Topics taken out of the Mental Health Club for space/other reasons

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Idk if that's the best title I was just putting something. Ok I'm'a ping everyone who was part of this discussion, continue to take part if you wish. Or not.

@MirkerLurker @TwinStorm @Hoid Slayer @Dragonheir

@MirkerLurker to answer your question about whether I think all truth is subjective: the short answer is yes.

To expand on that, you know the saying, there's three sides to every story—yours, mine, and the truth? I think of it more as each side is either true as they see it or fabricated based on the truth as they see it—that is, either their side is true to them, or it's deliberately modified based on the truth they see. That said, in nearly any event, people will recount things differently, with details that don't match up. Even accounting for some people deliberately changing things, it happens often enough that for some there's just a difference in how they perceived something happening. While it might be different from what a third person might say happened, it is still what is true to them, and, without a way to objectively determine truth, for all practical purposes the truth is different for each person.

In the same way, turning to physics, light always travels at the same speed. Each person will see a ray of light traveling at the same speed, even if they're moving relative to each other. This means that everything else they see will be different, despite being the same conceptually. However, this also implies that there is a single objective truth that is the same, by this analogy.

So the long answer is that, while there may be objective truth, I don't think it's practically real, because it has no real effect or appearance in the world. It's a lot like the ideal forms of (Plato, I think it was?), where each thing in the world is just a shadow of an ideal form; while theoretically such an ideal form could exist, it has no practical bearing on the world.

I really hope that logic made some sense, it's almost midnight here so my brain is running a little slow.

[TwinStorm He/Him]

8 hours ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

Idk if that's the best title I was just putting something. Ok I'm'a ping everyone who was part of this discussion, continue to take part if you wish. Or not.

@MirkerLurker @TwinStorm @Hoid Slayer @Dragonheir

@MirkerLurker to answer your question about whether I think all truth is subjective: the short answer is yes.

To expand on that, you know the saying, there's three sides to every story—yours, mine, and the truth? I think of it more as each side is either true as they see it or fabricated based on the truth as they see it—that is, either their side is true to them, or it's deliberately modified based on the truth they see. That said, in nearly any event, people will recount things differently, with details that don't match up. Even accounting for some people deliberately changing things, it happens often enough that for some there's just a difference in how they perceived something happening. While it might be different from what a third person might say happened, it is still what is true to them, and, without a way to objectively determine truth, for all practical purposes the truth is different for each person.

In the same way, turning to physics, light always travels at the same speed. Each person will see a ray of light traveling at the same speed, even if they're moving relative to each other. This means that everything else they see will be different, despite being the same conceptually. However, this also implies that there is a single objective truth that is the same, by this analogy.

So the long answer is that, while there may be objective truth, I don't think it's practically real, because it has no real effect or appearance in the world. It's a lot like the ideal forms of (Plato, I think it was?), where each thing in the world is just a shadow of an ideal form; while theoretically such an ideal form could exist, it has no practical bearing on the world.

I really hope that logic made some sense, it's almost midnight here so my brain is running a little slow.

you say that for practical purposes yes, but everyone experienced the same situation, regardless of perception, the same thing happened, showing that, however their lenses changed the frame of it, the same true event occurred.

[MirkerLurker she/her]

9 hours ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

Idk if that's the best title I was just putting something. Ok I'm'a ping everyone who was part of this discussion, continue to take part if you wish. Or not.

@MirkerLurker @TwinStorm @Hoid Slayer @Dragonheir

@MirkerLurker to answer your question about whether I think all truth is subjective: the short answer is yes.

To expand on that, you know the saying, there's three sides to every story—yours, mine, and the truth? I think of it more as each side is either true as they see it or fabricated based on the truth as they see it—that is, either their side is true to them, or it's deliberately modified based on the truth they see. That said, in nearly any event, people will recount things differently, with details that don't match up. Even accounting for some people deliberately changing things, it happens often enough that for some there's just a difference in how they perceived something happening. While it might be different from what a third person might say happened, it is still what is true to them, and, without a way to objectively determine truth, for all practical purposes the truth is different for each person.

In the same way, turning to physics, light always travels at the same speed. Each person will see a ray of light traveling at the same speed, even if they're moving relative to each other. This means that everything else they see will be different, despite being the same conceptually. However, this also implies that there is a single objective truth that is the same, by this analogy.

So the long answer is that, while there may be objective truth, I don't think it's practically real, because it has no real effect or appearance in the world. It's a lot like the ideal forms of (Plato, I think it was?), where each thing in the world is just a shadow of an ideal form; while theoretically such an ideal form could exist, it has no practical bearing on the world.

I really hope that logic made some sense, it's almost midnight here so my brain is running a little slow.

How are you claiming that light always travels at the same speed? Wouldn't that be an objective truth?

I'm going to go to science for this, I think. But I'm going to start by confirming I'm understanding you correctly. Your response is mostly based on human perception - we each see things through our own lens, our own perception, so how can we know what the real objective truth was? As in, there very well may be a real objective truth, but because we have no way of discerning it (due to everyone's experience being different), it's not practical to try and interact with objective truth.

...Actually, I'm going to wait to debate that until you reply with confirmation or correction. It'll mean a slow conversation, but any response I give will be dependent on whether I'm understanding your position correctly. I mean, if I give a response, and then you point out "That's not what I was trying to say", then my response was irrelevant and I'm debating with myself 

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

1 hour ago, MirkerLurker said:

How are you claiming that light always travels at the same speed? Wouldn't that be an objective truth?

I'm going to go to science for this, I think. But I'm going to start by confirming I'm understanding you correctly. Your response is mostly based on human perception - we each see things through our own lens, our own perception, so how can we know what the real objective truth was? As in, there very well may be a real objective truth, but because we have no way of discerning it (due to everyone's experience being different), it's not practical to try and interact with objective truth.

...Actually, I'm going to wait to debate that until you reply with confirmation or correction. It'll mean a slow conversation, but any response I give will be dependent on whether I'm understanding your position correctly. I mean, if I give a response, and then you point out "That's not what I was trying to say", then my response was irrelevant and I'm debating with myself 

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't deny that there may be an objective truth, but proving there is one is rather like trying to prove the existence of God; there is no concrete evidence, and it mostly depends on how one interprets the evidence. About the light: this might be an example of an objective truth, except that it isn't, in fact, always true. It breaks down in some circumstances, like at the edges of black holes.

2 hours ago, TwinStorm said:

you say that for practical purposes yes, but everyone experienced the same situation, regardless of perception, the same thing happened, showing that, however their lenses changed the frame of it, the same true event occurred.

Yeah my argument isn't really that there isn't an objective truth precisely, more that such an objective truth is impossible to find if it does exist because we have no way of determining which interpretation of events, if any, is right.

