What would falsify your paradigm?

[Aupmanyav]

You seem to be besotted with the idea mythologies are children's stories.
We can't go back in time and be an objective observer ..
Another part or purpose of mythology and religion is to answer the four great existential questions:
So people invent religions and mythologies to provide the concrete answers. Sure it's kind of made up BS but it who cares if people live a more meaningful lives instead of nihilism.

Also, what is your simple answer for how everything was created in the first place? What is your objective evidence for the basis of your belief?

You have not understood me correctly. I do not deny the usefulness of mythologies in history or social life. Mythological stories guide us, like even the Aesop's fables and stories of 'Panchatantra' do. But they do not establish the existence God/Gods/Goddesses, their purported prophets / messengers / son / manifestations / mahdis, and the miracles supposedly performed by them.
Yes, with the help of science, we can go back in time, even before the postulated Big Bang. That is what MBR (Microwave Background Radiation) is.
Yeah, the four questions that you mention are is variously answered by philosophies and religions, though not 'concretely' as you mention. IMHO, we should take the help of science too to get the answers of these questions. Acceptance of a particular view is our choice. "Ex-nihilo' may not be as BS as you make it out to be (Vacuum genesis - Wikipedia). Who knows!

The evidence of my not believing in a 'creation' is in the above Wiki article. There is this expanse of energy and forces and nothing else. We ourselves and all things that we observe also are nothing other than energy and forces. Our mind due to evolution and limitations of our senses takes them as things. We live in a make-believe world. This is only a mirage, illusion, and mentioned in Hinduism as 'maya'. This has long been understood in Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The fact is that the creation took place and the Buddhists described this in different cosmological ways.

Later Buddhists went beyond what Budha said. He was pretty clear about it. The four imponderables are identified in the Acintita Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 4.77, as follows:

"4. Speculation about [the origin, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about (SN 56.41 develops this speculation as the ten indeterminate)."
Acinteyya - Wikipedia

SN 56.41:
"So mendicants, don’t speculate about the world. For example: the world is eternal, or not eternal, or finite, or infinite; the soul and the body are the same thing, or they are different things; after death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, or both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist. Why is that? Because those thoughts aren’t beneficial or relevant to the fundamentals of the spiritual life. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment."
SuttaCentral

 

[Polymath257]

Most religions try to teach people how to not be selfish, that is ego-centric, and be more selfless in the service of God and others.

I think your answers are fine. Yes, people may answer these questions so human beings have more worth. But is that a problem? Why is nihilism better than theism?

For me, it is a problem when we let ego get in the way of truth. It's fine to have fiction, but I thik we need to recognize it as fiction, or it can often cause worse problems.

If everything we attribute as being sacred and divine is just our ego inflating self-importance, then why does it matter if everything is just meaningless anyway. If everything is meaningless as your rationale way of thinking seems to suggest, then isn't it meaningless that it is meaningless? Then why not choose to pretend it is meaningful since it doesn't really matter anyway?

Once again, *we* give things meaning *to us*. For example, we are a social species, so social interactions are important and meaningful *to us*.That means we value honesty in our interactions, and so begins a devotion to truth. Again, those are meaningful *to us*. We are an intellectual species, so ideas and innovation are important *to us*.

I am NOT saying that everything is meaningless. I am saying *we* are the arbiters of meaning because we are conscious, moral beings. That there is no 'cosmic meaning' does not mean there is no meaning at all.

I prefer any religion and mythology that somehow avoids nihilism. I prefer to choose to pretend my life as more meaning than I can rationally defend. I admit it. My question to you is why do you think it's such a big deal that I'm pretending? Why is it such a big deal if it is to satisfy our egos? Why is having an ego so wrong? What is your alternative?

Ultimately, because I value truth over falsity, especially when ego is involved.

Satisfying our egos is fine for motivation of action, but is problematic when it leads to avoidance of the truth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If everything we attribute as being sacred and divine is just our ego inflating self-importance, then why does it matter if everything is just meaningless anyway. If everything is meaningless as your rationale way of thinking seems to suggest, then isn't it meaningless that it is meaningless? Then why not choose to pretend it is meaningful since it doesn't really matter anyway?

