Argument for Prince of Darkness (aka Set, Prometheus, Satan, Lucifer, Etc.)

[1137]

Note: The "Prince of Darkness" is a proposed deity which is separate from Nature and capable of its own free will, desire, thoughts, etc. This deity has been known by hundreds of names, most famously known under names like Set, Satan/Lucifer, Prometheus, Odin and/or Loki, etc.



1. The Self axiomatically exists.

a. "I Exist" – this means that the person making the statement has objective existence. If we do not exist we cannot experience, question, or know things. To say "I don't exist" is contradictory because then who is making the statement?


2. An objective world of matter also exists.

a. Conscious individuals appear to perceive the same universe.

b. We can predictably know things about the universe.

c. We constantly experience a "world of matter" when awake in the world.

d. Two decent artists sketching the same tree would draw similar pictures.



3. The Self and world of matter are non-identical.

a. The Self cannot be rejected, but matter almost certainly exists as well.

b. The Self and Matter have different properties.

i. Matter has spacial dimensions, the Self does not.

ii. Matter can be physically and universally accessed, but the Self and Its contents cannot.

iii. Subjective experience accompanies the Self and Its contents, but does not accompany Matter.

iv. The Self, particularly the mind, deals with abstract objects whereas Matter deals with particular objects.

v. The Self and mind have intentionality, Matter does not.

vi. The Self/mind can affect the brain/Matter, and vice versa.
​

So Pluralism is true.



4. The Self/mind is something unnatural.

a. The Self/mind is capable questioning Nature.

i. Metaphysics

ii. Science
​

b. The Self/mind is capable of manipulating Nature.

i. Creation of medication

ii. Changing of terrain
​

c. The Self/mind is capable of going against Nature.

i. Self-Regulation

ii. Cognitive Therapy
​

5. There are numerous ontological categories.

a. Self

b. Matter

c. Nature

d. The Unnatural

e. Logic

f. Math


So, to understand the cosmos we need a worldview which accounts for all these categories while allowing them to interact.



6. The Theory of Forms best explains this information (If X Exists, the Form of X Exists)

a. Allows for multiple ontological categories to interact.

b. Explains how something unnatural and immaterial can interact with something natural and material.

c. Explain mathematical ontology in full.

d. Explains how we can know things only intuition, such as the Laws of Logic.

e. Explains how we can have knowledge of things in constant states of change, such as the world of Matter.

f. Explains how we can recognize characteristics in non-identical things (such as 3 triangles with different side lengths and angles still being "triangles).

g. Explains the Mind-Body Problem.



So, the Theory of Forms is likely true.



7. The Theory of Forms implies the existence of the "Prince of Darkness"

a. The Self Exists, so the Form of the Self Exists.

b. The Self is Unnatural, so the Forms of Nature and Unnatural must Exist.

c. This Unnatural Form of the Self includes all the characteristics of the Self.

i. Self-Awareness

ii. Intelligence

iii. Desire

iv. The ability to grow/change

v. Emotion

vi. Immateriality

vii. Axiomatic existence

viii. Etc…​

Therefore, the Prince of Darkness (Ancient Serpent, Set, Tiamat, Prometheus, Loki, Lucifer, Satan, Etc…) Exists

 

[Thief]

the story I got......God's Favored had freewill

a decision was made and the usual head nodding did not follow

a pronouncement of NAY! was heard

if it were not for the action that followed ......the Keeper of the Light....
might still hold his position
at the right hand of the Lord God

the drama will play out
and I hope for all concerned......
we will all survive

 

[RedDragon94]

1. The Self axiomatically exists.

a. "I Exist" – this means that the person making the statement has objective existence. If we do not exist we cannot experience, question, or know things. To say "I don't exist" is contradictory because then who is making the statement?

Agreed.

2. An objective world of matter also exists.

a. Conscious individuals appear to perceive the same universe.

b. We can predictably know things about the universe.

c. We constantly experience a "world of matter" when awake in the world.

d. Two decent artists sketching the same tree would draw similar pictures.

Agreed.