[MirkerLurker she/her]

6 hours ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I don't deny that there may be an objective truth, but proving there is one is rather like trying to prove the existence of God; there is no concrete evidence, and it mostly depends on how one interprets the evidence. About the light: this might be an example of an objective truth, except that it isn't, in fact, always true. It breaks down in some circumstances, like at the edges of black holes.

Yeah my argument isn't really that there isn't an objective truth precisely, more that such an objective truth is impossible to find if it does exist because we have no way of determining which interpretation of events, if any, is right.

Ok. Back to light speed: The fact that there are circumstances in which light moves at a different speed doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth - just that we started by defining it incorrectly. We set a definition based on observation, and used it until we observe exceptions. Then we study where and why those exceptions occur, and modify our definition to better match the objective truth. "Light always travels at C" becomes "Light always travels at C unless acted on by an external force". (Ok, there's probably more that should be included in that definition - like what forces are capable of affecting lightspeed - but I hope you see what I mean.)

That's science. Science is the process through which we compare multiple viewpoints to eliminate as many variables (our faulty perception included) as possible and ascertain as best we can what is objectively True. 

To throw a mildly absurd example to question: Gravity. Would you acknowledge the existence of the force we call "Gravity" as objectively True? I pick gravity on purpose, because we don't actually know why it works, despite much study. Scientists still debate and research that. But no one debates whether it's affecting us right now; and we've got a pretty darn good definition of what it affects and how it affects those things. No one debates "is light affected by gravity", because...we've done studies. We've done so many studies. We've compiled so many data points. If you ask someone "Is gravity real"...you don't really have any debate.
To summarize: We don't have a full understanding of gravity (our 'definition [like our light definition] is still incomplete), but we can conclusively say that there is something objectively there - and we can conclusively describe a lot of its characteristics. Does the fact that we can't describe ALL of it mean that we can't trust the parts we can describe? (Again to the absurd) Does the fact that I don't know why or how gravity pulls things towards the center of mass mean that I'm never sure that if I drop an apple, it will fall towards earth?

There's two possible "base" responses to that point, and I have a follow up question for either:

If you read that and say "YES" - Yes, the fact that we can't define all of it means that we truly can't trust the functions we have defined."
Then...how do you science? Not trying to be insulting, just legitimately confused. Or maybe better question: We can't fully trust the functions we observe, but it's clearly important to make educated guesses and assumptions on some of them in order to function (If you decided "I don't trust gravity to work every time, therefore I'm going to walk off this cliff and expect to not fall", you would have an obvious problem.) So how do you decided what researched observations to accept and use? 

If you read that and say "NO" - No, the fact that we can't define all of it does NOT mean that we can't trust the functions. We can trust that apples will fall towards earth if we drop them, even if we can't fully define why." Then where's the line at which evidence crosses from "insufficient to determine any kind of objectivity" to "sufficient to determine x, y, or z"? What kind of evidence does it take, how much of it, etc? How many different viewpoints, how many studies, how much variation in results. 

Final note: Does any of that make sense, or do you think I hit a logical fallacy or missed something? Is there a better question I could be asking, is my example flawed?

Edited May 31, 2025 by MirkerLurker
edited for typos, sorry lol

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

1 hour ago, MirkerLurker said:

Ok. Back to light speed: The fact that there are circumstances in which light moves at a different speed doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth - just that we started by defining it incorrectly. We set a definition based on observation, and used it until we observe exceptions. Then we study where and why those exceptions occur, and modify our definition to better match the objective truth. "Light always travels at C" becomes "Light always travels at C unless acted on by an external force". (Ok, there's probably more that should be included in that definition - like what forces are capable of affecting lightspeed - but I hope you see what I mean.)

That's science. Science is the process through which we compare multiple viewpoints to eliminate as many variables (our faulty perception included) as possible and ascertain as best we can what is objectively True. 

To throw a mildly absurd example to question: Gravity. Would you acknowledge the existence of the force we call "Gravity" as objectively True? I pick gravity on purpose, because we don't actually know why it works, despite much study. Scientists still debate and research that. But no one debates whether it's affecting us right now; and we've got a pretty darn good definition of what it affects and how it affects those things. No one debates "is light affected by gravity", because...we've done studies. We've done so many studies. We've compiled so many data points. If you ask someone "Is gravity real"...you don't really have any debate.
To summarize: We don't have a full understanding of gravity (our 'definition [like our light definition] is still incomplete), but we can conclusively say that there is something objectively there - and we can conclusively describe a lot of its characteristics. Does the fact that we can't describe ALL of it mean that we can't trust the parts we can describe? (Again to the absurd) Does the fact that I don't know why or how gravity pulls things towards the center of mass mean that I'm never sure that if I drop an apple, it will fall towards earth?

To bring in another point here, our science is based on compilation of observations; we hold a lot of things true primarily because we have a massive catalogue of instances that uphold these theories, without any exceptions. That said, we cannot conclusively determine that these laws ALWAYS hold. Even the fundamental axioms on which the rest of science is based are just statements that we have accepted as true because we have seen no contradiction to them ever.

As far as concerns gravity, I think the main problem would be proving that this force is universal or always holds, for the same reasons above: we cannot conclusively prove that gravity ALWAYS acts as it does, because it is so fundamental a law to our science that it just is.

1 hour ago, MirkerLurker said:

If you read that and say "YES" - Yes, the fact that we can't define all of it means that we truly can't trust the functions we have defined."
Then...how do you science? Not trying to be insulting, just legitimately confused. Or maybe better question: We can't fully trust the functions we observe, but it's clearly important to make educated guesses and assumptions on some of them in order to function (If you decided "I don't trust gravity to work every time, therefore I'm going to walk off this cliff and expect to not fall", you would have an obvious problem.) So how do you decided what researched observations to accept and use? 

Mostly, I accept science as extremely likely instance bordering on fact—that is, in any given instance, science probably holds. So I operate on the assumption that it holds, but at the same time I don't discount the possibility that someday, or somewhere, those laws will fail, meaning I don't necessarily trust them to becompletely universal.

[TwinStorm He/Him]

3 hours ago, MirkerLurker said:

Ok. Back to light speed: The fact that there are circumstances in which light moves at a different speed doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth - just that we started by defining it incorrectly. We set a definition based on observation, and used it until we observe exceptions. Then we study where and why those exceptions occur, and modify our definition to better match the objective truth. "Light always travels at C" becomes "Light always travels at C unless acted on by an external force". (Ok, there's probably more that should be included in that definition - like what forces are capable of affecting lightspeed - but I hope you see what I mean.)

That's science. Science is the process through which we compare multiple viewpoints to eliminate as many variables (our faulty perception included) as possible and ascertain as best we can what is objectively True. 

