Theory of Monism Panpsychism

12 years ago I posted this thread;

Monopantheism - Philosophy Forums / Religion and Spirituality - I Love Philosophy

the following is the updated work;

This is a research project to investigate the theory of proving monism panpsychism from theoretical logical tautologies of the empty set, and correlated scientific facts about energy, power, and consciousness.

|-(∃!{}), assuming nothing, it follows that there is an assuming. This particular assuming, having no content, amounts to the existence of one empty set or the concept nothing.

({}≡{}), nothing is nothing; Law of Identity

({}={}), nothing equals nothing

({}→{}), nothing implies nothing; Reflexivity of Implication

({}:{}→{}), nothing has the property of nothing; Identity Morphism

(∃{}→∃{}), nothing exists as nothing

({}>>{}), nothing causes nothing

({}⊃{}), nothing is made of nothing

1???, nothing is nondescript

2???, nothing is nonexistence

3???, nowhere and at no time has nothing existed

Fundamental theorem of ontology;

[|-(∃!{})]⇒[({}≡{})]⇒[({}={})∧({}→{})∧({}:{}→{})∧(∃{}→∃{})]

({}={})∧({}→{})

nothing equals nothing and nothing implies nothing

ergo nothing is not implicated with something

Note; “nothing is not…”, is the contraposition of “everything is…”

ergo everything is implicated with something

Note; Two or more things that are in a way implicated with each other can be understood as one thing implicated with itself. e.g. If a group of cells (such as the ones that make up your body) are in a way implicated with each other, they can be understood as one thing (namely your body) implicated with itself i.e. you are cybernetic.

ergo something is self-implicated

Note; Relevant implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation. Since everything is implicated here it is impossible for there to be missing variables for this correlation. Therefore this correlation is causation.

ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.

Note; “causal” is not in the same declension as “caused”; the latter refers to an event in time, the former refers to a process through time. Self-causal means self-deterministic or teleological. Self-determinism is consciousness.

**[({}={})∧(id{}:{}→{})]**⇒1???

nothing equals nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is nondescript. - Something is self-descriptive.

Note; Endomorphic self-description is self-manifestation.

**[({}={})∧(∃{}→∃{})]**⇒2???

nothing equals nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing is nonexistence. - Something has the particular characteristics of existence.

[({}→{})∧(id{}:{}→{})]⇒({}⊃{})

nothing implies nothing and nothing has the property of nothing

ergo Nothing is made of nothing. - Everything is made of something.

[({}→{})∧(∃{}→∃{})]⇒({}>>{})

nothing implies nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nothing causes nothing. - everything causes something.

**[(id{}:{}→{})∧(∃{}→∃{})]**⇒3???

nothing has the property of nothing and nothing exists as nothing

ergo Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. - Something has always existed everywhere.

One thing is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence.

Proof–The true definition of a thing neither involves nor expresses anything beyond the particular characteristics of the thing defined. From this it follows that–No definition implies or expresses how many individuals of the defined thing exist. There is necessarily for each individual existent thing a cause why it should exist. This cause of existence must either be contained in the particular characteristics and definition of the thing defined, or must be postulated apart from such definition. If a given number of individuals of a particular thing exist, there must be some cause for the existence of exactly that number, neither more nor less. Consequently, the cause of each of them, must necessarily be sought externally to each individual thing. It therefore follows that, everything which may consist of several individuals must have an external cause. And, as it has been shown already that existence appertains to the particular characteristics of something, existence must necessarily be included in its definition; and from its definition alone existence must be deducible. But from its definition we cannot infer the existence of several things; therefore it follows that there is only one thing that is self-causal and has the particular characteristics of existence. Q.E.D.

[adaptation from the end of Note II, PROP. VIII, Of God, Spinoza’s Ethics]

Reality has the particular characteristics of existence (which is one thing that is also self-causal). Therefore everything is made of one thing. But self-causal means self-deterministic. In other words, it is consciousness. Therefore reality is a monism panpsychism.

