

Your last sentence I take issue with.  The totality of the truth is unknowable but has bearing on us as we strive towards it.  For analogy, take the economic development of the Earth.  We don't know how much we can develop it, because we can't see all ends, and don't know all principles.  But we do know there is no known principle stopping us from developing it indefinitely.  Similarly, we do know there is no known principle stopping us from attaining to ever-increasing levels of knowledge.  So in that sense, the unknowable does have bearing on us, as if it were a principle, by showing us a path of infinite development.

Materialists don't say concepts are material, they just feel that real things you can touch are more important than the so-called spiritual values. to them concepts don't "exist", but they can still be talked about by materialists. Your analogy doesn't really apply.

 

Materialists say principles are secondary, matter is primary.  I say that principles are primary, matter is secondary.  That is, the senses show the shadows cast by the interactions of the sum of principles in the universe.  These two views appear to me directly inverse.

[shirgall]

Materialists say principles are secondary, matter is primary.  I say that principles are primary, matter is secondary.  That is, the senses show the shadows cast by the interactions of the sum of principles in the universe.  These two views appear to me directly inverse.

 

Your previous assertion was that "Materialists say everything is material." I pointed out this was not an applicable simplification.

[Donnadogsoth]

Your previous assertion was that "Materialists say everything is material." I pointed out this was not an applicable simplification.

 

And you said I said "everything is a principle" which is also an inapplicable simplification.

[shirgall]

And you said I said "everything is a principle" which is also an inapplicable simplification.

 

Where did I say that?

[Koroviev]

Your last sentence I take issue with.  The totality of the truth is unknowable but has bearing on us as we strive towards it.  For analogy, take the economic development of the Earth.  We don't know how much we can develop it, because we can't see all ends, and don't know all principles.  But we do know there is no known principle stopping us from developing it indefinitely.  Similarly, we do know there is no known principle stopping us from attaining to ever-increasing levels of knowledge.  So in that sense, the unknowable does have bearing on us, as if it were a principle, by showing us a path of infinite development.

 

Are you saying that there are things that are not logically consistent, keeping in mind that things can be counter-intuitive but still logically consistent, and not supported empirically that we could potentially know and that has an effect on our reality?

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you saying that there are things that are not logically consistent, keeping in mind that things can be counter-intuitive but still logically consistent, and not supported empirically that we could potentially know and that has an effect on our reality?

 

The Truth is consistent, it always remains the same, and has an observable effect on the universe, seen by the universe's continual activity.  But the Truth is something we do not know in the same way we know the principle of universal gravitation.  We know it in a negative sense of there always being more to know, and thus to strive for.  No?

[Koroviev]

The Truth is consistent, it always remains the same, and has an observable effect on the universe, seen by the universe's continual activity.  But the Truth is something we do not know in the same way we know the principle of universal gravitation.  We know it in a negative sense of there always being more to know, and thus to strive for.  No?

 

I don't know what you mean by "Truth."

 

As we agreed to above we know something is true because it is logically consistent and empirically supported. Thus that which is not logically consistent and not empirically supported is not true, or does not exist. This does not mean we know everything, or even that we could ever know everything, whatever that even means. What it does mean is that that which is not logically consistent and cannot be empirically supported cannot exist. We can also say that even if there are things that we cannot understand because they have no impact on our reality are no different from not existing because they cannot be empirically supported (and usually they aren't logically consistent either).

[Donnadogsoth]

Where did I say that?

 

Sorry, that was Koroviev who said it.

I don't know what you mean by "Truth."

 

As we agreed to above we know something is true because it is logically consistent and empirically supported. Thus that which is not logically consistent and not empirically supported is not true, or does not exist. This does not mean we know everything, or even that we could ever know everything, whatever that even means. What it does mean is that that which is not logically consistent and cannot be empirically supported cannot exist. We can also say that even if there are things that we cannot understand because they have no impact on our reality are no different from not existing because they cannot be empirically supported (and usually they aren't logically consistent either).

 

"Truth" as in sum of all principles, including the Origin.

 

There are an infinity of principles not known which nevertheless exist and affect us, in principle, but they are consistent and can be empirically supported, also in principle, so they must not be excluded from our scope of affairs.  They merely lurk, acting undetectably or apparently randomly on our sensoria, until such time as they are discovered by science or art.

 

Your last sentence evokes Leibniz's principle of identity of indiscernibles.  And this seems to apply greatly in clearing away a lot of metaphysical rubbish from our thinking, paranoid ideas about what if undetectable particles exist beyond all possible purview, etc..