To throw a mildly absurd example to question: Gravity. Would you acknowledge the existence of the force we call "Gravity" as objectively True? I pick gravity on purpose, because we don't actually know why it works, despite much study. Scientists still debate and research that. But no one debates whether it's affecting us right now; and we've got a pretty darn good definition of what it affects and how it affects those things. No one debates "is light affected by gravity", because...we've done studies. We've done so many studies. We've compiled so many data points. If you ask someone "Is gravity real"...you don't really have any debate.
To summarize: We don't have a full understanding of gravity (our 'definition [like our light definition] is still incomplete), but we can conclusively say that there is something objectively there - and we can conclusively describe a lot of its characteristics. Does the fact that we can't describe ALL of it mean that we can't trust the parts we can describe? (Again to the absurd) Does the fact that I don't know why or how gravity pulls things towards the center of mass mean that I'm never sure that if I drop an apple, it will fall towards earth?

There's two possible "base" responses to that point, and I have a follow up question for either:

If you read that and say "YES" - Yes, the fact that we can't define all of it means that we truly can't trust the functions we have defined."
Then...how do you science? Not trying to be insulting, just legitimately confused. Or maybe better question: We can't fully trust the functions we observe, but it's clearly important to make educated guesses and assumptions on some of them in order to function (If you decided "I don't trust gravity to work every time, therefore I'm going to walk off this cliff and expect to not fall", you would have an obvious problem.) So how do you decided what researched observations to accept and use? 

If you read that and say "NO" - No, the fact that we can't define all of it does NOT mean that we can't trust the functions. We can trust that apples will fall towards earth if we drop them, even if we can't fully define why." Then where's the line at which evidence crosses from "insufficient to determine any kind of objectivity" to "sufficient to determine x, y, or z"? What kind of evidence does it take, how much of it, etc? How many different viewpoints, how many studies, how much variation in results. 

Final note: Does any of that make sense, or do you think I hit a logical fallacy or missed something? Is there a better question I could be asking, is my example flawed?

1 hour ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

To bring in another point here, our science is based on compilation of observations; we hold a lot of things true primarily because we have a massive catalogue of instances that uphold these theories, without any exceptions. That said, we cannot conclusively determine that these laws ALWAYS hold. Even the fundamental axioms on which the rest of science is based are just statements that we have accepted as true because we have seen no contradiction to them ever.

As far as concerns gravity, I think the main problem would be proving that this force is universal or always holds, for the same reasons above: we cannot conclusively prove that gravity ALWAYS acts as it does, because it is so fundamental a law to our science that it just is.

Mostly, I accept science as extremely likely instance bordering on fact—that is, in any given instance, science probably holds. So I operate on the assumption that it holds, but at the same time I don't discount the possibility that someday, or somewhere, those laws will fail, meaning I don't necessarily trust them to becompletely universal.

real quick devil advocate thing, I agree with @MirkerLurker but a quick story from GK Chesterton that relates to the subject (I don't have the actual story, but here's my retelling)

Spoiler

The farmer's wife came out to feed the chickens every morning at 6 am exactly. One of these chickens is a scientist, and after observation he proposes a new law of the universe: at 6'o'clock in the morning, the farmer's wife must come out to feed the chickens. The chickens celebrate and accept his theory, until one day she comes out and beheads the chicken scientist instead.

 

1 hour ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

To bring in another point here, our science is based on compilation of observations; we hold a lot of things true primarily because we have a massive catalogue of instances that uphold these theories, without any exceptions. That said, we cannot conclusively determine that these laws ALWAYS hold. Even the fundamental axioms on which the rest of science is based are just statements that we have accepted as true because we have seen no contradiction to them ever.

As far as concerns gravity, I think the main problem would be proving that this force is universal or always holds, for the same reasons above: we cannot conclusively prove that gravity ALWAYS acts as it does, because it is so fundamental a law to our science that it just is.

Mostly, I accept science as extremely likely instance bordering on fact—that is, in any given instance, science probably holds. So I operate on the assumption that it holds, but at the same time I don't discount the possibility that someday, or somewhere, those laws will fail, meaning I don't necessarily trust them to becompletely universal.

then what is universal? Is there a constant? If not God or science?

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

27 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

real quick devil advocate thing, I agree with @MirkerLurker but a quick story from GK Chesterton that relates to the subject (I don't have the actual story, but here's my retelling)

  Reveal hidden contents

The farmer's wife came out to feed the chickens every morning at 6 am exactly. One of these chickens is a scientist, and after observation he proposes a new law of the universe: at 6'o'clock in the morning, the farmer's wife must come out to feed the chickens. The chickens celebrate and accept his theory, until one day she comes out and beheads the chicken scientist instead.

 

then what is universal? Is there a constant? If not God or science?

That's primarily the point I'm arguing: that,, even though there may be a universal truth out there, we have no real way of identifying it, and it doesn't practically exist as far as we can interact with it or determine it.

[Through the Living Heir he/him]

4 minutes ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

That's primarily the point I'm arguing: that,, even though there may be a universal truth out there, we have no real way of identifying it, and it doesn't practically exist as far as we can interact with it or determine it.

Does math work? It's built using consistent rules - you can change it so that 2+2=1, but in order to do that you have to change the rules or make a mistake. 

Also, I messed around with some word roots and made omnitheistic multisolipsism. 

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

Just now, Dragonheir said:

Does math work? It's built using consistent rules - you can change it so that 2+2=1, but in order to do that you have to change the rules or make a mistake. 

Also, I messed around with some word roots and made omnitheistic multisolipsism. 

Math might be universal, but it's more a concept, as opposed to an actual thing (I realize thing is vague, but that's deliberate so it can cover all things that aren't simple concepts with no effect).

And what on Earth does that mean?

[Through the Living Heir he/him]

4 minutes ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

Math might be universal, but it's more a concept, as opposed to an actual thing (I realize thing is vague, but that's deliberate so it can cover all things that aren't simple concepts with no effect).

And what on Earth does that mean?

I suppose. What makes something a thing? A table, for instance, isn't anything more than a specific configuration of materials, which are in turn a specific configuration of atoms, which are in turn a specific composition of subatomic particles. I could argue that math is better defined than that. 

Every-religion many (instances of) solipsism. Solipsism being the belief that nothing besides your mind is real - Plato's Cave, and all that. 

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

Okay

So

It appears I have missed a chunk of this discussion

Instead of going back and responding to everyone individually, I will just state my perspective on this:

When I refer to the word "belief" or "believe", I mean I take it as truth, but still recognize I might be wrong.

I do believe there is, indeed, an objective "truth". As in, there are things that happen, and while they may be perceived differently, they most definitely happen. We do not necessarily know this truth. But science, math, physics, all attempt to objectively describe it.

Can different people perceive the same event differently? Yes, definitely. But does their perception change what actually happened? I don't think it does. Not unless there is some weird law in the universe about space time bending to our perception of events, which I won't discount, but even in that case, that law exists. Everything follows rules. We may not know them, we may have them wrong, but they're there. This is starting to sound a little religious, and I don't really want to go in that direction (I'll address it later), but my point is, everything happens for a reason. And I don't mean that in the "it was meant to be" type way, I mean it in the "every instant is a direct reaction to the previous instant. Every movement is a direct reaction to force applied" type way.