Nowhere and at no time has nothing existed. Therefore this one thing has always existed everywhere.

Every cause (and every effect) of reality is part of the self-causal aspect of reality. Therefore the monism panpsychism (that is eternal and omnipresent) is also omnipotent.

Therefore an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent consciousness-substance exists.

This is also a research project to investigate the theory of proving an ontology from scientific facts. Historically ontology has been the domain of philosophy, but modern science may now have enough potency to develop a scientific ontology; an ontology that is falsifiable and verified by every correlating physics experiment so far constructed and analyzed. In other words, with the conservation of energy, mass-energy equivalence, zero-point energy, and the nature of power; a full blown ontology of monism pantheism is theorized.

Theres are the physics scientific facts of the theory of ontology;

(∑E=Ek+Ep), conservation of energy[1], energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it merely transforms from one form into another; therefore energy is eternal

(E=mc^2), mass energy equivalence[2][3]; therefore energy is immanently omnipresent

(E=ħω/2), zero point energy[4][5][6][7]; therefore energy is transcendently omnipresent

(P=∫∇Edv), power is the integral of gradient energy with respects to velocity, power is the transformation of energy (the transforming of one form into another)

Definitions and discovery;

a “thing” is that which exists

energy exists

energy is an eternal and omnipresent thing

forms of energy are also things; they are finite endomorphisms of energy

all forms of energy are in energy (surrounded by other endomorphisms of energy) and made of energy

all energy is in the state of forms of energy; it’s a morphism

“everything” equals energy and it’s endomorphisms (forms)

every “transformation” (one form of energy converting into another form of energy) preserves the unitary manifold of energy

a “cause” is the reason for a transformation

all reasons for transformation imply that energy may be an including reason for all transformations

if so, then energy is an eternal and omnipresent reason

every form of energy may contain all reasons hologically

Therefore eternal and omnipresent energy may be hologically omniscient

To prove this, notice the following scientific fact;

there is an omnidirectional convergence of radiation into every single point in space i.e. there is an image of an omnidirectional perspective of the universe in every single point in space (in every frequency, spin, and momentum of energy but to varying degrees)

this is a type of hology

Therefore every form of energy is holomorphic

Therefore eternal and omnipresent energy is a holomorphism; Therefore, it has omnipotence.

To prove this, notice it solves the paradoxes;

(1) Energy cannot create a rock (a small form of energy) that more energy cannot lift, and

(2) Energy cannot destroy itself; power is the transformation of energy not the destruction of energy!

Verification of the theory

If the Universe is consciousness, then our consciousness form may produce psychic functioning.

telekinesis

https://web.archive.org/web/20200422213725/https://pearlab.icrl.org/pdfs/1997-correlations-random-binary-sequences-12-year-review.pdf

https://icrl.org/articles-and-essays?from=pearlab

telepathy

https://www.sheldrake.org/research/telepathy

clairvoyance

https://web.archive.org/web/20220329004932/https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/10/jse_10_1_utts.pdf

precognition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSci5p5laSw

biokinesis

https://tillerfoundation.org/media-resources/white-papers

coherence

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006978911496

correlations

https://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Circumstantial evidence

Individually, one item of circumstantial evidence doesn’t amount to much, but as a tier grouped together they allow one to indirectly conclude the existence of a fact.

Ancient Religious Text having Prior Art on the Theory under review

The eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent consciousness-energy is a theological correlate (something that is structurally isomorphic to claims of Divinity);

“In him [Zeus] we have life and move and exist.”-Epimendies, Edict from Zeus.

“The Dao is the ground of all being.”-Loazi, Dao De Jing.

“Brahmin is the source of all material worlds, everything springs from him.”-Gita, Bagava.

“Jehovah himself fills the heavens and the earth.”-Jeremiah, Tanouck.

“Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them [stars] is missing”-Isaiah, Tanouck.