Yeah, it is pretty meaningless in the totality of things. Billions of people takes birth and die. The world does not change. It will go on its course even if humans are not there. Humans have been on earth for a very short time. Say 200,000 years out of 4.5 billion years. That is 0.005% of Earth's history. And we do not know how long we will last. It is this meaninglessness which compels us to find meaning in life.

Advaita Hinduism keeps the two truths apart. At the level of 'absolute truth' (Paramarthika), no meaning, things exist as such for the time being. Another Quantum perturbation and it may vanish again. At the lower level of reality (Vyavaharika), to which our sense organs are attuned, there is a sun in one of the outer arms of the Milky Way galaxy, which has a blue planet with water, life, which we call our earth. And currently we have some 8 billion of the species of Homo sapiens sapiens, who live, love, fight like mad dogs and do so many other things, that they think no body else does in the universe. We have created religions, God and Goddesses, men have claimed to be prophets, son, messengers, manifestations, mahdis of Gods. We each think that only we know the truth. Life is fun because of all this, otherwise there would not have been much other than digging for roots and hunting for rabbits.

 

[Native]

5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

These are 2 of the most shocking verses in the bible I think. That total evil could take over a nation or region, that's shocking in a way. It's not a partial evil.

IMO this interpretation is a human result of biblical hindsight bias where the ancient and astronomical Flood Myth is compared and connected to factual geographic flood events with lost of lives and BOTH taken as a "divine revenge". In order to get the "story right", the biblical author had to invent the unbelieavable and dualistic context in your quoted sentences.

Personally I wouldn´t ponder too much over this dualistic "revenge interpretation" as the entire Flood Myth deals with a mythical flood which is running OVER the Earth and not ON the Earth, called the Milky Way River in several ancient cultures.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Blame yourself for not being able to understand and incorporate the term "creation" into what even the Buddhists spoke about in their ancient texts.

Nonsense. Buh bye!!

 

[halbhh]

IMO this interpretation is a human result of biblical hindsight bias where the ancient and astronomical Flood Myth is compared and connected to factual geographic flood events with lost of lives and BOTH taken as a "divine revenge". In order to get the "story right", the biblical author had to invent the unbelieavable and dualistic context in your quoted sentences.

Personally I wouldn´t ponder too much over this dualistic "revenge interpretation" as the entire Flood Myth deals with a mythical flood which is running OVER the Earth and not ON the Earth, called the Milky Way River in several ancient cultures.

Ah, you are speaking to address a different (common) view that's unlike mine.

As to the more meaningful (less known) content though, the things fewer seem to notice, if you like think of me as more similar to Joseph Campbell in that I look past the surface to simply see the...insight/wisdom in the words of the story. I didn't take pondering, but rather reading. And a willingness to ignore the common ideologies of course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Ultimately, because I value truth over falsity, especially when ego is involved.

Satisfying our egos is fine for motivation of action, but is problematic when it leads to avoidance of the truth.

There is no "the truth". "The truth" is no different than "God". They are both a result of cognitive, cultural, moral/useful and psychological relativism.
I know this because as a skeptic I value false over truth as a methodology.

How do I know that there is no "the truth"? Imagine a world without humans and there would be no "God", right? It is the same for "the truth". It is that simple. God and the truth are both ideas, which can make us comfortable by believing in them.

You satisfy your ego with "truth" because it makes sense to you to value "truth". I value "false" in part.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
Since you value "truth", you just start differently that me, when you check the rest of the world. Our core paradigms are different, yet apparently we are still both part of the world. All these different versions of "the truth" that different humans hold are no different than the different versions of "God". They can't all be true, yet they are all true individually to the persons, who hold them. That tells you that they have nothing to do with God nor the truth. It is the same. You are not that special, you believe like the rest of us. You just use the truth, I use God. But none of us are better or what not.

We can go through logic, epistemology, metaphysics/ontology, ethics, aesthetics and phenomenology and I can show you that there is no "the truth" in any of them.

Regards Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

There is no "the truth". "The truth" is no different than "God". They are both a result of cognitive, cultural, moral/useful and psychological relativism.
I know this because as a skeptic I value false over truth as a methodology.

How do I know that there is no "the truth"? Imagine a world without humans and there would be no "God", right? It is the same for "the truth". It is that simple. God and the truth are both ideas, which can make us comfortable by believing in them.

OK, I disagree here. Even without people, there would be truth.

