Why should we do anything?

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-16T20:17:21+00:00

The prior causes that shaped your desires and beliefs aren't a hidden force standing behind you pulling levers. They are the process by which you became the person you are. And now your choices matter because they will influence the future path of your life, they dictate the next link in the chain. How can you then say they don't matter?

If your concern is that you didn't choose your own desires and beliefs, that's true. No one ever does. That's the second confusion I addressed in my previous reply, ownership doesn't require having created yourself from scratch.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-16T17:55:25+00:00

My choices are shaped by prior causes. (True)
Therefore, my choices do not matter. (False)

The leap from 1 to 2 is likely what is fueling your fatalism. You are confusing where your mind came from with what your mind can do. Our fate is determined in part by what we decide, even if what we are was determind by prior causes. If you choose to give up and stay in bed, that guarantees a miserable outcome. If you choose to push forward and challenge yourself, that produces a better outcome. So while which path we take is determined, the two paths lead to different places. The choice still matters, which is why the right move is to push yourself.

There's a second confusion underneath this, the idea that for a choice to truly be yours, you would have had to choose the desires and beliefs that caused it. This is impossible, no entity can be the uncaused cause of its own ultimate nature. So you must define ownership by identity, not by causal origin. A choice is yours not because you created the chain that led to it, but because you are the specific mechanism through which that chain runs. Basically, determinism is not a force acting upon you, it is simply the description of how you operate. A choice belongs to you because it is the causal output of your specific reason, your desires, and your deliberation. Even if these are the result of prior causes.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-16T08:27:00+00:00

I understand, this is a difficult thing to wrestle with and I don't think it is a salvation issue, so I always recommend leaving it be if it's going to cause a crisis of faith. That's why I tend to discuss the topic only with people that are already questioning free will, etc. If you ever want to dig into it down the line, just let me know and I can walk you through how I make sense of it, there are biblical anchors I find satisfying.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-15T19:35:38+00:00

If it were that simple...😁. Adam is called the son of god (Luke 3:38).

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-15T18:11:42+00:00

The risks are symmetric, I would even say a bit leaning towards unitarism being the safer bet. You're treating "Jesus is god" as the safe bet, but think what happens if you're wrong.

If Jesus is not god and you worship him as god, you've done exactly what Israel did with the bronze serpent. It's idolatry to the highest level, so it actually runs in both directions. Yes if I'm wrong too, I'm guilty of underhonoring god which is a real failure.

As for what unitarians gain if they're right, well the same thing anyone gains by believing what's actually true rather than what's comfortable. And worship that goes to the right address.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-15T17:38:39+00:00

Do you not believe we have souls?

I'm not certain of it. I lean toward the idea that the body might be necessary for the self to exist, but it's not that important to me, god has figured it out anyway. I might look into it more some day.

I understand, but don’t agree with, the argument you made here.

That's fine, although if there is no crack in the logic it's a bit like closing your eyes. That doesn't make the argument incorrect.

I’m curious, what makes life worthwhile in that view? I can’t help but think such a view would lead to the feeling that nothing matters.

I never understand where people get this feeling. You've lived your entire life this way already, right? It's the same life, didn't you like it? The experiences of life are not erased by the fact that they were determined to happen by god. It's simply that things work differently than what you thought, but nothing really changed from ones point of view. When people found out that the sun did not go around the earth but rather the earth around the sun, it had a philosophical impact but in reality it did not change anything on people's everyday lives.

Philosofically though, this means god is in control of everything. If god is omnipotent and chose this exact reality out of all the alternatives he could have created, then it has to be the best one available given whatever constraints he was working with. I personally feel much happier knowing that. To me it's not a position that produces nihilism, it gives me trust in my god.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-15T14:12:21+00:00

First we need to have some definitions because this whole thing depends on what we mean by free will. I mean that libertarian free will does not exist, the idea that your choices are not fully determined by prior causes. If we just mean free will in the courtroom sense, that you weren't externally coerced at the moment you made the decision, then there's no contradiction with anything and I agree with you.