3. The Self and world of matter are non-identical.

a. The Self cannot be rejected, but matter almost certainly exists as well.

b. The Self and Matter have different properties.

i. Matter has spacial dimensions, the Self does not.

ii. Matter can be physically and universally accessed, but the Self and Its contents cannot.

iii. Subjective experience accompanies the Self and Its contents, but does not accompany Matter.

iv. The Self, particularly the mind, deals with abstract objects whereas Matter deals with particular objects.

v. The Self and mind have intentionality, Matter does not.

vi. The Self/mind can affect the brain/Matter, and vice versa.
​

Agreed.

So Pluralism is true.

Only if God is an object, which I believe he is a personal being.

4. The Self/mind is something unnatural.

a. The Self/mind is capable questioning Nature.

i. Metaphysics

ii. Science
​

b. The Self/mind is capable of manipulating Nature.

i. Creation of medication

ii. Changing of terrain
​

c. The Self/mind is capable of going against Nature.

i. Self-Regulation

ii. Cognitive Therapy
​

Agreed.

5. There are numerous ontological categories.

a. Self

b. Matter

c. Nature

d. The Unnatural

e. Logic

f. Math

Unsure, maybe. I'd have to think about it.

So, to understand the cosmos we need a worldview which accounts for all these categories while allowing them to interact.

Interact via witchcraft no, interact via nature yes.

6. The Theory of Forms best explains this information (If X Exists, the Form of X Exists)

a. Allows for multiple ontological categories to interact.

b. Explains how something unnatural and immaterial can interact with something natural and material.

c. Explain mathematical ontology in full.

d. Explains how we can know things only intuition, such as the Laws of Logic.

e. Explains how we can have knowledge of things in constant states of change, such as the world of Matter.

f. Explains how we can recognize characteristics in non-identical things (such as 3 triangles with different side lengths and angles still being "triangles).

g. Explains the Mind-Body Problem.

Makes sense.

7. The Theory of Forms implies the existence of the "Prince of Darkness"

a. The Self Exists, so the Form of the Self Exists.

b. The Self is Unnatural, so the Forms of Nature and Unnatural must Exist.

c. This Unnatural Form of the Self includes all the characteristics of the Self.

i. Self-Awareness

ii. Intelligence

iii. Desire

iv. The ability to grow/change

v. Emotion

vi. Immateriality

vii. Axiomatic existence

viii. Etc…​

I follow you a little bit there, the physical world around us does mirror our intentions. But our intentions are on the micro scale, whereas a personal God who is axiomatically real is anything but micro in his intentions.

Therefore, the Prince of Darkness (Ancient Serpent, Set, Tiamat, Prometheus, Loki, Lucifer, Satan, Etc…) Exists

Is the Prince of Darkness humanity?

 

[Kapalika]

I think there's a problem starting in 3b since it doesn't address why the self has to be nonphysical. A lot of physical things have different properties from other physical things, and in the rest of point 3 it doesn't explain how or why those things are true of the self, it just asserts them with no explanation.

Also in 3bii, that isn't true as there has been advances in monitoring brains and neurons to see responses to stimuli. It's at the point that we can crudely generate the mental image it's thinking of, and some brain scans are able to be able to read spatial memories:

New brain scanning technique can visualize your imagination - ExtremeTech (years ago I read an article that did more than just images of letters but my internet is barely working atm or else I'd hunt it down)
Researchers use brain scans to read memories

Everything seemed fine up to 3a, however, in terms of a logical argument.

I think a lot of it fails to logically follow since it went off the rails in point 3b onwards when defining the nature of the self, since it didn't offer any reason for a lot of the statements. Maybe if you provided those it would be a more complete argument. I feel like I'm reading notes without the full context or explanation.

For example I don't know why we should posit that it must be a Prince of Darkness over any other type of deity, or why that the mind must be unnatural. If the physical couldn't affect the mind you'd have a good point but that just isn't the case as you pointed out in 3bvi. So we'd have to conclude that the mind at least has some natural elements to it, regardless of if it's physical or not.

 

[Odhran]

Let us examine, claim by claim, and see if all the parts work independently first. If they do we'll see if they can be used to construct the Whole.