You satisfy your ego with "truth" because it makes sense to you to value "truth". I value "false" in part.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
Since you value "truth", you just start differently that me, when you check the rest of the world. Our core paradigms are different, yet apparently we are still both part of the world. All these different versions of "the truth" that different humans hold are no different than the different versions of "God". They can't all be true, yet they are all true individually to the persons, who hold them. That tells you that they have nothing to do with God nor the truth. It is the same. You are not that special, you believe like the rest of us. You just use the truth, I use God. But none of us are better or what not.

That seems to me to be a misuse of the word 'truth'. By definition, the truth is what doesn't depend on any individual.

We can go through logic, epistemology, metaphysics/ontology, ethics, aesthetics and phenomenology and I can show you that there is no "the truth" in any of them.

Well, I would agree that philosophy doesn't typically deal with truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK, I disagree here. Even without people, there would be truth.

You disagree, so that is not without people. So it is not valid. You do what you claim you don't do - without people. It is subjective and relative, because it depends on how you think; i.e. it is with people.

That seems to me to be a misuse of the word 'truth'. By definition, the truth is what doesn't depend on any individual.

A definition requires an individual. I.e. someones definition of truth. You can't define something into existence as independent of humans simply by definition. That is the same for God as the truth and ties in with the part above.

Well, I would agree that philosophy doesn't typically deal with truth.

Well, it does.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The reason, why modern philosophy doesn't concern itself with truth, is that truth is a dead end.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia
BTW Popper knew this and it has been known since classical western philosophy.

You are from mathematics, right? Or some part of STEM? Well, that works but it is limited for all of the world. You are just used to it works in you line of work and you haven't check it against all of the world.
I have, I am a general skeptic. Learn to be as skeptical about your own thinking as everybody's else, if you want to do this and claim the truth over all of the world including humans.

If there was only one truth, the truth, then I couldn't get away with saying "No!" and be a skeptic. I can be different than you as human in some sense and so can all other humans. That is the actual falsification of your subjective belief. The truth is no different than God. You don't have to believe in either to have a life.

 

[halbhh]

There is no "the truth". "The truth" is no different than "God". They are both a result of cognitive, cultural, moral/useful and psychological relativism.
I know this because as a skeptic I value false over truth as a methodology.

How do I know that there is no "the truth"? Imagine a world without humans and there would be no "God", right? It is the same for "the truth". It is that simple. God and the truth are both ideas, which can make us comfortable by believing in them.

You satisfy your ego with "truth" because it makes sense to you to value "truth". I value "false" in part.
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
Since you value "truth", you just start differently that me, when you check the rest of the world. Our core paradigms are different, yet apparently we are still both part of the world. All these different versions of "the truth" that different humans hold are no different than the different versions of "God". They can't all be true, yet they are all true individually to the persons, who hold them. That tells you that they have nothing to do with God nor the truth. It is the same. You are not that special, you believe like the rest of us. You just use the truth, I use God. But none of us are better or what not.

We can go through logic, epistemology, metaphysics/ontology, ethics, aesthetics and phenomenology and I can show you that there is no "the truth" in any of them.

Regards Mikkel

It's an interesting topic!

Let me start with one natural example and then jump to a profound conclusion about humans.

Consider something like gravity (Newton's version or if you like the more complete General Relativity).

The laws that gravity operates by exist independently of us, and before we discover them, and hold on their own, regardless of how well or completely we understand them.

They are "true" in a key sense: fully independent of our viewpoints, and consistently stable and accurately predict things we haven't yet tried, so that when we do try new experiments, we typically find that the results are precisely what the laws predict.

Yes?

If you recognize that, then there is a kind of "truth" there, in the sense it is not our invention or viewpoint or spin, but an independent constant reality that we can discover.

The same holds the stable human characteristics we all share from the general homo sapiens genome.

Consider: since there are also 'true', factual, real human characteristics that we all share -- i.e. we all need oxygen, etc. -- then this is also 'truth' in that it is fully independent of our understanding and viewpoints.

And...this is where it gets fun, since there are factual human characteristics, then it follows that there is factually a best way for humans to live together in peace and flourishing where we progress in the arts and sciences and human civilization, together in more harmony and less discord.

There must naturally then be some such set of best rules.(!) Those rules that prove out to result in the best outcomes of peace and progress and stable or growing human population (not starving or dying in wars, etc.)