For religion and all that stuff, I go with the approach of accepting what we do not know. I trust verifiable facts. I also recognize that not everything can be concretely verified, that a human lens may not be perfect, and I'm good with that. I identify as atheist, because I trust science, and as far as I am aware, there is no concrete scientific proof for God or any other faith.

This actually leads me to a question. I'm genuinely curious about this, and I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, but I often see Christians act 100% sure that God exists. My question to you is: what makes you think that? Honestly. What evidence makes you believe in God's existence? Once again, I'm genuinely curious.

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

4 minutes ago, Dragonheir said:

I suppose. What makes something a thing? A table, for instance, isn't anything more than a specific configuration of materials, which are in turn a specific configuration of atoms, which are in turn a specific composition of subatomic particles. I could argue that math is better defined than that. 

Every-religion many (instances of) solipsism. Solipsism being the belief that nothing besides your mind is real - Plato's Cave, and all that. 

Oh yeah...yeah that's basically my belief

And that's fair in terms of definition,but math is a concept that, although it can help provide explanations for external phenomena and observations, it doesn't really affect any of them—at least, I would say.

3 minutes ago, Hoid Slayer said:

Okay

So

It appears I have missed a chunk of this discussion

Instead of going back and responding to everyone individually, I will just state my perspective on this:

When I refer to the word "belief" or "believe", I mean I take it as truth, but still recognize I might be wrong.

I do believe there is, indeed, an objective "truth". As in, there are things that happen, and while they may be perceived differently, they most definitely happen. We do not necessarily know this truth. But science, math, physics, all attempt to objectively describe it.

Can different people perceive the same event differently? Yes, definitely. But does their perception change what actually happened? I don't think it does. Not unless there is some weird law in the universe about space time bending to our perception of events, which I won't discount, but even in that case, that law exists. Everything follows rules. We may not know them, we may have them wrong, but they're there. This is starting to sound a little religious, and I don't really want to go in that direction (I'll address it later), but my point is, everything happens for a reason. And I don't mean that in the "it was meant to be" type way, I mean it in the "every instant is a direct reaction to the previous instant. Every movement is a direct reaction to force applied" type way.

For religion and all that stuff, I go with the approach of accepting what we do not know. I trust verifiable facts. I also recognize that not everything can be concretely verified, that a human lens may not be perfect, and I'm good with that. I identify as atheist, because I trust science, and as far as I am aware, there is no concrete scientific proof for God or any other faith.

This actually leads me to a question. I'm genuinely curious about this, and I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, but I often see Christians act 100% sure that God exists. My question to you is: what makes you think that? Honestly. What evidence makes you believe in God's existence? Once again, I'm genuinely curious.

(This is a fair argument, and I actually really appreciate that some it comes from a viewpoint of belief rather than full universal truth)

To poke at one of the holes I see with an exception: what about at a quantum level, where things aren't necessarily the result of some other action and several states exist at once?

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

First off:

9 minutes ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

And that's fair in terms of definition,but math is a concept that, although it can help provide explanations for external phenomena and observations, it doesn't really affect any of them—at least, I would say.

I actually disagree with this.

Heavily.

Math and physics are heavily intertwined; maybe you could argue that math doesn't "affect" external phenomena - but that's because it's already an integral part of them. Math is basically the rules that govern the universe. 

11 minutes ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

(This is a fair argument, and I actually really appreciate that some it comes from a viewpoint of belief rather than full universal truth)

That's... not really the idea I was trying to give off.

I sincerely believe what I stated to be truth.

I am just recognizing that there is always a chance that I don't know the full picture.

11 minutes ago, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

To poke at one of the holes I see with an exception: what about at a quantum level, where things aren't necessarily the result of some other action and several states exist at once?

This is a good example for the "I don't know."

I don't know why stuff behaves that way at a quantum level.

I won't try to identify a cause. I'm no physicist.

BUT

I do believe there is a reason.

Even if we don't know it yet.

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

8 minutes ago, Hoid Slayer said:

First off:

I actually disagree with this.

Heavily.

Math and physics are heavily intertwined; maybe you could argue that math doesn't "affect" external phenomena - but that's because it's already an integral part of them. Math is basically the rules that govern the universe. 

That's... not really the idea I was trying to give off.

I sincerely believe what I stated to be truth.

I am just recognizing that there is always a chance that I don't know the full picture.

This is a good example for the "I don't know."

I don't know why stuff behaves that way at a quantum level.

I won't try to identify a cause. I'm no physicist.

BUT

I do believe there is a reason.

Even if we don't know it yet.

First: thanks for correcting me! I see how I was reading that wrong.

There's some fair points here but I'll respond to this tomorrow because my logic is starting to not logic tonight.

[TwinStorm He/Him]

17 hours ago, Hoid Slayer said:

Okay

So

It appears I have missed a chunk of this discussion

Instead of going back and responding to everyone individually, I will just state my perspective on this:

When I refer to the word "belief" or "believe", I mean I take it as truth, but still recognize I might be wrong.

I do believe there is, indeed, an objective "truth". As in, there are things that happen, and while they may be perceived differently, they most definitely happen. We do not necessarily know this truth. But science, math, physics, all attempt to objectively describe it.

Can different people perceive the same event differently? Yes, definitely. But does their perception change what actually happened? I don't think it does. Not unless there is some weird law in the universe about space time bending to our perception of events, which I won't discount, but even in that case, that law exists. Everything follows rules. We may not know them, we may have them wrong, but they're there. This is starting to sound a little religious, and I don't really want to go in that direction (I'll address it later), but my point is, everything happens for a reason. And I don't mean that in the "it was meant to be" type way, I mean it in the "every instant is a direct reaction to the previous instant. Every movement is a direct reaction to force applied" type way.

For religion and all that stuff, I go with the approach of accepting what we do not know. I trust verifiable facts. I also recognize that not everything can be concretely verified, that a human lens may not be perfect, and I'm good with that. I identify as atheist, because I trust science, and as far as I am aware, there is no concrete scientific proof for God or any other faith.

This actually leads me to a question. I'm genuinely curious about this, and I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, but I often see Christians act 100% sure that God exists. My question to you is: what makes you think that? Honestly. What evidence makes you believe in God's existence? Once again, I'm genuinely curious.

if you believe that science cannot prove God, how do you explain our universe being created with everything we need? Also, how did the universe begin? I accept the Big Bang Theory, but what created the point of singularity and what set it off?

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

5 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

if you believe that science cannot prove God, how do you explain our universe being created with everything we need? Also, how did the universe begin? I accept the Big Bang Theory, but what created the point of singularity and what set it off?