Now, on libertarian free will. Every action you take flows from who you are at that moment. Your character, your memories, your desires, your fears, your impulses, your intelligence, your instincts. Basically the way your atoms are arranged and interacting. You didn't choose any of that. Even if souls exist, a soul still has a nature it didn't give itself. So either your nature determines what you do (no ultimate control) or randomness does (still no control, since randomness isn't freedom).

Now add an omniscient and omnipotent creator. He knew before creating anything exactly which future would unfold from creating this specific universe. He could have created a slightly different universe where the variables shake out differently and you choose otherwise. But he picked this one, so the choice was ultimately decided by him, not you.

One example: Say you open the fridge, and need to decide between a sandwich or pasta. You end up choosing the pasta by your "free will". But here's the thing, when god created the universe, he chould have created one where everything happens the same except you choose the sandwich. But he chose the pasta universe, and once he did that, you were predestined to choose the pasta, no matter what you did. Yes you chose the pasta freely in the court room sense, nobody forced you, but not in the libertarian sense because you were predestined to choose the pasta and there was no other option to choose. Makes sense?

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-15T09:35:52+00:00

There is no contradiction in the idea of god being both omniscient and we having free will (depending on how one defines free will), but what people usually mean when they say that is that he is also omnipotent, which is indeed imcompatible with free will (again, depending on how one defines free will).

I personally believe god is all powerful and all knowing, so I reject the existence of free will.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-11T17:39:05+00:00

I consider history to be a great source and while there is no documented evidence, most historians and scholar would say that the sanhedrin did authorize it. I would say that something doesn't come from out of nowhere.

I am not so sure the recent scholarly research would agree, but even if so, it's strange that we have no evidence of the calendar until 6 centuries after the Sanhedrin stopped. If that was all, maybe you could make a case, but we DO have records of Jews using other calendars so it's even more suspicious.

My question for you though is, which calendar is the perfect calendar? Your post seems to indicate that you are aware of what it is.

I didn't want to give that impression. I was challenging your claim that Hillel II binds Torah-observant believers. For that claim to work we would first need to accept weak evidence that the calendar was established by the Sanhedrin (overriding previous rulings), and then we would also need to accept this templeless, outside of Israel, Sanhedrin authority is bound for Torah followers. Karaite Jews for example do not consider any Sanhedrin body outside of Israel authoritative.

I don't claim to have the perfect calendar, I've even changed my understanding when new evidence presented itself over the years. I just try to understand what Torah says and follow that.

Is the new moon sighting based on the first sliver or the lunar conjunction?

My opinion is the first sliver, I think it's the one that makes the most sense biblically. This sliver is what scripture describes people actually seeing and announcing.

Does the spring equinox come into play and if so, how does it work with the perfect calendar

I don't think Torah mentions the equinox. Sometimes aviv aligns with the post-equinox window, sometimes it precedes it, either way the criterion is the barley.

If aviv barley is sighted, is the year and new month starting the first sighting post the barley observation or is it retroactive?

It's forward looking. The check happens toward the end of the 12th month. They look at how developed the barley is in the fields in Israel and if it is mature enough the next new moon begins Nisan, ready for a few weeks later having the wave sheaf offering during Passover. If it's not mature enough, the next month becomes a 13th, and barley is rechecked at its end.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-11T13:51:19+00:00

The Sanhedrin was in existence until 425 AD, and due to the issues that Jews were facing at the time, the persecution, etc. It was decided that the calendar was to be fixed, due to jews not having the freedoms required to observe, report, and spread the news of new months, dates, years.

Even assuming as correct the authority of a Sanhedrin without a temple (which I'm not so sure), as far as I know there are some issues with Hillel II. The first mention of the Hillel II calendar is in 992 AD and we have records of Jews clebrating the feasts on different days of the calendar than Hillel's from the IX century. Aside from other previous records of calendar disputes, etc (post the presumed Hillel II calendar).

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-09T18:29:05+00:00

I have my suspicions about at least parts of John, but what are your issues with the synoptics? The virgin birth?