“…His… [qualities] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power,.,”-Paul, Romans

In other words, it has the same properties as the Divine. By the identity of indescernibles, the axiom of extensionality, and the theory of theological correlation, this one thing is the Divine. Therefore the Divine necessarily and factually exists. QED.

Deluge Geology, Radio Dating Inaccuracy, and Creative Days

(1) the radioactive decay rate is NOT a constant; neutrino intensity definitely effects the radioactive decay rate; https://web.archive.org/web/20150528020329/http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

The higher the neutrino intensity the lower the radioactive decay rate.

(2) atmospheric electrons backscatter neutrinos increasing the intensity of neutrino radiation towards the earth (the atmosphere is a converging lens to neutrinos)

An Earth with a larger atmosphere (such as one that had all the oceanic water as a gas or plasma in a gigantic ionosphere) would increase the intensity of neutrino radiation towards the earth and given fact 1, lower the radioactive decay rate of radioisotopes.

(3) the continental plates fit together completely on a smaller Earth; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnEkFofRFx0

(4) land fossils prove most of the Earth continental plates have been dry land

(5) on a smaller Earth (with all the continental plates put back together) the oceanic water would cover the entire Earth

(6) given fact 4, and 5, it follows that the oceanic water in the past was not on land (rather it must have been in the atmosphere so that it could fall to Earth).

(7) given fact 3, and 6, it follows that the Earth was smaller with a gigantic gaseous or plasma water canopy

(8) given fact 5, and 7, it follows that there was a global flood!!!

(9) but given 2, and 7, it follows that the radioactive decay rate was significantly lower before the flood

(10) given 9, the radio dating methods that assume constants in the radioactive decay rates are absolutely inaccurate (though still having good precision)

(11) the flood must be the last mass extinction event

(12) the K-T iridium aerosols [presumably from meteoroids] and any possible volcanic ash would have acted like cloud condensation nuclei, cloud seeding the deluge

(13) if God saved all the original animals in the Ark then the genera after the flood (notice blue line) matches the genera at Adam’s creation (notice yellow line) proving God saved all the original animals; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity-2.png

(14) If we assume that Adam was 44a when Eve was born and that the creative days are 221Ma (according to the dating inaccuracy) then a creative day is 9,500 years

Eve became the Mother of Seth at 86a. Genesis 5:3 Seth became the father of Enosh at 105. Genesis 5:6 Enosh became the father of Kenan at 90. Genesis 5:9 Cainan became the father of Mahalalel at 70. Genesis 5:12 Mahalalel became the father of Jared at 65. Genesis 5:15 Jared became the father of Enoch at 162. Genesis 5:18 Enoch became the father of Methuselah at 65. Genesis 5:21 Methuselah became the father of Lamech at 187. Genesis 5:25 Lamech became the father of Noah at 182. Genesis 5:28 The Flood started when Noah was 600. Genesis 7:6

(86+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182+600)=1612a of creative day seven [Eve’s creation to the flood]

1612a*221/37.5=9500 [this is a creative day]

Fifth day

510 Ma the first fish, the jawless ostracoderms.

410 Ma the first fish with jaws, the acanthodians.

365 Ma the tetrapods.

350 Ma the dragonfly (the first flying creatures were insects).

340 Ma the amniotes.

And God went on to say: Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens. And God proceeded to create the great monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. … And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Surprisingly enough, the flying creatures in this verse is not birds (as many may have thought), rather, it is insects!