I don't know

And maybe God is the answer

But I see no reason why the possibility of God is held above the others

Also, I don't believe our universe was "created with everything we need" for us

Yes, Earth does sustain us seemingly perfectly, but I think you have the cause and effect relationship of that wrong

These conditions do not exist to fit us; we evolved to fit the conditions

[TwinStorm He/Him]

1 hour ago, Hoid Slayer said:

I don't know

And maybe God is the answer

But I see no reason why the possibility of God is held above the others

Also, I don't believe our universe was "created with everything we need" for us

Yes, Earth does sustain us seemingly perfectly, but I think you have the cause and effect relationship of that wrong

These conditions do not exist to fit us; we evolved to fit the conditions

so how did the original beings (who first came into being there) not just die?

also, is it just luck that we were born on Earth, and not Mars (where there was a stable ecosphere that was destroyed)?

Edited June 1, 2025 by TwinStorm

[Hoid Slayer He/Him]

2 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

so how did the original beings (who first came into being there) not just die?

...

Maybe they did

But eventually, some beings came along that didn't die

THOSE beings are the ones we are all descended from

The ones that survived

3 minutes ago, TwinStorm said:

also, is it just luck that we were born on Earth, and not Mars (where there was a stable ecosphere that was destroyed)?

Well... yes, kind of

But not really

Humanity evolved on Earth and not Mars because of the perfect combination of existing conditions, existing life forms, and the right genetic mutations happening at the right time

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

23 hours ago, Hoid Slayer said:

Math and physics are heavily intertwined; maybe you could argue that math doesn't "affect" external phenomena - but that's because it's already an integral part of them. Math is basically the rules that govern the universe.

I wouldn't necessarily say that math governs the universe; rather, we use math to relate observations we have already accepted to other observations, and to try to explain what we see. It's a tool that helps us refine our observations and is sometimes—but not all the time—helpful in making predictions.

[Through the Living Heir he/him]

On 5/31/2025 at 11:03 PM, Hoid Slayer said:

For religion and all that stuff, I go with the approach of accepting what we do not know. I trust verifiable facts. I also recognize that not everything can be concretely verified, that a human lens may not be perfect, and I'm good with that. I identify as atheist, because I trust science, and as far as I am aware, there is no concrete scientific proof for God or any other faith.

This actually leads me to a question. I'm genuinely curious about this, and I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, but I often see Christians act 100% sure that God exists. My question to you is: what makes you think that? Honestly. What evidence makes you believe in God's existence? Once again, I'm genuinely curious.

There's a specific word for that, I think... 

I've got several reasons for my religious beliefs, at various levels of cynicism (I shall go roughly least to most cynical, and place counterarguments I have thought of in parentheses). 

Firstly, it feels right - I have emotional faith in the existence of God without really knowing why. (This may be simply because it is what I was taught as a child) 

Secondly, I can sometimes feel the presence of God - when I pray (and when I see or hear especially beautiful instances of art or nature), I get a really hard-to-describe-feeling, like the opposite of instinctual alarm; there's the same goosebumps and pressure change, but it feels good, like a comforting presence rather than pressing panic. (This may be a simple physiological reaction of awe at my own concept of God, mixed with conformation bias) 

Thirdly, the world has survived so many catastrophes it feels like God is interfering - anthropic principle wise, I'm supposed to be ordinary. The chances of us being one of the last generations to exist are low, assuming the generation in which I exist is random. The number of terrible things that have almost happen, and that are maybe going to happen, seem so high it seems something must be happening to avert all these catastrophes, because otherwise its up to random chance. Theologically, God tries to allow as much free will as possible, so only stopping disasters at the last moment seems fitting. (Of course, between sheer luck, humans pulling ourselves together when the real problems start happening, and an omnipotent protector, maybe Occam's Razor points at option 2) 

Fourthly, I feel that the Bible is a fairly reliable source of information - though I certainly don't accept everything as literally true or completely accurate, the Bible is better documented than many other historical books accepted as fact, so I take it as somewhat fuzzy truth. (Exaggeration, fraud, and misunderstandings can all invalidate it as historical truth) 

Fifthly, there are modern miracles - I believe the most recent Eucharistic Miracles (in which the Eucharist - bread to be blessed during mass, becoming the symbolic body of Christ - actually begin to bleed or turn partially to flesh) were studied by scientists and found to be impossible through human means. (Of course, fraud is always a possibility - they caught a janitor who staged one of these one time, because the blood is for some reason always AB - and I can't find the actual examinations in English, just excerpts from translations in conflict-of-interest Christian websites) 

Sixthly, there's Pascal's Wager - the idea that if eternal life and happiness in Heaven is a potential reward, no matter how unlikely, any money and time spent on religion is statistically insignificant in the face of an infinity. Similarly is the axiomic belief in free will - if you're wrong, it's not like it matters or even could be avoided, while if you're right, you have responsibility for your actions. (Full Atheism, Hedonism, and probably other philosophies disagree with this - if the likelihood is zero, the reward is still zero, and if you care more about the present than the future, it doesn't matter. I can't think of any other counterarguments, though) 

Finally, there's the fact that even if I am fooling myself, I still get benefit out of it - comfort, community, and moral standards are valuable, though external evaluation through secular ethics is important. (You could argue that I'm wasting more time going to church than I get out of an external encouragement to donate money and do good, could get community through easier groups, and might get myself lead astray from actually moral behavior, but as I said, verification through secular ethics) 

Edited June 2, 2025 by Dragonheir
spelling

[TwinStorm He/Him]

9 hours ago, Dragonheir said:

There's a specific word for that, I think... 

I've got several reasons for my religious beliefs, at various levels of cynicism (I shall go roughly least to most cynical, and place counterarguments I have thought of in parentheses). 

Firstly, it feels right - I have emotional faith in the existence of God without really knowing why. (This may be simply because it is what I was taught as a child) 

Secondly, I can sometimes feel the presence of God - when I pray (and when I see or hear especially beautiful instances of art or nature), I get a really hard-to-describe-feeling, like the opposite of instinctual alarm; there's the same goosebumps and pressure change, but it feels good, like a comforting presence rather than pressing panic. (This may be a simple physiological reaction of awe at my own concept of God, mixed with conformation bias) 

Thirdly, the world has survived so many catastrophes it feels like God is interfering - anthropic principle wise, I'm supposed to be ordinary. The chances of us being one of the last generations to exist are low, assuming the generation in which I exist is random. The number of terrible things that have almost happen, and that are maybe going to happen, seem so high it seems something must be happening to avert all these catastrophes, because otherwise its up to random chance. Theologically, God tries to allow as much free will as possible, so only stopping disasters at the last moment seems fitting. (Of course, between sheer luck, humans pulling ourselves together when the real problems start happening, and an omnipotent protector, maybe Occam's Razor points at option 2) 

Fourthly, I feel that the Bible is a fairly reliable source of information - though I certainly don't accept everything as literally true or completely accurate, the Bible is better documented than many other historical books accepted as fact, so I take it as somewhat fuzzy truth. (Exaggeration, fraud, and misunderstandings can all invalidate it as historical truth) 

