mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
A start note about culture. I am not talking about God in the Western tradition of religion. I am talking about what is the causation of you as not you.
Okay, here is the problem of X is Y and not Z versus X is Z and not Y. There are 3 possible outcomes if you accept the law of non-contradiction. It is the first as true, the latter as true or unknown for both. The last one is there as knowledge. because for you to decide which one is true, you have be able to know.
As a critical thinker and skeptic you know, that there are 3 positions.
So before you say something is something or something else, you have to check if you can know it at all.
So let us start with simple external empiricism as per observation. If you claim X is Y for Y you can then give an experience based on at least one of the 5 senses. Now the universe is Y, then means that you can state how you experience that for the 5 senses.
In practice what you are doing, is that you state an experience of something, that is independent of your mind, because it comes to you.
So for the universe is God and not physical versus the the universe is physical and not God, the problem that there are no experiences for both.
That was part one.
Now comes part 2. You know that you can be dreaming/hallucinating/mistaken. How does that work? Well, if you accept that you are not everything, there is the possibility that you are the effect of something else and that something else is the causation of you. If you want to go David Hume on that, we can, but for now, I assume you accept causation.
So you as a mind and your experiences are the effect of something else.
Thus the question is for "I experience something" what is the relationship between I and something? Well, you have the experience of something, but that is not something in itself, it is the experience of something.
So what is something in itself as independent of even your experience of it? Well, it is unknown other that you know it is there as a causation, because it causes experiences in you. That something is the cause and the effect is your experiences. But you can't say you know that it is something other than being independent of you.
So here is the minimal solution for how to deal with that. Objective reality as independent of your mind is real, orderly and knowable and thus you are if you accept that able to describe how it works for you in the universe as a relationship to the rest of the universe.
In effect you stop claiming what objective reality is other than independent of you. You describe how it works for you as part of the universe.
But now the fun starts because now there are several categories of experiences and in effect you use the dual version of empiricism. Namely external and internal experiences. Then you add that you are not alone as a human and make a model that account for how different internal experiences work.
And here is how it works in practice for at least 3 different humans for a certain category of contexts.
Person 1: I know as know that X is Y and not Z.
Person 2: I know as know that X is Z and not Y.
Me. One of those 2 don't know, but apparently we are all 3 in the universe and thus there is a case for which someone doesn't have to know to be in the universe and act.
Both of them: You are wrong.
Me: That is a positive claim and thus we play burden of proof now.
In short for an internal experience and how to act on it. If I have one and I can act on it, I can claim that you are wrong and get away with it, because I act as if you are wrong, but if you can act differently, then you could do so. But the joke it is, it also works in the reverse direction.
So back to God. As long as I know how to do God and don't claim proof for God but rather use God as a placeholder for that I have faith that the universe is real, orderly and knowledge, our local tribe of in effect believers in objective evidence as per science, can't really do anything, because they have no evidence for what objective reality is other than independent of the mind. And if effect they are believers for that the universe is natural, physical and so on.
Okay, here is the problem of X is Y and not Z versus X is Z and not Y. There are 3 possible outcomes if you accept the law of non-contradiction. It is the first as true, the latter as true or unknown for both. The last one is there as knowledge. because for you to decide which one is true, you have be able to know.
As a critical thinker and skeptic you know, that there are 3 positions.
So before you say something is something or something else, you have to check if you can know it at all.
So let us start with simple external empiricism as per observation. If you claim X is Y for Y you can then give an experience based on at least one of the 5 senses. Now the universe is Y, then means that you can state how you experience that for the 5 senses.
In practice what you are doing, is that you state an experience of something, that is independent of your mind, because it comes to you.
So for the universe is God and not physical versus the the universe is physical and not God, the problem that there are no experiences for both.
That was part one.
Now comes part 2. You know that you can be dreaming/hallucinating/mistaken. How does that work? Well, if you accept that you are not everything, there is the possibility that you are the effect of something else and that something else is the causation of you. If you want to go David Hume on that, we can, but for now, I assume you accept causation.
So you as a mind and your experiences are the effect of something else.
Thus the question is for "I experience something" what is the relationship between I and something? Well, you have the experience of something, but that is not something in itself, it is the experience of something.
So what is something in itself as independent of even your experience of it? Well, it is unknown other that you know it is there as a causation, because it causes experiences in you. That something is the cause and the effect is your experiences. But you can't say you know that it is something other than being independent of you.
So here is the minimal solution for how to deal with that. Objective reality as independent of your mind is real, orderly and knowable and thus you are if you accept that able to describe how it works for you in the universe as a relationship to the rest of the universe.
In effect you stop claiming what objective reality is other than independent of you. You describe how it works for you as part of the universe.
But now the fun starts because now there are several categories of experiences and in effect you use the dual version of empiricism. Namely external and internal experiences. Then you add that you are not alone as a human and make a model that account for how different internal experiences work.
And here is how it works in practice for at least 3 different humans for a certain category of contexts.
Person 1: I know as know that X is Y and not Z.
Person 2: I know as know that X is Z and not Y.
Me. One of those 2 don't know, but apparently we are all 3 in the universe and thus there is a case for which someone doesn't have to know to be in the universe and act.
Both of them: You are wrong.
Me: That is a positive claim and thus we play burden of proof now.
In short for an internal experience and how to act on it. If I have one and I can act on it, I can claim that you are wrong and get away with it, because I act as if you are wrong, but if you can act differently, then you could do so. But the joke it is, it also works in the reverse direction.
So back to God. As long as I know how to do God and don't claim proof for God but rather use God as a placeholder for that I have faith that the universe is real, orderly and knowledge, our local tribe of in effect believers in objective evidence as per science, can't really do anything, because they have no evidence for what objective reality is other than independent of the mind. And if effect they are believers for that the universe is natural, physical and so on.