Sixth day

285 Ma the therapsids.

230 Ma the dinosaurs.

225 Ma the first true mammals, Gondwanadon tapani or Morganucodon watsoni.

150 Ma the first bird, Archaeopteryx.

And God went on to say: Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind. And it came to be so. And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. (Genesis 1:24, 25)

As you can see this work clarified our understanding of the bible (first flying creatures are insects) and the creation of the other animals matches the day of their biblical creation

(15) since the creation of Eve to the present it’s been about 6000a

(16) Tyranusourus Rex fossils are dated between the creation of Eve and the date of the Flood; somewhere around 800a of creative day seven or ~5,200 years ago (inaccurately dated to 80Ma)

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/10/17/62/2161798/6/1200x0.jpg

https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.1108397/asset/f350e639-3ffd-48d9-a488-2dfa943596dd/assets/graphic/307_1952_f2.jpeg

How old is this T. Rex blood and soft tissue? 5,200 years old or 80 MILLION years old?

I predict that the soft tissue found in T. Rex bone will Carbon 14 date to around 5,200 years old!

This will verify my theory about the Deluge Geology, Radio Dating Inaccuracy, and Creative Days.

That said, how could man, birds, and land animals have survived the deluge?

According to the bible (and over a hundred of other ancient sources), there was a great flood that destroyed the ancient world, for which, the gods spared some men and animals.

Jehovah claimed to cause the flood. In any cause we must grant at least the existence of advanced extraterrestrials (or gods exist or even that God exists) such that they could have spared some men, otherwise, mankind and all the animals on land could not have possibly survived such an event.

Ron Wyatt found at geological formation in the mountains of Ararat of petrified wood in the shape of a boat having the same length as described of the Ark in the Bible; https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/8a/cb/558acb1d59f1dab953c3fcaa16cc2670.jpg

Sodom Brimstone

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sodom.jpg

Locations identified on the satellite map on the west coast of the Dead Sea have millions of high purity (98% pure) sulfur balls with burn rings embedded in what looks like the ashen remains of cities. The picture on the bottom right is in the location identified on the map as Gomorrah.

Spectra Chem Analytical of New Zealand, and Galbrath Lab of Texas; Two independent laboratories have tested the sulfur balls and sulfur ash determining their composition.

At least three different groups have surveyed the sites taking samples, and two of those groups have created videos. Here is a video from one of them;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTVFk1HK3Y

It should be noted;

(1) volcanic activity turns sulfur into a gas,

(2) meteoroids contain only small amounts of sulfur,

(3) geothermal activity creates only yellow sulfur,

(4) a natural gas explosion wouldn’t explain the purity of the sulfur balls, and

(5) bacteria wouldn’t explain the burn rings on the sulfur balls nor the ashen remains.

An alternative possibility is that the pure sulfur fire balls were created and used as military munitions in warfare. However, there is no record of using such munitions in warfare. It should be noted that the cities are completely destroyed with even the structural material and stones having been turned into ash. It would take far less sulfur to simply kill the people; turning all of the structural material and stones into ash is militarily unfeasible.

Given that the pure sulfur fire balls and ashen remains are not known to be created by any volcanic, meteoric, geothermal, natural gas, or bacterial activity, and given that it is historically unprecedented to use pure sulfur fire balls as munitions and militarily unfeasible to turn all the structural material and stones of the cities into ash, and given that there are records claiming the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was by the hand of the person of the Divine, it therefore suggests the existence of the fact that this is the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah, the destruction of which was a teleological interaction of the Divine with man.

Neanderthal violence

Correlation of evidence of Neanderthal violence with Scriptural History

http://www.donsmaps.com/images4/neanderthalsapiens.jpg

The first reconstruction of a complete Neanderthal skeleton in 2005 has revealed more accurately the similarities and differences between us (far right) and them.

The reconstruction makes clear their larger, bell-like chest cavity and wider pelvis. They are physically larger (both taller and bigger than humans), with stronger muscles, larger nose hole and eye sockets, as well as a larger brain cavity.

Neanderthal practiced cannibalism or ritual defleshing. Neanderthals seemed to suffer a high frequency of fractures, especially common on the ribs, the femur, fibulae, spine, and skull; as well as from trauma such as stab wounds and blows to the head; suggesting a high level of physical violence.

