Just wrote this. I think it applies to this indirectly....if not it's just its own thing...😁

https://substack.com/profile/486790054-thomas-albany/note/c-279276339

I could take a pile of words and drop them into a word container. Then I could reach in and grab a clump of words and line them up. Then I capitalize the first letter and put a period at the end.

An observer would read it and say “It’s just a bunch of random words that look like a sentence, but it doesn’t make any sense.”

Then I say: “It only has a message for those who believe.”

Then, if they are a "believer" they will start the process of piecing words together, extracting meaning, coming to conclusions.

This process can be performed on any object, system, situation, context. Most importantly, it can be started from nothing….and that is especially significant…..

Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.
— Niccolò Machiavelli

I'd think that is impossible because it ceases to be truth about something at some point and just becomes the thing.

The description of what “God” is, and “God” itself are the same thing. But that’s not how we create truth. Truth uses symbols or language to apply to a visible object or system. Then we can grade truth value by matching how well the symbols captured what we see. I’m proposing that “God” is both the language and the subject and just declares itself true with no standard. It simply can’t be truth, and since anybody can alter it, it’s also meaningless and worthless as a thing “God”. Fight me 😂

There's not enough evidence to say what "God" is, so of course I can't say there isn't one. THERE ISN'T EVEN ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO BE AGNOSTIC.

#philosophy #quotes #CivilSimian #UniversalHumanism