That's a kind of "truth" also -- the best solution among all competing solutions -- in that those rules are independent of anyone that happens to discover one of them. They preexist discovery, because they are the result of the fixed characteristics of human nature fixed in our genes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's an interesting topic!

Let me start with one natural example and then jump to a profound conclusion about humans.

Consider something like gravity (Newton's version or if you like the more complete General Relativity).

The laws that gravity operates by exist independently of us, and before we discover them, and hold on their own, regardless of how well or completely we understand them.

They are "true" in a key sense: fully independent of our viewpoints, and consistently stable and accurately predict things we haven't yet tried, so that when we do try new experiments, we typically find that the results are precisely what the laws predict.

Yes?

...

No!

Here is the problem. First you need a 3 factor model:
You(you can't start with a "we").
Your experiences of something(viewpoint).
This something is fully independent of you("we" is a part of this something)

Now how comes it is fully independent of you?
Because you are not the cause of it, you are the result of it, but you don't have access to it, you only have your experience of it.
So here is the problem of epistemological solipsism in its modern form; i.e. what is it, fully independent of you?
A Boltzmann Brain:

The Boltzmann brain argument suggests that it is more likely for a single brain to spontaneously and briefly form in a void than it is for our universe to have come about in the way modern science thinks it actually did. Wikipedia

Wiki will do for this. Now it is not more or less likely that you are a Boltzmann Brain. It is unknown.
Take a thought experiment in a natural variant. You are software running on hardware(it). Now imagine a Boltzmann Brain universe consisting of the following: Not you as a brain, but you running on a computer with enough power to run for say 2 minutes or even more.
Now answer, how you could know. that you are in an universe as it appears to you or if you are this example, I made?
You can't!!!

The universe is not consistently stable and accurate. It appears so to you, but all metaphysics and ontology is in effect the base psychological experiences in your mind. This is Immanuel Kant and any positive metaphysics/ontology is an act of faith about, what the rest of the world is as fully independent of you.

Sorry!
It is a mess, I know. But I started this as a non-religious human, but figured out as a skeptic that philosophical naturalism/physicalism/materialism is as much as an act of faith and trust.
Some scientists even knows this in a slightly different version:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. Page 2.

Here it is as a practice. As a skeptic, I started out by doubting religion and learned along the way that the truth is as unknowable as God. But since I am a skeptic, I don't need the truth, but I had to by honest about my faith and trust in that, which is fully independent of me and since it is without evidence, proof, logic, reason, knowledge and bigger than me, it is God.
I am not a believer in a supernatural God or a natural one. I am a believer in God as that I have faith and trust in that, which is bigger than me and that is God.

Regards Mikkel

 

[halbhh]

No!

Here is the problem. First you need a 3 factor model:
You(you can't start with a "we").
Your experiences of something(viewpoint).
This something is fully independent of you("we" is a part of this something)

Now how comes it is fully independent of you?
Because you are not the cause of it, you are the result of it, but you don't have access to it, you only have your experience of it.
So here is the problem of epistemological solipsism in its modern form; i.e. what is it, fully independent of you?
A Boltzmann Brain:


Wiki will do for this. Now it is not more or less likely that you are a Boltzmann Brain. It is unknown.
Take a thought experiment in a natural variant. You are software running on hardware(it). Now imagine a Boltzmann Brain universe consisting of the following: Not you as a brain, but you running on a computer with enough power to run for say 2 minutes or even more.
Now answer, how you could know. that you are in an universe as it appears to you or if you are this example, I made?
You can't!!!

The universe is not consistently stable and accurate. It appears so to you, but all metaphysics and ontology is in effect the base psychological experiences in your mind. This is Immanuel Kant and any positive metaphysics/ontology is an act of faith about, what the rest of the world is as fully independent of you.

Sorry!
It is a mess, I know. But I started this as a non-religious human, but figured out as a skeptic that philosophical naturalism/physicalism/materialism is as much as an act of faith and trust.
Some scientists even knows this in a slightly different version:


Here it is as a practice. As a skeptic, I started out by doubting religion and learned along the way that the truth is as unknowable as God. But since I am a skeptic, I don't need the truth, but I had to by honest about my faith and trust in that, which is fully independent of me and since it is without evidence, proof, logic, reason, knowledge and bigger than me, it is God.
I am not a believer in a supernatural God or a natural one. I am a believer in God as that I have faith and trust in that, which is bigger than me and that is God.