Note: The "Prince of Darkness" is a proposed deity which is separate from Nature and capable of its own free will, desire, thoughts, etc. This deity has been known by hundreds of names, most famously known under names like Set, Satan/Lucifer, Prometheus, Odin and/or Loki, etc.

What conflation! Primordial chaos, tempters, enlightened rogues, and the ones the Gall of old turned to, all conflated as one!! But perhaps the conflation shall be proven below:

1. The Self axiomatically exists.

a. "I Exist" – this means that the person making the statement has objective existence. If we do not exist we cannot experience, question, or know things. To say "I don't exist" is contradictory because then who is making the statement?

Basic proven argument of Descartes. Part 1 is true. Continue.

2. An objective world of matter also exists.

a. Conscious individuals appear to perceive the same universe.

They most certainly do not!!

As a proof of this, I posit the following: You perceive a universe in which conscious individuals perceive the same universe, while I perceive a universe in which conscious individuals perceive differing realities.

b. We can predictably know things about the universe.

No dispute here.

c. We constantly experience a "world of matter" when awake in the world.

False. It is a world of dream, only awake in the world we refuse to recognize the dream for dream. I will expound below:

d. Two decent artists sketching the same tree would draw similar pictures.

They most certainly will not, if they are indeed decent artists. If I take four artists, one a cubist, one a realist, one a surrealist, and one a post-modernist, and have them sketch a tree, each will produce a different child.

If the art can be compared to a child, a memetic child rather than a genetic one, then the tree is the father, implanting the idea that grows into the art into the artist, who is the mother.

And thus the four sketches are each the child of the tree and one of the artists, and are thus only as similar to one another as half-siblings.

Again, assuming as you say these are "decent" artists, then each will have placed a noticeable imprint upon their work, shaped by their own stylistic sensibilities and worldviews.

Part #2 falls apart.

3. The Self and world of matter are non-identical.

a. The Self cannot be rejected, but matter almost certainly exists as well.

b. The Self and Matter have different properties.

i. Matter has spacial dimensions, the Self does not.

ii. Matter can be physically and universally accessed, but the Self and Its contents cannot.

iii. Subjective experience accompanies the Self and Its contents, but does not accompany Matter.

iv. The Self, particularly the mind, deals with abstract objects whereas Matter deals with particular objects.

v. The Self and mind have intentionality, Matter does not.

vi. The Self/mind can affect the brain/Matter, and vice versa.
​

So Pluralism is true.

Matter cannot be proved in a Cartesian sense so it is not an obvious truth as is the argument for a self. You'll need to actually offer proof of matter as your proof for self does not apply here.

#3 is unsupported.

4. The Self/mind is something unnatural.

a. The Self/mind is capable questioning Nature.

i. Metaphysics

ii. Science
​

b. The Self/mind is capable of manipulating Nature.

i. Creation of medication

ii. Changing of terrain
​

c. The Self/mind is capable of going against Nature.

i. Self-Regulation

ii. Cognitive Therapy​

The concept of "unnatural" is unnatural. Contradiction intentional.

If nature is all that is and a thing is within all that is then it is natural, and so by all reason, everything is natural.

This distinction people insist on has always made no sense to me. Why is a house unnatural but a den or an anthill or a nest natural??

5. There are numerous ontological categories.

a. Self

b. Matter

c. Nature

d. The Unnatural

e. Logic

f. Math


So, to understand the cosmos we need a worldview which accounts for all these categories while allowing them to interact.

As explained, you have yet to prove B and the idea of a distinction between C and D is ridiculous and absurd.

#5 is built on faulty premises.

6. The Theory of Forms best explains this information (If X Exists, the Form of X Exists)

a. Allows for multiple ontological categories to interact.

b. Explains how something unnatural and immaterial can interact with something natural and material.

c. Explain mathematical ontology in full.

d. Explains how we can know things only intuition, such as the Laws of Logic.

e. Explains how we can have knowledge of things in constant states of change, such as the world of Matter.

f. Explains how we can recognize characteristics in non-identical things (such as 3 triangles with different side lengths and angles still being "triangles).

g. Explains the Mind-Body Problem.