Fifthly, there are modern miracles - I believe the most recent Eucharistic Miracles (in which the Eucharist - bread to be blessed during mass, becoming the symbolic body of Christ - actually begin to bleed or turn partially to flesh) were studied by scientists and found to be impossible through human means. (Of course, fraud is always a possibility - they caught a janitor who staged one of these one time, because the blood is for some reason always AB - and I can't find the actual examinations in English, just excerpts from translations in conflict-of-interest Christian websites) 

Sixthly, there's Pascal's Wager - the idea that if eternal life and happiness in Heaven is a potential reward, no matter how unlikely, any money and time spent on religion is statistically insignificant in the face of an infinity. Similarly is the axiomic belief in free will - if you're wrong, it's not like it matters or even could be avoided, while if you're right, you have responsibility for your actions. (Full Atheism, Hedonism, and probably other philosophies disagree with this - if the likelihood is zero, the reward is still zero, and if you care more about the present than the future, it doesn't matter. I can't think of any other counterarguments, though) 

Finally, there's the fact that even if I am fooling myself, I still get benefit out of it - comfort, community, and moral standards are valuable, though external evaluation through secular ethics is important. (You could argue that I'm wasting more time going to church than I get out of an external encouragement to donate money and do good, could get community through easier groups, and might get myself lead astray from actually moral behavior, but as I said, verification through secular ethics) 

YES

thats exactly it

9 hours ago, Dragonheir said:

Fifthly, there are modern miracles - I believe the most recent Eucharistic Miracles (in which the Eucharist - bread to be blessed during mass, becoming the symbolic body of Christ - actually begin to bleed or turn partially to flesh) were studied by scientists and found to be impossible through human means. (Of course, fraud is always a possibility - they caught a janitor who staged one of these one time, because the blood is for some reason always AB - and I can't find the actual examinations in English, just excerpts from translations in conflict-of-interest Christian websites) 

the AB blood matches up actually with samples from the Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth that Jesus may or may not be wrapped in, I think, which says something about the nature of the miracle.

[MirkerLurker she/her]

On 5/31/2025 at 11:03 PM, Hoid Slayer said:

Okay

So

It appears I have missed a chunk of this discussion

Instead of going back and responding to everyone individually, I will just state my perspective on this:

When I refer to the word "belief" or "believe", I mean I take it as truth, but still recognize I might be wrong.

I do believe there is, indeed, an objective "truth". As in, there are things that happen, and while they may be perceived differently, they most definitely happen. We do not necessarily know this truth. But science, math, physics, all attempt to objectively describe it.

Can different people perceive the same event differently? Yes, definitely. But does their perception change what actually happened? I don't think it does. Not unless there is some weird law in the universe about space time bending to our perception of events, which I won't discount, but even in that case, that law exists. Everything follows rules. We may not know them, we may have them wrong, but they're there. This is starting to sound a little religious, and I don't really want to go in that direction (I'll address it later), but my point is, everything happens for a reason. And I don't mean that in the "it was meant to be" type way, I mean it in the "every instant is a direct reaction to the previous instant. Every movement is a direct reaction to force applied" type way.

For religion and all that stuff, I go with the approach of accepting what we do not know. I trust verifiable facts. I also recognize that not everything can be concretely verified, that a human lens may not be perfect, and I'm good with that. I identify as atheist, because I trust science, and as far as I am aware, there is no concrete scientific proof for God or any other faith.

This actually leads me to a question. I'm genuinely curious about this, and I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable, but I often see Christians act 100% sure that God exists. My question to you is: what makes you think that? Honestly. What evidence makes you believe in God's existence? Once again, I'm genuinely curious.

First off, this is a great concise summary/statement of your view, thank you.

I'm with you on a lot of that. That there is an objective truth; that human perception is flawed and we can never be truly certain that our perception is correct; that we do our best to define how things work, and base our actions on the best evidence we have, with the understanding that we could be proven wrong. Things we have more evidence for, we hold more strongly; things we have less evidence for, we hold more loosely (or base actions on less). And with that, I believe God exists. Could I be wrong? Yes. But I don't think I am. (and Dragonheir noted Pascal's Wager, which is an element in the background here of "if it turns out I'm wrong, I've lost nothing of consequence, while if it turns out I'm right, the result is eternity-changing.")

Alright. Why do I believe God exists?

(I'm going to make statements without giving concrete sources for them up front; not because there aren't sources, but because I learned a lot of this by listening - to podcasts by historians and theologians, to preachers, to articles read out loud, etc - and I can't for the life of me remember the names of them, and going back and finding them isn't as easy as opening up a book to find the footnotes or a webpage to reference. I make sure that the stuff I listen to names their sources, and as I'm listening I listen for "is that a respectable source, are there multiple sources, etc" but my brain does not remember names and I cannot requote them at you without going back and finding them, which will take time. I will absolutely go find the sources you're interested in - ask me about any of the things I say and I'll start digging up some of the backing evidence. But I want to focus my time on where your questions lie.)

I would start with the life and death of Jesus Christ. 

The actual, real existence of the man called Jesus the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Galilee (all the same person) is very well documented, historically speaking. From a historical research and evidence standpoint, we have more certainty of the reality and life events of Jesus than we do of Alexander the Great, or Plato, or Julius Caesar. There's never 100% agreement between scholars of any type in any field; but it's a pretty well accepted fact among professional historians, both christians and nonchristians alike, that Jesus was a real person who lived around the turn of our calendar system, whose life and actions we have real evidence for. The few who argue that Jesus didn't exist, or was actually multiple people, are rather scoffed at as crazy conspiracy theorists, because there's so much evidence to the contrary.

Once we've established that there was a real person named Jesus Christ who lived around the turn of our current calendar system, who led a group of followers, who taught a rather revolutionary message including elements like "women are important too" and "I am God" that got him in trouble with the local authorities of the time, (and feel free to keep reading even though you're not sold, I'm just establishing order of operations) the next step is to examine more closely the evidence for his death and resurrection. His death - again, pretty much undisputed. The number of details given, from both the biblical texts and other nonChristian historical texts of the time, that line up with other things we know about that time period, and even some details that weren't something people of that time would have known about that are now demonstrated true, are solid. (Jesus sweating blood while awaiting his arrest and subsequent torture, for example - medical research of the time did not know that was a thing, and early doubters and critics of Christianity list that as evidence against the veracity of the written recordings of his death, but modern medical research has now shown that to be a real but very rare condition seen in people under extreme stress. The fact that that is recorded, when no one of the time would have known to make it up if this was fictional, is a point in favor of the historical accuracy of the text. And other things - like Pontius Pilate, the local ruler who gave the official order to crucify Jesus, being surprised by how quickly Jesus died and sending a soldier to go verify it - line up perfectly with other historical records of the culture and procedures of the time. I believe we even have a bit of testimony from the soldier who was sent to verify the death, though I won't stand by that, I might be misremembering that bit.)