“Consequently Jehovah saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time. And Jehovah felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. So Jehovah said: “I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground, from man to domestic animal, to moving animal and to flying creature of the heavens, because I do regret that I have made them.” (Genesis 6:1-2, 4-7)

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the downpour upon the earth went on for forty days and forty nights.” (Genesis 7:11-12) Second month Following the Exodus from Egypt, when Jehovah gave the Israelites the sacred calendar, this became the eighth month, known as Bul, corresponding to the latter half of October and first half of November. - New World Translation Footnote Genesis 7:11 The global flood which killed all but eight humanoids is said to have occurred on the same dating associated with the Festival of the Dead, for which the European calendar marks the celebrations of All Hollows Eve, and All Souls’ Day

Cushite confusion

After the flood a Cushite named Nimrod rebelled against Jehovah; creating cities (Jehovah commanded everyone to spread out).

He is called a “king”. A king is ruler of a kin (Cushites) which has a kingdom (in this case Summeria; was the first after the flood). Akkadians called Cushites “Summerians” which translates as “black headed people”.

As a punishment Jehovah confused their languages!

Africa has more than 2000 languages. Where as Europe and Asia only have less then 200 each.

Brown people (Cushites) have a hard time speaking simple English, instead they speak Ebonics.

Exodus decoded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqLsYonjvRY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsn_HqSxkDg

Coconut is the tree of life

The mitochondria oxidizes for energy production whereas the cell body ferments for energy production; the oxidization is 20 times more efficient than fermentation.

The mitochondria also control many crucial aspects of cell regulation, including cell death.

When the mitochondria are down regulated, or most of the energy of the cell is produced from cell body fermentation, then not only is their reduced energy, the mitochondria no longer have the ability to kill the cell.

Cancer is run away cell body fermentation where the mitochondria can’t kill the cell.

Coconut has medium chain triglycerides such as lauric acid which are antibacterial, antifungal, and pro-mitochondrial.

In other words, there is considerable evidence that extended life is impossible without coconut.

Serpent hind legs

Moses claimed that the serpent was cursed to go about on it’s belly… presumably instead of walking on legs.

ancient fossils prove that serpents had hind legs.

If I am not mistaken the theory of evolution claimed in the past that the serpent was first and then developed legs on land creating the lizards. But the serpent only had hind legs!

Survey about “God is love”

the Apostle Paul says in the bible that “God is love”, well, to put that to the test I posted an internet survey on Myspace religion and philosophy forum; titled “loveless atheists” and “godless atheists”

In the thread I asked if atheists love everyone; every single atheist posting mentioned that they only loved a few people;

so my argument is that if someone really knows God, then they actually love everyone (as I do), and since atheists don’t know God they would only love a few at most; and this demonstrates a material implication that God is love.

update;

I feel sorry for my enemies, and intend good for everyone.

“love” may be a confusing word. Jesus told us to Agape (love) our ememies. I don’t really know what agape means, but I do not appreciate, adore, or revere my ememies. so I do not love them.

On the other hand I feel sorry for them… so that is Pathos, not Agape.

But I do intend good for all. So if Agape means or materially implies intention of good then God is Love.

Prophecy of the kingdoms of Palestine

Here is what I have researched from history/watchtower/possibilities with respects to correlation with prophecy.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/dp

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/re

Sumerian (Cush Hamitic)

Hittite (Canaan Hamitic)

Akkadian (Elam Shemitic)

1. Egyptian (Mizriam Hamitic) [Joseph, Moses]

2. Assyrian (Ashur Shemitic) [Isaiah, Jerimiah, Ezekial]

3. Babylonian (Arphaxad Shemitic) [Shadrak, Meshek, Abendigo, Daniel]

4. Persian (Madai Japhetic) [Esther, Mordecai, Ezra]

5. Greecan (Javan Japhetic) [Maccabees]

6. Roman (Tubal Japhetic) [Tobit]

book of Daniel; legs of iron; to destroy the Temple, and the Messiah will be ‘left with nothing’

7. Roman and Christian Jew (and Greek) [Rothschild, Einstein, Tesla,…]

book of Daniel; feet of iron and clay

8. vigin male Israeli 144,000

book of Revelations; to spring from the seven kingdoms; notice [Isrealis] co-ruled the seven kingdoms.

