Deja Vu Revisited

Not long ago, I presented a theory about how deja vu could prove that a personal and omniscient god exists. This theory does a little more, though.

If two-thirds of people experience deja vu, that means that essentially each person has either had a personal experience with God, or knows someone that has. Which essentially solve the problem of divine hiddenness. Because if every person either had a religious experience or knew someone that had, the problem of divine hiddenness is not a problem at all.

Refuting Allah

Alternate title: How great does your God love?

In Christianity, we are introduced to the unconditional love of God, who desires that all come to salvation [I Timothy 2:4]. In Islam, Allah orders the death of the unbelievers [Quran 9:5]. Because of this, the love of the Christian God is simply greater than the God of Islam. And if the Christian God is greater than the Muslim God, and we define God as the greatest conceivable being. Therefore if the Christian God is greater than the God of Islam, the God of Islam is not God at all.

Want and Fear

What I think is strange is the relationship between want and fear. A fear is a realized negative future reality. A want is very similar. It’s realizing a positive future reality, and preferring it to your current reality. In both instances, the current reality is corrupted because of thoughts outside of it. The fear may or may not ever happen. The want may or may not ever come to fruition.

For me, once the want or fear is identified, I can pray it away. And once it is gone, I can work to be fully present. Otherwise, my mind sits on the want or the fear until the want is filled or fear is overcome. The problem, though, is that all fears cannot be overcome. All desires cannot be filled. So I am either left wanting or fearing.

MS Paint _ Microsoft Paint Online (1)

So wants and fears are the same in that they both involve us looking forward to something that corrupts our current reality. Either by focusing on something negative that may happen, or something positive that may not happen. It’s only when we can overcome our wants and fears that we can focus on what is and start to be fully present. And the fully-present self is the best self.

 

 

Refuting Eric

I was recently introduced to Eric in a r/DebateAChristian thread. Here’s how Eric is defined [on https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/]:

God can’t exist because of Eric The God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist, God doesn’t exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities – either you can prove that Eric doesn’t exist or you can’t – in both cases it logically follows that God doesn’t exist.

The issue is that for Eric to be able to ‘eat God’ he would be greater than God. Which naturally makes Eric God. So whatever Eric ate wasn’t God, and God still exists, his name is only Eric.

Of course, there are no reasons to believe that Eric exists. But even if there were, God could still exist. God would still exist.

Counterfactuals and the Principle of Explosion

A counterfactual is a fact that follows a false hypothetical. For instance, if I never was born, I would never have owned a truck. The argument follows, but is based on a false premise.

It’s how we can think what-if about the past. I can think what if I hadn’t done that, then this would’ve never happened. It’s not a fruitful line of thought. And brings us no closer to the truth. It’s the definition of regret.

There’s the bright side of it though: if this world is preferable to the counterfactual, the thought becomes positive.

A child from my wife’s hometown was killed by accident, and one of the siblings thought I should’ve been home. If I was home, it wouldn’t have happened. As before, this could very well be true, just not in our universe. So it’s a practically meaningless thought. Certainly not one helpful for the grieving process.

I think it’s also a great way to be unhappy. Instead of accepting what’s happened, we try to change it by imagining different impossible hypotheticals. 


The principle of explosion  is that  “from falsehood, anything follows.” This is known as deductive explosion.The proof of this principle was first given by 12th century French philosopher William of Soissons.

As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements – “All lemons are yellow” and “Not all lemons are yellow”, and suppose that both are true. If that is the case, anything can be proven, e.g., the assertion that “unicorns exist”, by using the following argument:

1. All lemons are yellow.
2. All lemons are yellow OR unicorns exist.
3. Not all lemons are yellow, therefore unicorns exist. [Source]

In the spiritual world that we live in, I think this may be one of Satan’s greatest tactics. For example, if we remain undecided about an important past event, anything follows. In the above example, it cannot possibly be true that the sibling could have prevented the death. That world simply does not exist. So entertaining the thought creates a reality where anything is possible. And in this case, that is not a good thing. 

Multiple Personality Theory

Let’s say that your life hinges on three events. These three major events shape your entire life. But what if your view of each event changed periodically. Whether it was good or bad. In hindsight, you create different realities. You reshape your current reality based on your view of these three events. But if the impact of these events changes, you change.

Let’s just say that your events have only one quality: good or bad. With three events, each has two different states. So that you have eight different potential states of your current self based on your views of these events.