The historicity of the resurrection is more debated, of course, because a) it's a more unlikely claim and therefore we're more skeptical and want stronger evidence, and also b) because a lot of the evidence and support for Jesus being God, and therefore God existing, rests on the resurrection really happening. We don't rest life-changing views of reality on whether Plato was a real person - heck, he could be made up for all we care, we can still find interesting logic and possible truth in the arguments attributed to his name without needing it to actually be him that wrote them. But Jesus rising from the dead? People stake massive life-changing beliefs on that being true. So. Here are some non-conclusive but supporting points in favor of the resurrection. 1) There were several hundred witnesses. We obviously can't talk to them ourselves, but the biblical texts tell of Jesus appearing to a crowd of several hundred people - a crowd that he told prior to his death to gather in that place and wait there. (A crowd that had every reason to then not do so once he'd died, as the shame and mockery and outright persecution of people still following him was real at the time). Many of those people left their own recordings of that witness, or are referenced by other people telling the story as "hey, go talk to these people, they actually saw him". They have names, they have testimonies, and we have some recordings of them. He also appeared to a smattering of other people, some of whom we also have first- or second-hand testimonies from. 2) There had been other people claiming to be the Messiah before, who collected a group of followers, went around teaching, and then got killed for heresy. Jesus wasn't the first to do this. Matter of fact, it was kind of a regular thing. And each and every time, the group of followers fell apart after the claimant died, went back to their old jobs and homes and never got back together. Except Jesus' followers. For some reason, something was clearly different this time (whether it was Jesus resurrecting or not, something was different), because this group of followers not only continued believing instead of falling away, but they also started spreading the word - and many people of the time believed them, despite the insanity of their claim - even as the cultural authorities of the time were actively hunting and killing them for it. People who watched their leader get tortured and then murdered would need some damn good motivation and evidence to keep promoting his message afterwards; and then to watch their compatriots get shunned, beaten, arrested, and murdered, and still keep spreading the message. 3) One of those followers who believed and spread the word of Jesus' resurrection was his younger brother James. His brother who, we see in the text, spent Jesus' whole life telling him "Dude, you need to stop. You're not God. You're embarrassing the whole family. Omg, please stop." It wasn't until after witnessing Jesus' death and resurrection that James finally believed - and then went around telling everyone "Yeah, my brother is God. Yeah, the one I kept telling you was crazy. Yeah, I was wrong, and my sibling is actually God and you should worship him, and that's super embarrassing for me to admit." (I paraphrased, and wrote in some emotions there. But how many siblings do you know who would spend years telling people their sibling was crazy, then watch him get murdered, and then flip and start telling everyone their sibling was God?)
And that message that the followers were spreading...it stayed. This wasn't the first God claim to be made, or the last. But something happened that literally changed the course of history.
(Tangent: We in the West owe a LOT of our modern philosophies to the ideas that came out of Christianity. The idea of equality for all; that all humans have worth; that emotions are valid; that forgiveness is a good thing; these are things most Western people assume as true, and even sometimes tell Christians that the Christians are doing badly [sometimes true], but that actually came out of the influence of Christian philosophies being taught back in the early AD/CE centuries.)

And once you've established the resurrection, or at least enough reasonable evidence for it that you have to seriously consider it, you look at Jesus' teachings through the lens of "This guy actually had the authority and knowledge of God the Creator" and go back and read what he taught with that in mind. 

Which ties back into the "We humans have flawed perception and can't ever fully know truth", by the way. We can't. But if we have reasonable belief in a Creator (as evidenced prior), and then we have a Revelation from that Creator about what actually is True (His Son, and His Word), then we can be as certain of that Truth as we are of the existence of the Creator. (And I phrase it that way on purpose - if you're uncertain of the Creator, then the Revelation doesn't mean anything. But if you accept that the source/creator of the real Truth chose to directly reveal some of that Truth to us, then you can hold those pieces that were revealed as more certain than anything else, since it's not based only on flawed human observation, but on direct revelation, onto which we can also add human observation to confirm it.)

And we're back at the gravity illustration. Can we ever be fully 100% certain that we have correctly perceived and labelled the truth of Jesus' life? No. But there is enough evidence, backed up by other sources and spanning thousands of years, to give a strong foundation. And therefore, like with gravity, although I know I could be proven wrong at some point, I find it reasonable and wise to act in accordance with the idea that that is True. And frankly, I believe it to be true, as well as I can believe anything to be true. And therefore, I will change my actions in accordance to the guidance of God's Word. ...That's a large part of why I'm willing to talk about mental health here, btw. God tells us to care for those around us. Maybe I want to hide, fake it, never tell anyone, just disappear. I would never have come to an online forum, talked with people I've never seen, about this stuff. But God tells Christians (through Jesus and through the Bible) to be in community with those around them; to encourage one another, to support one another, to lead by example, to put ourselves second and others first. So, y'all are more important than my fears, than my selfish desires. And now I've been helped too, by listening to that, and getting to hear your stories, and your support.

You'll find Christians who refuse to question their faith, by the way; who will insist that they never have any doubts, that there can't possibly be any way they're wrong. I generally find that those who refuse to question are afraid. Afraid that when they ask those questions, or admit they have doubts (because we're human, we all do sometimes, they just don't admit it), that they will not be able to answer them. And they don't want to face that, so they refuse. (You'll find that mentality in other places too, not just Christianity - people don't like to question their core assumptions or beliefs, especially those on which their sense of identity rests.) But I find that questioning, acknowledging doubts and seeking answers, is how we grow our understanding and strengthen our beliefs (whether in science or religion or people, or whatever). I have certainly gone through periods of doubt. When I doubt the existence of God at all, I look at the historical evidence for Christ. When I doubt God's goodness or His love for people, I look at the way that Jesus treated people, the messages He taught, and the way God protected His people throughout the Old Testament. When I doubt my perception or understanding, I talk to others who believe (and sometimes others who don't) and ask them for their reasoning. 

 

You can also get into medical or biological or philosophical or ontological arguments and evidence for the existence of God. Dragonheir brought up the cosmological argument - and you did too, actually (everything is the result of or a reaction to something else; everything has a cause, but where is the first cause? What could have caused something from nothing? Only something with what we consider to be "divine" attributes, as opposed to physics as we understand them.) That only argues for the existence of something outside our current understanding of physics, not "the God of the Bible", but it's a good addition to the pile of arguments and thoughts for "some kind of greater Being or Source". And from there you can move to "what is that greater Source, and how can we understand more about it?"
I only looked at historical here, and only at a bit of it at that. There's more, believe me. There's...so much more. There's so many books and papers of arguments for the existence of God. You may have noticed, it's something people like to argue about 

 

As a side note, I also have some religious experience arguments, like Dragonheir cited. I've occasionally felt what I would call God's presence. I have places in my life that I would identify as God at work, circumstances and situations that line up too perfectly. But I don't base my foundational belief on them. Those feelings are the fleshing out, the beauty that colors the more solid framework of my belief. Not the floor, the foundation on which it rests.