So, the Theory of Forms is likely true.

True it could explain your categories but there are two flaws here.

1) Your categories have not been shown to be correct.

2) Just because a thing can explain a true thing doesn't mean that first thing is "likely true".

Like I could state that gravity exists because the Council of Druids decreed that objects should attract one another proportional to their mass and distance. This explains the phenomenon of gravity, but just because it explains a thing we can witness doesn't make that theory I proposed "likely true".

So for #6, the logic does not follow. And even if it did, it is built on faulty premises.

7. The Theory of Forms implies the existence of the "Prince of Darkness"

a. The Self Exists, so the Form of the Self Exists.

In accordance to your proposed law, yes.

b. The Self is Unnatural, so the Forms of Nature and Unnatural must Exist.

Evidence of self as unnatural not shown. Everything must be natural so the self must be as well.

c. This Unnatural Form of the Self includes all the characteristics of the Self.

i. Self-Awareness

ii. Intelligence

iii. Desire

iv. The ability to grow/change

v. Emotion

vi. Immateriality

vii. Axiomatic existence

viii. Etc…​

But the self is not unnatural.

#7 rests on unsteady assumptions about the existence of the unnatural.

Therefore, the Prince of Darkness (Ancient Serpent, Set, Tiamat, Prometheus, Loki, Lucifer, Satan, Etc…) Exists

I'll be honest. I can't comprehend how this follows from the presenting arguments.

Though as the presented arguments in and of themselves largely don't work, the fact I don't see how the conclusion follows isn't relevant, since the whole of the argument presented is therefore found wanting.

 

[David T]

Seems the foreign alien Parisite intellect only understands it is the only thing that exists. It's a really debilitating parasite is stops nearly all of the cranium from functioning. It calls itself the higher functioning Part of the brain and hold the cranium as a zombie slave to itself convincing the host that it is the host and separate from the host at the same time!!. Tragic while it's at war on the landscape it convinces the host it can stop it by being more intelligent about it.

Thats actually called insanity.

 

[1137]

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Only if God is an object, which I believe he is a personal being.

Agreed.

Unsure, maybe. I'd have to think about it.

Interact via witchcraft no, interact via nature yes.

Makes sense.

I follow you a little bit there, the physical world around us does mirror our intentions. But our intentions are on the micro scale, whereas a personal God who is axiomatically real is anything but micro in his intentions.

Is the Prince of Darkness humanity?

Well the PoD here is something macro rather than micro, it is the macrocosm to the microcosm of individual consciousness. That is what the PoD is. Not humanity itself, but that which is separate from deterministic, matter reality - in this case higher consciousness.

I think there's a problem starting in 3b since it doesn't address why the self has to be nonphysical. A lot of physical things have different properties from other physical things, and in the rest of point 3 it doesn't explain how or why those things are true of the self, it just asserts them with no explanation.

True, but the properties here are themselves non-physical. For example, all physical event take up space, but this is not the case with mental events. Mental events are non-spacial, and this property is inherently non-physical/immaterial.

Also in 3bii, that isn't true as there has been advances in monitoring brains and neurons to see responses to stimuli. It's at the point that we can crudely generate the mental image it's thinking of, and some brain scans are able to be able to read spatial memories:

New brain scanning technique can visualize your imagination - ExtremeTech (years ago I read an article that did more than just images of letters but my internet is barely working atm or else I'd hunt it down)
Researchers use brain scans to read memories

This is not the same as actual experience, or the "problem of qualia".

Everything seemed fine up to 3a, however, in terms of a logical argument.

I think a lot of it fails to logically follow since it went off the rails in point 3b onwards when defining the nature of the self, since it didn't offer any reason for a lot of the statements. Maybe if you provided those it would be a more complete argument. I feel like I'm reading notes without the full context or explanation.

Fair, this is more of a skeleton or it would be several pages long. Probably an "Imperishable Star" thing.

For example I don't know why we should posit that it must be a Prince of Darkness over any other type of deity, or why that the mind must be unnatural. If the physical couldn't affect the mind you'd have a good point but that just isn't the case as you pointed out in 3bvi. So we'd have to conclude that the mind at least has some natural elements to it, regardless of if it's physical or not.

