There is only one Universe, because it is called a "uni-verse"

The Universe is the only thing that exists. Why? Because that's the definition of "universe." If there are multiple "universes," that would mean that each supposed "universe" is just part of the actual Universe, which is one. There is only one Universe, which contains all things, a priori.

The Jeff Bogdan Variation of the Transcendental Proof of God (The Moral + TAG Proof)

I recently proved God. It goes like this:

1. "Speak the truth" is metaphysically certain.

This is certain through experience. If you speak the truth as you understand it all the time, then you understand its eternal righteousness. It is not only right because it is skillful, but right because it is true. Truth is true.

2. If "Speak the truth" is an eternal law, there must be an eternal lawmaker.

Otherwise, why would that be the case? It is an action, it is a reality, and it is eternal, so there needs to be some agent.

3. That eternal lawmaker is God.

Or whatever else you'd like to call such an eternal lawmaker. It turns out this argument has already been formulated, and is called the Argument From Morality. The objection to it is that it "means that no objective morality could exist without God." However, the people using this refutation confuse subject and object. It does not mean a person cannot be moral without believing in God. A person can easily be moral without believing in God. However, it is true that no objective morality could exist without God as lawmaker. That is certain. A person actually sees God when they are acting from a place of absolute moral certainty, even if they don't know of God's Pneuma.

There is also the possibility that an eternal law exists based on nothing other than the usefulness of the law. This would lead to the result that future lives and past lives are necessary. So actually, the proof of God is not so complete if past and future lives are taken into consideration.

Ecological Poopprint

The average American produces about 323 pounds of poop per year. This is because for every 12 pounds of body weight, roughly 1 ounce of poop is produced. I currently weigh 230 pounds, so I produce more like 430 pounds of poop per year. If every overweight person could reduce their body weight and food consumption to the point where they produce 100 pounds less poop per year, that would be a significantly less amount of poop on the Earth and would be good for the environment. This would require lowering your body mass by 60 pounds, assuming that is reasonable. We can do it! For Mother Earth!

Science of morals

I would like to see a science that took as axioms the basic laws of morality. It also takes basic axioms like 1=1 into account, and the Law of Non-contradiction. The basic laws of morality would be... don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat. There may be interactions between the laws of morality and the laws of physics. I guess the closest thing to this science would be psychology. I think that is the way psychology needs to proceed. There are moral imperatives in the psychological science the same way that there are physical imperatives in physics.

Truth is an object and an idea

Evidently, classical philosophy was concerned with objects, like bodies, wars, and people. This is my present understanding of "object." Modern philosophy concerned itself with ideas, like, "justice," or "being" (though to a degree, classics did too). The notion of speaking truth, satya, is both an object and an idea. It combines rational certitude with empirical, objective reality. There is such a thing as a truth claim when you say something that you mean, and there is the idea of the permanence of this truth claim. Put otherwise, there are the physically spoken words, and then there is the meaning and essence of the words. Only truth has this nature. Lies do not. They are nonsense and have no actual ethereal essence.

There is some historical evidence for the fact that the essence of satya, truth, is unchanging. Here it is:

Think of the number 1. Has the number 1 ever changed its nature over the course of civilization? 1+1=2, 3-2=1. Of course there are more things learned about it, but will it ever be different than how you understood its essence when you first learned it in school? Is it possible in any universe for 1 to not have the nature of 1? I did a search for "1=1" and Google showed some bizarre results. I have news for you. 1=1. Remember that. People seem to be able to go to graduate school for 4 years and by the end they don't know that 1=1 anymore. It does.