r/philosophy

Hey all, put together some thoughts and ideas lately, possibly proof of god - here's the theory (combination of inferential/deductive reasoning):

1. Certain conditions have enabled life to evolve within known existence
2. Over time, these natural processes have led to the evolution of people and living beings
3. Most people are inherently good, for example through their capacity to feel and experience love
4. This inherent goodness can enable people to make positive changes in themselves and their environments
5. Goodness does not have a fixed or intrinsic nature, except being good, and so amounts to pure goodness
6. Pure goodness doesn't have a biological basis, and can be found in almost everything, from books and music to ideas and fields of study
7. So it follows that goodness is metaphysical in nature, including the goodness within all people.
8. Similarly to goodness, love can be metaphysical in nature - although there may be biological explanations for interpersonal love, there are no explanations for love of music or art for example
9. Metaphysical love and goodness may enable us to make positive changes over time, and these qualities are universal phenomena
10. These universal qualities may constitute the necessary conditions for utopia, and even paradise on earth someday
11. By connecting with our inherent goodness to make positive changes in ourselves and our environments, we can each contribute to make the world a better place indefinitely
12. And so the necessary conditions are in place for utopia on earth, universally - and this could potentially lead to a utopian paradise someday
13. Without any plausible alternative explanations for the origins of metaphysical goodness and our potential for positive change:

we can conclude, there is a god.

(feel free to re-read this a couple of times, understand if it takes some time to sink in)

Pretty exciting finding - should mention that I'm not referring to any specific faith or belief system here. I've recently been informed that the Abrahamic religions share a common lineage, with some important distinctions, and there's no need for conflict.

Hopefully everyone can respect each other's beliefs and strive for peace and harmony across the world, including harmony with nature and our fellow living beings.

Maybe we can learn to transcend our differences and focus on what unites us - our shared humanity - rather than what divides us. This would be the best way to move forward from here.

Thanks to Joanna Newsom's record Divers for inspiring me to think about love, time and goodness this way. This performance of Time as a Symptom and Anecdotes is pretty much proof of god anyway.

Thanks for reading, please share to Facebook too - peace and love. If you'd like to say a quick thank you my details are bsb: 032-119, acct 258822 :)

Keeping a low profile for the time being - but keep an eye out for V by 2030 !

Many times multiple positions can be equally or almost equally rationalized.
Despite what we feel, the tiebreaker in what decision you make or the position you take is based on social pressures or aesthetic/vibes; however, you believe your position is based solely on the facts.
This explains why many debates feel pointless because even after every rebuttal is made and every point is fleshed out, no progress is made,
The real tie-breakers are based on feelings, but neither party recognizes it.
Understanding this, you see why many people of equal intelligence can have entirely different points of views, there’s genius’s on the left and right, there are genius Christian’s and genius atheists. This realization allows you to be more diplomatic in your discussions as you are less inclined to insult their intelligence and have a better understanding of them.
You also have a better understanding of yourself, helping you know why you believe what you believe, and not being loyal to abstract concepts in order to pursue objectivity.
No one is born in a vacuum
You have inherited your beliefs from your peers and what you’ve been exposed to but everyone pretends they believe what they believe because they rationalized it. Rather they have these beliefs based on inheritance and feelings and they just regurgitate the rationalization they’ve seen people use for it.

I recently wrote a short conceptual paper exploring an idea in philosophy of mind and perception.

The basic intuition is:

>

Different individuals may share the same external environment, yet still generate slightly different experiential “worlds” due to differences in internal structure.

I called this the “LEGO Framework” as a metaphor:
experience is built from structured informational units shaped by neural constraints.

Paper link (if anyone is interested):
https://philpapers.org/rec/WONLFA

I am curious how people in philosophy / cognitive science would evaluate this idea:

• Does this align with predictive processing or is it fundamentally different?
• How far can “subjective construction” be pushed before it breaks into solipsism?

Buonasera a tutti,
da appassionato di filosofia antica avevo ragionato su questo collegamento partendo dall'idea di Aristotele su Dio, che arriva a diventare atto puro e dunque causa finale prima a cui tutto tende.
Gli stoici definiscono la Natura molto similmente come ciò a cui tutto tende e che rende così tutto nella sua migliore forma.
Che ne pensate? E' un paragone troppo azzardato o ci sono effettivamente delle somiglianze nei due ragionamenti?

Qua sopra un articolo scritto da me che prova ad argomentare le cose dette...