This is just what has been identified as the "Prince of Darkness." Its not this god over another, its how the god it defined. The PoD and this concluded entity have identical characteristics proposed. As for 3bvi I would say that there is indeed a natural aspect of the mind because it is obviously tied to the brain.

Let us examine, claim by claim, and see if all the parts work independently first. If they do we'll see if they can be used to construct the Whole.

What conflation! Primordial chaos, tempters, enlightened rogues, and the ones the Gall of old turned to, all conflated as one!! But perhaps the conflation shall be proven below:

Perhaps it would be better to say these are all facets of the PoD. For example, Set is that which is separate, the separation and isolation itself. Meanwhile, Odin is seen in the LHP as one who reached into that separateness and brought it back.

Basic proven argument of Descartes. Part 1 is true. Continue.

They most certainly do not!!

As a proof of this, I posit the following: You perceive a universe in which conscious individuals perceive the same universe, while I perceive a universe in which conscious individuals perceive differing realities.

But does it matter what we perceive objectively? If both of us get a rock chucked at our heads, both of us are going to be in pain.

No dispute here.

False. It is a world of dream, only awake in the world we refuse to recognize the dream for dream. I will expound below:

It is, by definition, the waking world is it not?

They most certainly will not, if they are indeed decent artists. If I take four artists, one a cubist, one a realist, one a surrealist, and one a post-modernist, and have them sketch a tree, each will produce a different child.

If given the freedom, sure. That's one of the unnatural aspects of human consciousness. However, if we ask the amazing artists to draw what is in front of them as realistically as possible, they will draw similar things. Ask them to try and accurately draw the mona lisa from heart and they will draw similar things.

Matter cannot be proved in a Cartesian sense so it is not an obvious truth as is the argument for a self. You'll need to actually offer proof of matter as your proof for self does not apply here.

#3 is unsupported.

Why not?

The concept of "unnatural" is unnatural. Contradiction intentional.

If nature is all that is and a thing is within all that is then it is natural, and so by all reason, everything is natural.

This distinction people insist on has always made no sense to me. Why is a house unnatural but a den or an anthill or a nest natural??

By nature here I mean the deterministic, predictable world of "matter" (or whatever it is). If something can contradict that deterministic machine it is unnatural, such as all beings with free will.

True it could explain your categories but there are two flaws here.

1) Your categories have not been shown to be correct.

2) Just because a thing can explain a true thing doesn't mean that first thing is "likely true".

Like I could state that gravity exists because the Council of Druids decreed that objects should attract one another proportional to their mass and distance. This explains the phenomenon of gravity, but just because it explains a thing we can witness doesn't make that theory I proposed "likely true".

So for #6, the logic does not follow. And even if it did, it is built on faulty premises.

Which categories can we reject? Point 2 is fair, this is just the skeleton of an argument without a lot of elaboration.

 

[RedDragon94]

Well the PoD here is something macro rather than micro, it is the macrocosm to the microcosm of individual consciousness. That is what the PoD is. Not humanity itself, but that which is separate from deterministic, matter reality - in this case higher consciousness.

Okay, I do believe the PoD is in control of the aether. So yes, (I'll kiss your butt ) you have a strong theory.

 

[Kapalika]

True, but the properties here are themselves non-physical. For example, all physical event take up space, but this is not the case with mental events. Mental events are non-spacial, and this property is inherently non-physical/immaterial.

While possible it's not necessarily the case since it's also possible that mental events are akin to a highly advanced electro-chemical analog counterpart of a computer in terms of how it works.

I guess we could say even then that the physical interactions give rise to the mental but then we have to admit that it's dependent on the physical for existence, at least as it is now without some serious magical shanagins (this is something I've explored in my Theory of Aspects). But that would make it's origins physical instead of spiritual.

his is not the same as actual experience, or the "problem of qualia".

I'm not sure if anyone can experience another's qualia unless they somehow merged consciousness. That said, that thoughts can be monitored physically was the point.