Regards Mikkel

Ah, to me, you are getting into aspect of what reality is, though I'm speaking above about merely our modeling (in our brains, reducing, representing) of reality.

Sure, we can't even get close to really knowing reality. Yup.

But....

That even with our representations of reality reduced we use, still, there is some kind of a reality out there, which we discover (indirectly) no matter how far re-represented and mixed with imagination, etc., in that it -- the out-there thing -- operates consistently.

See, when Einstein predicted the way light from background stars would be bent around the sun by the sun's gravity in a solar eclipse -- what had never been seen before nor predicted before, and for which there was not yet any evidence -- it was found to be exactly so, just as his General Relativity predicted.

So, there is a reality, even though we cannot know it, but merely align representations to it at most -- and it is consistent. (* see note at end for more on that)

So that we can find mathematical 'laws' that align -- parallel -- it's consistency.

It doesn't even matter a bit that we only have our mere representations. Reality, out there, unknowable in ultimate ways to us, is nevertheless consistent in how it behaves.

Hope this had something to do with what you are saying in a way that is clear enough.

---------------------
* Consistent reality existing -- how do we know that?

The sun is a good enough example: it is reliable. aka, 'consistent'. It operates in some consistent way. It doesn't matter how perfectly we understand it, or not.

We indirectly find out, in some ok way that is imperfect, and however removed and unreal, nevertheless, that it works consistently.

It's like....a rock you can hold in your hand. Something we call "rock" is existing. It's 'real', no matter how poorly we sense it, it is consistent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, to me, you are getting into aspect of what reality is, though I'm speaking above about merely our modeling (in our brains, reducing, representing) of reality.

...

In the parlance of philosophy you are taking to much for granted, because you haven't given evidence of "we".
Here is one version of objective: having reality independent of the mind. Definition of OBJECTIVE
Notice the singular version of the mind.
You have a model of a "we". The rest of us are a part of having reality independent of the mind, your singular mind, i.e. the mind. Sorry.

With regards

 

[halbhh]

In the parlance of philosophy you are taking to much for granted, because you haven't given evidence of "we".
Here is one version of objective: having reality independent of the mind. Definition of OBJECTIVE
Notice the singular version of the mind.
You have a model of a "we". The rest of us are a part of having reality independent of the mind, your singular mind, i.e. the mind. Sorry.

With regards

It's more that I'm trying not to open 4 topics at once and write 1,000+ words, since I can get way too verbose, and I've been trying to learn not to do that!

I don't put a special meaning in "we", other than I am at first making a (limited but useful) general observation about all human perception and representations/modeling of outward reality.

I did say more tho, above! (hope it was clear enough so short)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's more that I'm trying not to open 4 topics at once and write 1,000+ words, since I can get way too verbose, and I've been trying to learn not to do that!

I don't put a special meaning in "we", other than I am at first making a (limited but useful) general observation about all human perception and representations/modeling of outward reality.

I did say more tho, above! (hope it was clear enough so short)

So no 1000+ words.
All humans when pressed about their world-view regress to "I"(I just know that I do it too), but they can't all be right about metaphysics, ontology, logic, reason, knowledge, evidence, proof and truth about the world. So it tells you that it is subjective and psychology in their individual minds; i.e. having reality independent of the mind; as to what and that they believe individually what reality really is.
You are doing, so are most humans including mine.

 

[Native]

Ah, you are speaking to address a different (common) view that's unlike mine.

As to the more meaningful (less known) content though, the things fewer seem to notice, if you like think of me as more similar to Joseph Campbell in that I look past the surface to simply see the...insight/wisdom in the words of the story. I didn't take pondering, but rather reading. And a willingness to ignore the common ideologies of course.

Okay so I´m familiar with the Joseph Campbell teachings and ideas and I´m also a member of the JC Forum, but not very active in the forum for the moment.
In general JC worked with the Carl Gustav Jung ideas of personal development and compared these to "Hero Myths" and as such he described some collective human issues.

My common/collective ideas derives especially from studying the numerous cultural Creation Myths and it´s archetypical forces of creation and how these are described and symbolized in ancient myths. Here, the Flood Myth represents a description of the Milky Way which is imagined as a great River in the Sky.

