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.

Theories of Consciousness

One theory of consciousness is that it is similar to a theater, with director, spotlight, and all the other elements (Baars' Global Workspace theory).

My belief is that insight is a lived experience. Insight is a result of observation and logic, as well as personal ethical principles. There are other elements of experience as well. Even if you do not believe in science or logic, you simply follow the logical principles whenever formulating any kind of insight or observation. There is basic truth, and division between truth and lies. The awareness of this is a key component of consciousness in my view.

Thoughts are never lies, are they? Do we ever tell ourselves things with the intention to lie? Often people misunderstand us, because we tell them things other than what we tell ourselves. Even if some people say, "you're deceiving yourself," we never do that on purpose. Inner speech is a thought, which we assume to be true, that is conscious. I read that theory on "onphilosophy.wordpress.com" and I believe they went on to refute it, but I think it's quite accurate. They say inner dialog is conscious thought. We even sound more authentic when we are thinking than when we are speaking. It feels like the "true us." That is why we should speak the truth. It helps unite the inner with the outer.

Objectivity, truth, and scientific inquiry

There are two aspects of truth in psychological research. One is the objective measurement of data without obscuring it in any way. The other is an ethical principle of absence of deceit. This is important because it combines a philosophical bent towards truth with a scientific pursuit of knowledge. Both, in effect, are aspects of truth and complement one another. Without one, the other is a lot weaker.