Apocalypse 17:10-12

And there are seven kings; [at the time of writing Revelations] five have fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece), one is (Rome), and the other (Roman and Christian Jew and Greek) has not yet arrived… And the wild beast that was but is not (Israel; at that time Israel was destroyed), it is also an eighth king, but springs from the seven [as in, they were part of the kingdoms]

There is also ten horns or ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom; The watchtower says this is the United Nations, but I suspect that it is China or more likely America.

But then again there is a fiery colored beast that everyone says no one can defeat. Is this England? as they have never been defeated??? and they gave life to the image of the beast that had the death stroke (Israel)???

book of Revelations; to bring down the fire of heaven in the sight of mankind; nuclear bombs?

put all together, the logical, the empirical, and the circumstantial… I believe it will be impossible for anyone with a IQ of 150 to remain an atheist.

tell me what you think!

Not just that, then. For, what’s doing the assuming here? Grammatically—and that’s all this is—, it’s the “it” that follows (no ambiguity intended). Compare:

“Assuming providence was there also, I committed myself to the void.”
“I, assuming providence was there also, committed myself to the void.”

But:

“Assuming nothing, it follows that there is an assuming.”
“It, assuming nothing, follows that there is an assuming.”

Or:

“That there is an assuming, assuming nothing, follows.”

You’re technically saying the assuming of nothing is not just itself assuming nothing, but follows from (its own assuming of) nothing…

But surely you mean something like this:

“That there is an assuming follows from our assuming of nothing.”

So from the assuming of nothing, it follows not just that there is an assuming, but also that there’s something, someone, or multiple things or ones doing the assuming. In other words:

[ego] cogito, ergo [ego] sum.

Even if nothing was performing an assumption, an ass of u and me would emerge.

I’m only going to comment on subjects I believe I am able to say something.

In formal logic, a statement “nothing implies nothing” is vacuously true, since if there is truly nothing, there is neither antecedent nor consequent, so implication is either undefined or trivially satisfied in empty domains. This does not grant “nothing” any positive implication with “something”; rather, it situates “nothing” outside of relational statements altogether.

Your premise that “nothing equals nothing and nothing implies nothing… therefore everything is implicated with something” can support theories of monism and panpsychism by highlighting the fundamental unity and pervasive connectedness of existence, I think I would just tend to make it simpler:

  • If there is truly nothing, it doesn’t connect to anything.
  • Everything that exists connects in some way to other things.

Your proof aligns well with classical metaphysical arguments about existence, causality, and unity, especially those found in the tradition of philosophers like Aquinas and Ibn Sina. It seems that reading might have saved a lot of mental contortions.

The trouble here is that you introduce new qualities (eternality, omnipresence, omnipotence, consciousness) that go beyond what strictly follows from the logic of the proof.

By correlating divine properties across traditions, your approach creates a structure in which the existence of the divine is a logical necessity, given its consistent and universal representation as the ground of being, the source of life and omnipresent consciousness. Therefore, the notion that an eternal, omnipresent and omnipotent consciousness-energy necessarily exists is a logical conclusion of this method, provided the correlations between these qualities are valid and indicative of a single divine reality.

Your concept of an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent consciousness-energy is similar to Blake’s idea of the divine as the Poetic Genius, which permeates all existence. According to Blake, this divine presence is not confined to particular religions but is the common thread that supports the idea that all religious expressions are different ways of recognising the same divine reality.

Central to Blake’s vision is the idea that the imagination and inner divine spark are key to understanding divine unity. This contrasts with the more literal or externalised notions of divinity often found in traditional religion and the OP.