 

On 6/2/2025 at 12:04 AM, Dragonheir said:

Fourthly, I feel that the Bible is a fairly reliable source of information - though I certainly don't accept everything as literally true or completely accurate, the Bible is better documented than many other historical books accepted as fact, so I take it as somewhat fuzzy truth. (Exaggeration, fraud, and misunderstandings can all invalidate it as historical truth) 

I disagree actually - historians generally consider the bible to be a reliable source for historical information. The parts written as history (dates, events, names) are mostly verifiable through other documents; places where there are differences often line up with cultural behaviors of the time (reciting generational lines as groups of 7 generations between important people, even if it means skipping some people in the recitation, for example). And especially the more divisive parts - like the life of Jesus - are pretty well documented and backed up by other sources.
(The bible as a whole is not all a historical document - it is a collection of books, some of which are meant to be historical recordings, some of which are parables or storytelling, some of which are prophetic, some of which are prayers or advice for people. But the parts where the accuracy of the history matters are researched and backed up.)

 

On 5/31/2025 at 10:48 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

Math might be universal, but it's more a concept, as opposed to an actual thing (I realize thing is vague, but that's deliberate so it can cover all things that aren't simple concepts with no effect).

On 5/31/2025 at 11:23 PM, Hoid Slayer said:

First off:

I actually disagree with this.

Heavily.

Math and physics are heavily intertwined; maybe you could argue that math doesn't "affect" external phenomena - but that's because it's already an integral part of them. Math is basically the rules that govern the universe. 

"Math" is the one of the labelling systems that we use to describe the objective reality of the universe. We can change the labels we use (2+2=1), but it doesn't change the objective reality, just what scribble we assign that meaning to. When we change math, it's because we realize we described something incorrectly or incompletely, not because the function of reality itself changed.

 

 

 

On 5/31/2025 at 10:39 PM, Kaladin Stormcursed said:

That's primarily the point I'm arguing: that,, even though there may be a universal truth out there, we have no real way of identifying it, and it doesn't practically exist as far as we can interact with it or determine it.

Curiousity: How do you reconcile the existence of contradictory beliefs, if you believe that each person's belief is true for them? For example, one person believes there is a God, and another believes there is not. I think you've addressed this already, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You would say that that one of those people might be objectively correct, but since we have no way of determining which one is correct, for practical purposes it makes no difference which one is right, and so we can let them both believe differently?

 

On 6/1/2025 at 6:04 PM, TwinStorm said:

so how did the original beings (who first came into being there) not just die?

also, is it just luck that we were born on Earth, and not Mars (where there was a stable ecosphere that was destroyed)?

Bit of a devil's advocate here, but yes. The idea is that it's incredibly statistically unlikely for us to have developed, but there have been SO many places for SO long that eventually, the energy chugging randomly along bouncing around eventually happened to bounce in exactly the correct way to end up with people. And statistically, that means there are probably a small number of planets where at some point there was some semblance of life, that got partway through developing but failed for some reason or other.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 5/31/2025 at 10:45 PM, Dragonheir said:

Does math work? It's built using consistent rules - you can change it so that 2+2=1, but in order to do that you have to change the rules or make a mistake. 

This example isn't actually so bad if you are just doing ring counting in a base of 3. Basically, rather than counting in a line that extends indefinitely, you count in a circle that goes 0, 1, 2, 3, and then loops back to that first 0. Most computers tend to behave a bit like this when doing integer operations, but with a much bigger circle that includes negative numbers and is way larger.

 

On 6/2/2025 at 12:04 AM, Dragonheir said:

Sixthly, there's Pascal's Wager - the idea that if eternal life and happiness in Heaven is a potential reward, no matter how unlikely, any money and time spent on religion is statistically insignificant in the face of an infinity. Similarly is the axiomic belief in free will - if you're wrong, it's not like it matters or even could be avoided, while if you're right, you have responsibility for your actions. (Full Atheism, Hedonism, and probably other philosophies disagree with this - if the likelihood is zero, the reward is still zero, and if you care more about the present than the future, it doesn't matter. I can't think of any other counterarguments, though) 

Pascal's Wager has a problem when you consider any other religion though. Like, why not become a worshiper of Juipiter in the tradition of the pre-christian Romans or embrace Tzecatlipoca as the god of the black sun that is the night sky? Or if the religion needs to be actively followed by a large number of people, why not Buddhism or some form of Hinduism? Pascal's Wager seems to only work in a world where there is only 1 religion.

On 6/8/2025 at 11:13 PM, MirkerLurker said:

The actual, real existence of the man called Jesus the Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Galilee (all the same person) is very well documented, historically speaking. From a historical research and evidence standpoint, we have more certainty of the reality and life events of Jesus than we do of Alexander the Great, or Plato, or Julius Caesar.

I am going to have to demand a source on that claim for at least Julius Caesar. I have read some of his account of the Gaulic war in the Latin. I don't think anyone claims to have any extant texts written by Jesus' own hand that correspond to major historic events like that.

[MirkerLurker she/her]

7 hours ago, ParaTulip said:

Pascal's Wager has a problem when you consider any other religion though. Like, why not become a worshiper of Juipiter in the tradition of the pre-christian Romans or embrace Tzecatlipoca as the god of the black sun that is the night sky? Or if the religion needs to be actively followed by a large number of people, why not Buddhism or some form of Hinduism? Pascal's Wager seems to only work in a world where there is only 1 religion.

I am going to have to demand a source on that claim for at least Julius Caesar. I have read some of his account of the Gaulic war in the Latin. I don't think anyone claims to have any extant texts written by Jesus' own hand that correspond to major historic events like that.

On Pascal's Wager: It's not so much a problem with the wager itself as it is a problem with how many people try to use it. Pascal's Wager argues for belief. In what? Unspecified. It can be used as part of an argument for any religion, but not as the whole argument. Dragonheir listed it with other additional reasons. Used in practical debate, Pascal's Wager argues that it's worth putting the time and thought into researching religions. That it's worth caring about.

As for sources: I shall begin digging! This will take me a bit of time, but I'll see what I come up with. I'll look into all three, because if I'm putting the time into sourcing one, might as well source all three. I'll start with the lesson notes from one of the preachers I've listened to and see what his sources are, and branch out from there. (I'm starting with his stuff because he actually publishes his notes, making it easier to trace his sources.) I'll acknowledge up front that the Julius Caesar claim is the one I'm most skeptical of as well. 
I will add as a preface to whatever I come back with: I am looking not just at how many texts we have and what kind of source are they (primary, secondary, etc), but at how certain we are that those texts are legitimate. Textual criticism.
(You're right - we don't have any texts written by Jesus' own hand, no primary source, so there's a stronger weight on the writings of Caesar. I'll try to find a comparison of the textual criticism between Caesar's writings and the 4 gospels.)

Edited June 12, 2025 by MirkerLurker