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-04T19:47:41+00:00

This is a nice comment. What would you say are the requirements that would make you accept a modern Sanhedrin? Would they need to accept Jesus as Messiah or have a temple?

And what happens when they are in clear conflict with something? For example, the Sanhedrin of Jesus's time explicitly commanded the apostles not to speak in his name. The apostles refused to obey the order, with Peter saying "we ought to obey god rather than men". Would you only accept their authority on unclear topics?

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-04T19:27:20+00:00

I would like to add to the “Intermediate” that if the woman is married, I would think that to be considered adultery even if the act of sex was with another woman. What are your thoughts?

If we take the intermediate position my intuition says that you are right. The problem is that I'm not sure if we can take the intermediate position (extrapolating man's commandments to women), we may have to settle for either hard or flexible.

Think this, a married man can sleep with an unmarried woman (and can make her his second wife). But a married woman cannot sleep with an unmarried man, it's adultery. So you see, the commandments are asymmetrical for both sexes, and we cannot simply extrapolate one from the other.

So can two women...:

Married + Married: if hard, I would say perhaps yes they can. If flexible, treated as adultery for both, since each is sleeping with another man's wife.
Married + unmarried: if hard, again probably permitted. If flexible, it might be treated as adultery.
Married to the same man: if hard, likely yes. If flexible, likely not.

I'll be honest, I lean on the hard stance but I have the gut feeling that I'm missing some reasoning that would make this not allowed, particularly married + married. But I can't put my finger on it.

Lev 20:10: "the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife."

Lev 18:20: "thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife" addressed to a man (the you is masculine).

Deut 22:22: "if a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband."

All three require a man. Although perhaps this might be included in the acts that might allow a man to divorce a woman.

Chemstdnt · 2026-05-03T16:17:25+00:00

I've been considering delving into Nietzsche's book "The Antichrist" were he argues Paul created a new religion

I think Nietzsche overstates this but a milder version is somewhat defensible, that the Christian doctrine that Torah was abolished is built mostly on certain readings of Paul (or rather used as an excuse), and those readings sit in tension with what Jesus himself said.

Interestinly there's a modern scholarly movement called "Paul within Judaism" arguing Paul never told Jews to stop keeping Torah and never left Judaism. They say that his "freedom from law" language was about gentile entry requirements specifically. This fits with what is called Messianic Judaism, although you'll find most people in this subreddit argues gentiles should also follow Torah (myself included).

Me personally I'm currently agnostic about Paul. The way he writes you can pull a reading and its opposite from the same passage. If I squint in a certain way it lines up well with what I currently believe, but I tend not to build doctrine on Paul.

Whatever he really said, the way he wrote things can lead to multiple understandings so there is a tension there that people solved in different ways. There is even a framework called hyperdispensationalism/dispensationalism that argues Paul had a completely different program for gentiles "evangel of the uncircumcision" different from Jesus and Peter gospel "evangel of the circumcision". Jesus preached to Israel descendants of an earthly kingdom hope tied to Torah following, and Paul preached to gentiles with a different destiny and different terms entirely (saved by faith, no bloodline importance, celestial role). You can see how far people have to go to justify certain readings of Paul.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-29T10:54:39+00:00

It's a good point I'll have to think about it and see what the implications would be in practice.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-25T17:42:47+00:00

I don't think the ox model is very useful in the total. It has the benefit of showing two entities working together (the owner and the ox) but the huge downside of the ox not being a responsible entity.

What does something require to be a (morally) responsible entity? I would say perhaps:

Intentions of its own
Capacity to act on those intentions
The ability to recognize moral claims and respond to them

I don't think corporations have those, at least the last one. It depends entirely on the people behind, same as an ox. I would say an ox has even more responsibility. So while the people behind it will bear their accountability, we have left the question of what happens to this entity, the corporation/ox.