 

But, I must exclude from this rubbish heap God, or the Origin of origin, preceding truth and existence.  God is a special case, and one of the few things we can know of God is that, as per the principle of identity of indiscernibles, there is only one of Him.  God is not logical, for He precedes and defines logic, but neither is He illogical or chaotic.  Empirically, He precedes and defines empirical effects.  So, He affects us in terms of being the Origin, in terms of embodying Truth, and in terms of defining a teleology of Soul. With this exception, which is so strange that “existence” doesn't strictly apply to It, and Its ramifications, I would agree with you about “that that which is not logically consistent and cannot be empirically supported cannot exist” in terms of mundane and virtually-universal usage of the word “exist,” and that “We can also say that even if there are things that we cannot understand[,] because they have no impact on our reality are no different from not existing because they cannot be empirically supported (and usually they aren't logically consistent either),” again with the exception that, super-Naturally, the Origin does have impact on our reality by allowing that reality to exist.

[Koroviev]

Sorry, that was Koroviev who said it.

 

"Truth" as in sum of all principles, including the Origin.

 

There are an infinity of principles not known which nevertheless exist and affect us, in principle, but they are consistent and can be empirically supported, also in principle, so they must not be excluded from our scope of affairs.  They merely lurk, acting undetectably or apparently randomly on our sensoria, until such time as they are discovered by science or art.

 

Your last sentence evokes Leibniz's principle of identity of indiscernibles.  And this seems to apply greatly in clearing away a lot of metaphysical rubbish from our thinking, paranoid ideas about what if undetectable particles exist beyond all possible purview, etc..

 

But, I must exclude from this rubbish heap God, or the Origin of origin, preceding truth and existence.  God is a special case, and one of the few things we can know of God is that, as per the principle of identity of indiscernibles, there is only one of Him.  God is not logical, for He precedes and defines logic, but neither is He illogical or chaotic.  Empirically, He precedes and defines empirical effects.  So, He affects us in terms of being the Origin, in terms of embodying Truth, and in terms of defining a teleology of Soul. With this exception, which is so strange that “existence” doesn't strictly apply to It, and Its ramifications, I would agree with you about “that that which is not logically consistent and cannot be empirically supported cannot exist” in terms of mundane and virtually-universal usage of the word “exist,” and that “We can also say that even if there are things that we cannot understand[,] because they have no impact on our reality are no different from not existing because they cannot be empirically supported (and usually they aren't logically consistent either),” again with the exception that, super-Naturally, the Origin does have impact on our reality by allowing that reality to exist.

 

That is completely fine. There absolutely can be "special cases." However, if there is a special case you have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, I  can use the same logic you used to say that Santa Clause is a special case, as are leprechauns, and unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster, all of which are just as likely to be "special cases" as any of the gods. 

[Donnadogsoth]

That is completely fine. There absolutely can be "special cases." However, if there is a special case you have to be able to prove it. Otherwise, I  can use the same logic you used to say that Santa Clause is a special case, as are leprechauns, and unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster, all of which are just as likely to be "special cases" as any of the gods. 

 

If the Santa, the leprechaun, the unicorn, or the FSM were postulated to have the qualities of the Origin, then their names would be a reference to that Origin.  In a sense, it doesn't matter what the Origin is called.  Identity of indiscernibles, and all that.

 

As to entities that are not the Origin but may be "special cases," I agree with you.

[Koroviev]

If the Santa, the leprechaun, the unicorn, or the FSM were postulated to have the qualities of the Origin, then their names would be a reference to that Origin.  In a sense, it doesn't matter what the Origin is called.  Identity of indiscernibles, and all that.

 

As to entities that are not the Origin but may be "special cases," I agree with you.

 

Everything that cannot be proven is not true unless it is in the category of creator then it refers to god? But there's no proof for god and no fundamental difference between god and anything else that cannot be proven except that god is in the creator category.

 

All of this being said, we can go back to your original statement, which was that you are arguing principles and everyone you argue with is arguing their beliefs.

 

A principle, as I think most people here understand it, is a fundamental truth. It is the job of philosophy, and science and math, to apply those principles to reality. This is how Gauss came up with his squared cube. He knew there was a principle of squares so he applied it to places others had not. As well as how scientists come up with, and disprove theories, and how we can all know whether or not something is true.

 

A belief is when you have an exception to something that is true without proof that exception does exist, especially when that exception cannot exist.

[Donnadogsoth]

The Origin of the origin satisfies the intellect's desire for a sufficient reason for the universe to exist.  Without the Origin the universe violates the principle of sufficient reason.  Other unproven things have no such claim to such importance.

[Koroviev]

The Origin of the origin satisfies the intellect's desire for a sufficient reason for the universe to exist.  Without the Origin the universe violates the principle of sufficient reason.  Other unproven things have no such claim to such importance.

 

Not sure what you mean wit the difference between Origin and origin. Santa Clause satisfies an intellect's desire for magic to exist but that does not mean that Santa exists. An interstellar sneeze satisfies the intellect's desire for a sufficient reason for the universe to exist. Yes there absolutely does have to be some origin to the universe, but that does not mean that origin had to be a being. It does not mean it had to be on purpose, it does not mean that if it was a being that being ever had or continues to have any concern for the universe whatsoever. All that it means is that it has some origin. Thus we have to assume that that origin is consistent with the principles we know are not contradicted or contradict-able until there is sufficient proof otherwise.