If if you have eight different potential present selves, you have eight personalities.

If this theory is correct, the key to overcoming the disease would be an objective view of all three events. The truth to whether each event was either good or bad. That is the true self.

The Biblical Hierarchy

In my model of the Trinity, God the Father is the head of Christ. I think there is Scripture to support it. 

And Christ is head of the Church. [Colossians 1:18]

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. [Ephesians 5:23]

The church is made of families. And the husband is the head of the wife in marriage, which is the foundation of a Christian household.

And the children are called to honor and obey their parents. [Colossians 3:20, Ephesians 6:1]

So you see, everyone has a place in the hierarchy: God the Father, Christ, man, woman, and children.

The Karate Kid Phenomenon

I recently saw a portion of the Karate Kid on TV, and I couldn’t help but think: I don’t remember all of these people being so young. Last time I saw this, I looked up to the main character. Now he seems like a child. 

Obviously, it has probably been at least a decade since I’ve seen the movie. But what phenomenon is this? Why would I perceive characters so differently? How could my age factor into my perception of others? 

Subconsciously, we must know our age relative to those we see. Because while we change, college kids stay the same age. What changes is us, and the people that are in college, but the age of the people in college stays the same. Therefore the change is not them, it’s us. In our perception of ourselves.

Perhaps, we always compare others to ourselves. Looking for those subtle and not-so-subtle signs of aging. And as we age, we see less of those signs in those younger than us. So as we accept the slow progression of these negative attributes of our own beauty, we cannot help but notice the lack of these attributes in those younger than us. As we accept those as part of our reality, we notice that these attributes are not part of those realities of those younger than us.

MS Paint _ Microsoft Paint Online.png
A simplified sketch of comparing flaws. Normalization is the adaptation. And the numbers at the bottom are the perceived difference in age.

Our perception of ourselves is the zero point. Every time we look in the mirror, we are different. We change slowly over the course of our lives. We age. And we adapt to each new perception of ourselves.

You’ve heard the story of the frog being boiled alive. By slowly increasing the temperature, the frog never notices the change.  I think this story closely parallels this psychological mechanism. We are not aware of the change in us, because our aging is the combination of many small changes over a long period of time.

Dragon In My Garage

Preliminary Reading: We Are The Evidence

Carl Sagan equated the existence of God to the existence of a dragon living in someone’s garage.

Instead of having Carl Sagan or someone else try to scientifically validate the existence of this dragon, what if we just asked those people who knew a dragon was in their garage to leave their lights on? That way, if the dragon was not something that could be scientifically tested, we could still have data to look at.

The number of houses with lights on continues to grow as we zoom out from the neighborhood, to the town, state, country, and world. One thing we can know for certain is that people think that there are dragons in their garages.

So each house [with the lights on] amounts to a single claim that a dragon exists. So if a type of dragon does exist that science cannot validate, we appear to have good evidence backing that claim.

Of course, if the only type of dragons that can exist are those that science tells us that it can test, we simply miss out on any dragons of the sort that science cannot test. Obviously, there are two types of possible dragons: those that science can test, and those that science cannot test.

And if we are looking for dragons that science cannot tell us whether they are in a garage or not, I think one of the best ways of testing is to ask the resident if there is a dragon in their garage.

This, though, is not really convincing as evidence.

If all these dragons are different, they could all be made up or mistaken. What becomes good evidence is when we see that there are many dragons of the same type. Or that many homes are occupied by the exact same dragon. Alongside a book that predicts the existence of this dragon.

So yes, a dragon does live in my garage. But don’t take my word for it.

 

The Laugh

I’ve already presented theories about crying, sneezing, but what about laughing? 
Why do we laugh? What makes things funny? 

In a typical joke, expectations are set in a certain line. The joke deviates from the line of expectation in a humorous way. But what makes it funny? I think it’s a contrast between the expectation and the reality of the joke.

So instead of what may be a negative line of thinking, the story takes a turn, to something unexpected, to something lighter.

As a listener, the expected stress of the story grows. So in looking forward there is value in having more time to react. Comparing future realities is paramount. So the slower time is for the listener, the more they can compare. So the body physiologically adapts to a stressful situation. But as it turns out, there was no need. The story allowed for an easy out.

The air that was trapped to compare realities is no longer needed. And thus, is released. Time is slow, then fast. Unpleasant, then pleasant. The sudden change of future, from negative to positive, from dark to light, gives the listener relief, in an audible adaptation to a better future.