The Apostle Paul and the New Testament use “God is love” (1 John 4:8) to mean that love is the essential nature of God (agape love), which is unconditional, sacrificial, and self-giving. It is not just affectionate feelings but a fundamental orientation of goodwill and selflessness. Knowing God, in this context, is knowing and embodying this kind of love, which ideally extends universally beyond just a few people.

Why I find the survey contentious:

Your survey on Myspace asked if atheists love everyone, with respondents admitting they only love a few, implying they lack universal love. But the concept of “love” here was not clarified, leading to subjective interpretations. “Love” in everyday language often means affection, admiration, or personal attachment, not the unconditional agape that the Bible means. So, atheists may “love” family and friends but not everyone, without contradicting the theological agape concept.

Feeling sorry for enemies, intending good without necessarily “loving” (agape), highlights the challenge. Agape includes goodwill and active benevolence but does not imply emotional affection or admiration. I can love someone, but not like what he does.

The argument that if someone truly knows God, they love everyone assumes a particular theological definition of love (agape), which doesn’t match everyday usage, creating confusion or scepticism. Therefore, people may struggle to genuinely love enemies in the agape sense, asserting universal love difficult to test empirically through casual internet surveys.

So, my problem with the survey arises from different definitions of love between theological (agape) and everyday understandings, making the direct comparison problematic. While Paul’s statement is about unconditional, self-giving love as God’s nature, casual surveys on love often capture personal affection or attachment, so atheists’ limited love doesn’t necessarily negate theological claims.

I have roughly 5 minutes left of this, but I am trying to get ready for work and I wanted to come in and share something related to the original post and this podcast:

A priori was the ineffable, and the ineffable was nothing, and the ineffable was with nothing, and ineffable stayed nothing.

Yada yada yada :wink:

hehe snort

So from the assuming of nothing, it follows not just that there is an assuming, but also that there’s something, someone, or multiple things or ones doing the assuming. In other words:

[ego] cogito, ergo [ego] sum.

Descartes starts with “I am thinking”… he assumes the I. But with my purer argument starting with “assuming nothing”, does follow that there is an assuming and an assumer.

assumens nihil, ergo assumens et sum

maybe

assumens nihil, ergo sum assumens

assuming nothing, it follows that I am assuming

assuming nothing, it follows that I am, I am assuming, and that there is an assuming.

or

assumens nihil, ergo sum et sum assumens et assumens

all that^ def ain’t the I thinking, that’s for damn sure

slaps knee into eternity

Yeah I’m with Itchy. You talk about stuff other than Jesus so you are wrong and need me to straighten you out… even though you’d probably eat me in a debate about anything.

Well, the “subtlety” is that Latin does not require the distinct “I” (Ich, ego); the “I” is already in the finite verb:

cogitare = “to think”
cogito = “thinking-am”

esse = “to be”
sum = “being-am”

Your argument is not purer, just grammatically incorrect:

assumens is the nominative singular case of the masculine or feminine present participle. Being a participle, it’s technically an adjective. So to which masculine or feminine subject does it belong? (It need not be explicit, but it’s certainly implied. In other words, assumed.)

To be sure, it cannot belong to nihil, since that’s neuter and must therefore be the accusative singular here. So the first part of your sentence means:

“I/thou/he/she, assuming nothing,”

Or:

“A/the [masculine or feminine] nothing-assuming one,”

And the second part:

“therefore I/thou/he/she, assuming, and I am.”

Or:

“therefore a/the [masculine or feminine] assuming one and I am.”

In one word, gibberish.

Oh siddhi of mine… You’re just making things progressively worse here.

assumens nihil, ergo sum assumens
“[There is] I/thou/he/she, assuming nothing, therefore I am a/the [masculine or feminine] assuming one.”

assumens nihil, ergo sum et sum assumens et assumens
“[There is] I/thou/he/she, assuming nothing, therefore I am and I am a/the [masculine or feminine] assuming one and [there is] a/the [masculine or feminine] assuming one.”

