There is nothing profound about profundity and there is nothing mysterious about mystery

[Leibniz1699]

Take two truths/facts:

Whatever caused the universe to exist
A chair in a room is an inch away from the wall

Most people would assume the first fact is profound and amazing while the second fact is mundane and sterile. But this is only because the cause of the universe is something most people don't think about often and is removed from day to day experience. If the ultimate answer to existence is ever answered it may seem interesting at first but soon will become as mundane and unimpressive as the fact that a chair is an inch away from the wall. Objectively neither fact is more or less 'important' than the other.

People were once shocked when they realized the Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. Today no one really cares. But they had no reason to be shocked - being shocked at something is the product of closed mindedness. Closed minded people discount possibilities and assume things can't happen because they seem 'strange'. In the grand scheme of things I really have no idea what is possible or impossible - so there is no such thing as strange, profound, or supernatural. Things are just what they are.

So if the cause of the universe were to shock or amaze you then that means you are closed minded - because you assumed something was not possible when you had no justification to do so (because the absence of evidence for something no matter how seemingly 'strange' does not mean it doesn't exist or can't happen somewhere throughout eternity).

[Ambika]

I completely agree with your view that the cause of the universe is no less or more important than the distance between a chair and a wall. However, I do not think that this implies that both of them are statements of the same kind or that they ought to provoke a similar response from people. After all, they are stimuli of different kinds; while one is an object which we clearly see, the other is an idea about something which we don't have much clarity on: the cause of the universe. The gap in our knowledge of the cause of existence and not of the chair does, in my opinion, make it natural that we will wonder more about the former and not the latter.

[gad-fly]

Take two truths/facts:

Whatever caused the universe to exist
A chair in a room is an inch away from the wall

You are not the first to propagate nihilism.

[Tegularius]

In the grand scheme of things I really have no idea what is possible or impossible - so there is no such thing as strange, profound, or supernatural. Things are just what they are.

These are only our reactions especially the strange part when something believed in or accepted for generations falls apart under new discoveries or insights. In nature there is no such thing as strange or supernatural though there remain many such things which seem so to us. It may take another generation or two for any shock of strangeness to wear off. That's the way its always been.

[LuckyR]

Take two truths/facts:

Whatever caused the universe to exist
A chair in a room is an inch away from the wall

Most people would assume the first fact is profound and amazing while the second fact is mundane and sterile. But this is only because the cause of the universe is something most people don't think about often and is removed from day to day experience. If the ultimate answer to existence is ever answered it may seem interesting at first but soon will become as mundane and unimpressive as the fact that a chair is an inch away from the wall. Objectively neither fact is more or less 'important' than the other.

People were once shocked when they realized the Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. Today no one really cares. But they had no reason to be shocked - being shocked at something is the product of closed mindedness. Closed minded people discount possibilities and assume things can't happen because they seem 'strange'. In the grand scheme of things I really have no idea what is possible or impossible - so there is no such thing as strange, profound, or supernatural. Things are just what they are.

So if the cause of the universe were to shock or amaze you then that means you are closed minded - because you assumed something was not possible when you had no justification to do so (because the absence of evidence for something no matter how seemingly 'strange' does not mean it doesn't exist or can't happen somewhere throughout eternity).

Great example of subjective assessments of objective information. Descriptions like mysterious and profound are in the eye of the beholder.

[Angelo Cannata]

What about suspecting that we don’t see profundity because of our blindness? For example, “A chair in a room is an inch away from the wall” makes me thinking of the chair painted by Van Gogh. The simple idea of a chair in a room was able to inspire him what is now generally recognized as a masterpiece of art.
When we don’t see profundity somewhere, it’s just because we aren’t making connections in our mind and we think that we know anything about the objects we are considering. Is there anything in this world so that we can say about it “I know everything about it”? If nothing exists so completely known by our knowledge, we should actually wonder how and why is it possible that something doesn’t suggest us any perception of profundity. If this happens, I suspect that we might be closed minded, so that the closed minded person is most probably the one who doesn’t see profundity, rather than the one who sees it.
Besides, we can consider that the perception of profundity is produced not only by the perception of not knowing something, but, most likely, by the perception of possibilities of connections and of deeper knowledge. From this perspective, profundity can even be somewhat measured, subjectively and objectively: something is more or less profound according to the connections it is able to suggest to our mind and according to the richness of our mind, that makes us able to see those connections.

[Papus79]

I don't know if I'd be quite as harsh on human psychology to this point. When people are shocked and amazed more than it seems warranted it might be because their opinion might be strapped to particular sets of experts, they take this received wisdom as more of a blunt fact than it should be, and they're bewildered when the consensus changes more than they're bewildered by the universe.

There's the whole issue of psychological operating paradigms that also needs to be considered - such as a devout Christian or Muslim would see the world much different than a Buddhist who'd see the universe in a way significantly different from a more strict physicalist/materialist. A religious believer becoming a physicalist is a pretty hard demarcation and takes a lot of software and even firmware rewrites. An equally jarring thing happens perhaps for the physicalist or materialist who has an NDE or is stuck with some other significant breech in their paradigm, ends up finding people like A.N. Whitehead, Donald Hoffman, Tom Campbell, etc., starts chewing on a sort of hylozoic form of idealism.

When you get to the edges of solidly known or mapped reality (the extremely large or small), particularly if there are really big narratives strapped to those edges, and those narratives get shifted or overthrown in some way you have culture shock from that.

[subatomic]

In my opinion, the reason that we find the universe is more interesting than a chair and a wall is that the universe is more important. The universe created all of us, whereas a chair is, well, a chair - the universe has a bigger impact, thus it is more important. Philosophizing about a chair is practically useless, whereas philosophizing about the universe is extremely important, complicated, and fun, we created science and philosophy for the universe. It doesn't matter how much we think about something in order to make it more interesting, it matters how uncommon or important the thing is.

According to your logic, if all facts have the same interest and importance level, then why do we live? Why do we search for the truth? If nothing is interesting, then we would all die, we wouldn't even try to live, we wouldn't have culture or art of medicine, and we would go extinct. It's ultimate nihilism and primitivism.

Of course, according to your logic, I could argue that everything is important and everything is interesting since every fact is the same (in interest and importance). So really, it really depends on your approach and perspective on the world.