Fair, this is more of a skeleton or it would be several pages long. Probably an "Imperishable Star" thing.

Alright, I look forward to reading it.

This is just what has been identified as the "Prince of Darkness." Its not this god over another, its how the god it defined. The PoD and this concluded entity have identical characteristics proposed.

Okay well that clarifies half of it, the other half is that there's a missing link between the previous conclusions and the conclusion that specifically a god must be responsible for all of it. If that can be established then it would make sense to assign it to the Prince of Darkness.

 

[Odhran]

Perhaps it would be better to say these are all facets of the PoD. For example, Set is that which is separate, the separation and isolation itself. Meanwhile, Odin is seen in the LHP as one who reached into that separateness and brought it back.

And the reason for this equivocation is...??

But does it matter what we perceive objectively? If both of us get a rock chucked at our heads, both of us are going to be in pain.

Not if I have CIPA.

No matter what example you conjure I can summon a scenario in which the perceptions differ.

It is, by definition, the waking world is it not?

If you can't see the dream in the waking and the waking in the dream, I probably can't change your mind.

But maybe I can, and so I direct you to Loftus and Palmer (1974), for a study that shows just how much we can dream even when awake. And just how flawed your faith in objective perception is.

If given the freedom, sure.

You think the artist is the one who is free and the art is their slave?? I think you have it backwards.

That's one of the unnatural aspects of human consciousness.

I'll save my comments on this to when you finally expound on what your definition of natural is.

However, if we ask the amazing artists to draw what is in front of them as realistically as possible, they will draw similar things.

Your comments in this paragraph make me sure you just don't understand art. Each artist in the example I gave is a fundamentally different person with a fundamentally different outlook on the world and themselves.

Each artist will see something different, perceive the tree a different way, and will draw the tree as they perceive it.

Perhaps the artists look from the tree at a different angle, or will see the lighting differently, or will notice different details about the tree that they will draw attention to.

These artists are, again, a cubist, a realist, a surrealist, and a post-modernist. They all view art differently, they all will view the tree differently, they all will think different things about the tree are important, and they will all emphasize different things about the tree in accordance with their artistic sensibilities.

The cubist will focus on the shape of the tree and the shapes that build up the tree.

The realist will be creating the kind of picture you expect, but he will be the only one to do so.

The surrealist will incorporate whatever daydreams he has into his tree picture, and will laugh if you suggest he didn't draw the tree as "realistically as possible".

The post-modernist will probably just attach a frame to the tree and call it their "picture".

Ask them to try and accurately draw the mona lisa from heart and they will draw similar things.

Again, the cubist will focus on the shapes of the Mona Lisa, the realist will aim for a 1-to-1 copy, the surrealist will incorporate what the picture makes him think of or feel, and the post-modernist will seek to somehow subvert the original.

Each will have a fundamentally different approach, and each will be wholly convinced they are drawing a copy as accurate as possible. Even if they are trying to do the same thing, each has a wildly different understanding on how to do that thing, due to their artistic discipline.

If you think an artist can do something without leaving their own imprint on a thing... well you don't understand art.

Why not?

You never prove the existence of the material or offer any supporting evidence of it. You take the existence of matter for granted, probably because you assume all others will do so as well.

But if you're going to formulate an argument with this you need to support that claim.

By nature here I mean the deterministic, predictable world of "matter" (or whatever it is). If something can contradict that deterministic machine it is unnatural, such as all beings with free will.

The man who thinks any aspect of the world is predictable is a foolish man. Predictability would be the unnatural thing.

Again, the contradiction inherent in me calling something unnatural while denying the existence of the unnatural is an intentional contradiction.

Which categories can we reject? Point 2 is fair, this is just the skeleton of an argument without a lot of elaboration.

Nothing even needs to be rejected, per say. It is your job to show these things are to be accepted, which you have not done.

The default state is disbelief until you can show evidence of any of those categorizations.

But if I was to accept some and reject some for various reasons:

I'd accept Self, Logic, and Math with Cartesian arguments for them.

I'd reject Matter also on Cartesian grounds.

I'd reject "Nature/Unnatural" as a false division and arbitrary dichotomy.