Why I believe I’m not “all that” (unlike BriBri, who KNOWS he is)…

I think about something, therefore something is (now) or was (in the past) or will be (at least so far as I anticipate, probably based on past/present experience/memory) about (as in, around, bare minimum) me—that is not me. But if it is about me (and not just around me)—it isn’t ANOTHER me—I correct for it like I correct for a mirror image, shadow, or echo of me. How do I know everything that is around me isn’t me? I have no ability to move it as immediately as I can move my body, assuming I can still move my body. When I can’t move my body, my body is not me. If a part of my body became conscious and could move itself, we (the other consciousness and I) would have co-regency over that part. If I was the whole universe (kind of like how BriBri esteems himself) and could move the entire universe, and gave consciousness to little parts of the universe, if I was a good being, I would have co-regency with all of those little consciousnesses. The universe is pregnant —very very pregnant with a ginormous litter of little consciousnesses.

Or:

A lot of words in Latin.

I was just thinking out loud. sorry for pooping the thread

here is some more poop;

I think this is my argument in latin;

assumed nihil, ergo nihilum

assuming nothing, the concept of nothing follow

:smiley:

infinity

I don’t think that’s your argument; rather this:

“If nothing is assumed, there is already an assuming (or a conceiving).”
Si nihil assumatur, assumere (sive concipere) iam est.

Or:

“From the assuming of nothing, it follows that there is an assuming (or a conceiving).”
Ex nihili assumptione, assumptio (sive conceptio) esse sequitur.

But this argument is false, because it reifies a nothing, or The Nothing. If nothing is assumed, there is no assuming! That’s what “assuming nothing” means… Compare:

“There is no way to overcome the misconceptions of those who think that emptiness is a real thing. For example, if you tell someone, ‘I have nothing.’ and that person says, ‘Give me that nothing.’ How could you make that person understand that you have nothing?”
—Tsongkhapa

Tsongkhapa (TBSNTV English)

I like it but they need a hook, bro. You can’t expect your student to listen to fifteen minutes of that same riff.

[1 Hour]:collision: Vajrabhairava The Destroyer Of Death | The Yamantaka Manjhusrhi Mantra :folded_hands: (Meditation Melody)

1 Like

I don’t think that’s your argument; rather this:

“If nothing is assumed, there is already an assuming (or a conceiving).”
Si nihil assumatur, assumere (sive concipere) iam est.

Or:

“From the assuming of nothing, it follows that there is an assuming (or a conceiving).”
Ex nihili assumptione, assumptio (sive conceptio) esse sequitur.

But this argument is false, because it reifies a nothing, or The Nothing. If nothing is assumed, there is no assuming! That’s what “assuming nothing” means… Compare:

“There is no way to overcome the misconceptions of those who think that emptiness is a real thing. For example, if you tell someone, ‘I have nothing.’ and that person says, ‘Give me that nothing.’ How could you make that person understand that you have nothing?”
—Tsongkhapa

Is it possible to say “the concept of nothing” in latin?

nothing does not exist

but the concept nothing does exist

the empty set exists, but the content of the empty set does not exist

Sure! conceptum nihili, literally “the conceived of nought”.

I disagree. “Concept” really just means “conceived”. But conceptum nihili, or nihil conceptum, means that nothing has been conceived. And if nothing has been conceived, then there simply is no concept. Likewise:

“Set” (noun) really just means “set” (participle—which, being an adjective, can be nominalized: e.g., “an assumed [one]”). An “empty set” is a mathematical abstraction: if nothing has been set, then there simply is no set!

You could say “I don’t have anything” or you could say “I don’t assume anything“ but you would be implying (unstated member of the set, or unstated premise) that you are a thing (subject) that can have or assume.

This sounds similar to the issue of ancient latin not having the number zero.

But the quantity of issue is assuming. so;

assuming nothing means that there is zero assuming

zero assuming has been conceived

if zero has been set, then there is an empty set