 

[Heyo]

I am trying to give an example of a 'rule' that does not lead to equality. I would agree that such rules are NOT good, but that is not an objective, logical thing.

So, in my example, there *rules themselves* have inequality built into them. You can say they are 'not good rules', but they are rules and they show that it is false that equality follows from all rule systems.

So, even in your example, if we have one rule that says 'nobles should be treated with respect' and another rule that says 'commoners should be treated with contempt', those rules are *logically* consistent and have inequality as an outcome.

Again, you can say the rules themselves are 'not good', but that means you have some overarching rule that says such. And that is the rule that says we should demand equality in our rules.

I guess you are right. If you implement inequality directly into the rules, you can have a set of rules that is consistent and unequal.

 

[halbhh]

​

Okay so I´m familiar with the Joseph Campbell teachings and ideas and I´m also a member of the JC Forum, but not very active in the forum for the moment.
In general JC worked with the Carl Gustav Jung ideas of personal development and compared these to "Hero Myths" and as such he described some collective human issues.

My common/collective ideas derives especially from studying the numerous cultural Creation Myths and it´s archetypical forces of creation and how these are described and symbolized in ancient myths. Here, the Flood Myth represents a description of the Milky Way which is imagined as a great River in the Sky.

Ok. I wonder though in this instance how this version of the flood story (the common bible) is like that in that in this version you have regarding 2 specifics --

a) the thing about us being able to fall into an destructive side of ourselves which is we see a real thing that does happen in history at times; massacres, genocides, etc. -- i.e., a realism story to warn us about this potential in ourselves as a humanity. That's one thing. This kind of thing could be represented in myths in many ways, like a monster, or a demon, or a force of nature, etc., but here it's just actual direct account (without a metaphor or symbol!) of a culture of total violence that reached a state of zero compassion/love, just "only evil" "all of the time".

and here in this story, also

b) God regrets that we exist -- (i.e. -- it's on us, and the most fundamental essence of nature/life wishes we didn't exist at such a moment)

Are these two things also common in other flood stories? I'd be interested to hear you've found them in other versions! (if there are any such)

 

[Native]

a) the thing about us being able to fall into an destructive side of ourselves which is we see a real thing that does happen in history at times; massacres, genocides, etc. -- i.e., a realism story to warn us about this potential in ourselves as a humanity. That's one thing.

Shortly: IMO the negative sides of humans comes forward when an individual is mistreated in several ways by his/hers social environment.

This kind of thing could be represented in myths in many ways, like a monster, or a demon, or a force of nature, etc., but here it's just actual direct account (without a metaphor or symbol!) of a culture of total violence that reached a state of zero compassion/love, just "only evil" "all of the time".

All kinds of "mythical or religious monsters" are IMO misinterpretations of the myths which in general describes different "forces of creation" or simply some celestial images.

Take for instants the "Midgaard Serpent" in the Norse mythology. This serpent encircle the entire Earth, the home of the humans, called "Midgaard", and as such the Midgaard Serpent is a "huge monster". But in fact this Serpent is just an ancient way of describing the contours of the Milky Way which can be observed all around the Earth. Of course there is nothing evil about this Milky Way Serpent.

and here in this story, also
b) God regrets that we exist -- (i.e. -- it's on us, and the most fundamental essence of nature/life wishes we didn't exist at such a moment)
Are these two things also common in other flood stories? I'd be interested to hear you've found them in other versions! (if there are any such)

As far as I know, this only occurs in the Abrahamic religions - BUT it is also interpreted by historic and present scholars to count in other Flood Stories SIMPLY because these scholars have no knowledge of the astronomical implications in ancient myths or religions.

If these scholars or laymen interpreters have no ideas of an celestial Milky Way River/Flood, the only options is to interpret the Flood Myths as a geographical one.

The "divine regret idea" is simply a human hindsigt bias in order to get the geographic Flood story to seem reasonable, which is isn´t when investigating this mythically and astronomically.

Besides this, I think "it is all on us humans" anyway. We humans worship "the one and only God" and still we make religious wars in the name of this God. We make all kinds of environmental destructions in the creation and it seems that this "god" is indifferent to these human activities.

In fact we punish us selves and the nature by the lack of empathy and respect and this is really evil.