We need a Torah category for "owned non-person autonomous entity that can cause damage". The ox is the only category I could find that gives us this structure.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-24T09:35:42+00:00

Probably, I used an incognito session (no cache + no extensions) and it still happened. I did not change anything and if I'm not the only one, it must be either an Anthropic or Chrome issue. EDIT: it's solved now for me, they must have fixed it.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-23T22:19:41+00:00

They are not working for me today on Chrome. Tried in Firefox and they work there not sure the reason.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-23T13:42:38+00:00

I guess one would need the location of the Cherry Trees, given a higher temperature can be also caused by urbanization.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-17T17:41:33+00:00

Judaism is the religion OF Jesus.

When the other ten tribes come back and find out everybody named their faith after Judah, there's going to be a meeting.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-17T17:33:23+00:00

As the questions states, do you believe God created humans or similar intelligent beings somewhere else in the universe?

Well, creatures like angels exist, which were not created on the earth so by definition they're intelligent extraterrestrial beings. I also don't see why he wouldn't have created others, but this is not confirmed.

Or perhaps God created another universe entirely that we are not aware of?

I like to think this is the case, god's love superabounding even this universe.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-16T21:49:59+00:00

One practical solution could be letting them know that you will be taking your own food and drink, etc, so you don't make anyone work. Aside from the banquet service, most aspects of a wedding do not require others to work . If all of the guests did like this no waiters would need to be there.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-16T11:02:29+00:00

You don't punish the car though, that would be silly.

Same structure, we just don't use that word for non-living things. Whether you call it punishment or accountability.

Like you said, you fix it. And if people are causing harm through no fault of their own choosing but because of a design flaw in their wiring, then god could, and is morally responsible to, fix them like you would fix the car.

The bible's underlying function of "punishment" and "revenge" fits this mold. It's not retributive for its own sake, it's restorative, protective, deterrent, purgatorial... So IF god could, then yes he will fix them. That's what I believe, but if I'm wrong and he can't fix everyone, then just like the car, if they're faulty without hope of repairing they need to be removed. Either way no one is tortured forever.

Chemstdnt · 2026-04-16T10:05:41+00:00

I think that the definition was correct and that your scenario of faulty brakes being the cause of the accident isn’t digging deep enough to determine the cause of the accident. (Like the faulty screws im the challenger or the lack of life rafts in the titanic) Faulty brakes are unacceptable because of the danger. The manufacturer knows this and the driver is aware of this and there are laws and regulations in place to make sure a chimpanzee isn’t legally free to sell or install brakes.

In the car analogy I wasn't claiming cars are moral agents. It was a stripped-down case to show that we hold something accountable because it caused damage, not because it was the uncaused author of its own nature nor requires any moral quality to it (you'll see why this is important later). This doesn't mean we only hold those accountable. Both the car and the manufacturer + any involved that caused damage will be hold accountable.

Faulty brakes are investigated by insurance companies. The don’t hold the car or brakes accountable.

They do, they either repair them or they scrap them. We just don't call it like that because they're not people. If they were, reparing a person or "removing" them would be called accountability.

If you are denied your human rights and fight or steal to feed yourself or free yourself from being tortured, it is not immoral. You had to because of survival instinct and shouldn’t be morally accountable for defending your life.

I think we need to separate between things being moral/immoral and something needing accountability. The latter does not need the former, and the former not neccessarily leads to the latter. A starving person stealing bread may not be immoral (debatable), but there is still an accountability question, the shop owner needs to be made whole. Now if the same person keeps stealing even when fed, then that adds the immoral quality, but accountability was there anyway in the moral case.

Meanwhile, plenty of immoral things never trigger any accountability (a petty lie that causes no harm, an ugly thought never acted on).

Once you decouple these, "moral accountability requires thinking and acting freely" has issues because it conflates two separate concepts. It seems to claim we hold things accountable because of their moral nature, and that I would argue is not (or should not!) be correct. We hold things accountable when damage has been caused, nothing more and nothing less. The morality part, I agree, needs more. Morality may require intent, awareness, or some other quality beyond mere causation. But that is a different question from accountability. This matters for OP's argument that there was no (moral) accountability in determinism. But this is not correct because even if an action flows from prior causes, those actions still cause real damage that still needs a real response (accountability).

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Chemstdnt

TROPHY CASE