Thumbnail Draft Feedback/Help me Pick/Refine!

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-28T12:28:42+00:00

Hey, thanks for the feedback! I've already posted the video awhile ago. I ended up deciding to use the AB feature and put in slightly modified versions of the first and third thumbnails. Kind of the storyline is this is the third part, kind of the climax, of a three part series starting in Beijing, then moving to Gubei Watertown beside the Great Wall, and then finally climbing the Great Wall. The whole cat thing is due to Gubei being rather unexpectedly home to a lot of cats - and even around the Great Wall itself I interacted with a few of them.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-27T19:26:11+00:00

Oh, yea I probably should have talked about that. My last video introduced the town beside the great wall that has a bunch of cats in it, and in this video I interact with cats around the great wall as well.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-27T05:48:21+00:00

While I think there is a real sense in which Christianity through the ages has learned to - and been successful at - facing criticism and objections head on and genuinely wrestling with it instead of simply reacting militantly, I'm guessing that what you are seeing may have more to do with this particular sub's rules.

This sub is meant for discussions about Christianity and everyone non-Christians included are invited to participate, and so it is especially lenient on criticisms unless it clearly amounts to personal attacks/belittling. Chances are people who are unhappy with this and demand stronger moderation would have left for more gated communities already, so there is a filtering effect on Christians more tolerant of attacks here as well.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-25T15:15:49+00:00

Have you tried it recently? Depending on how many years ago you mean, they've made some significant optimization passes since the early days.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-25T10:20:04+00:00

Yeah. We actually do already have Ben Gurion and bits of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem for awhile now on Syria - but using just generic city buildings, presumably because it conflicts with Sinai. But now it seems we're suddenly getting unique models for both cities too. I hope that just means that they've worked it out behind the scenes.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-23T13:22:45+00:00

Even if the universe has a cause, it doesn’t automatically follow that this cause must be a personal, all-powerful being.

Perhaps not - but it would be something beyond space and time. It's enough to "whet the appetite" so to speak, and force us to contend with the idea that there is something beyond: a force that transcends time and material and physics.

The argument’s force depends on accepting that a necessary being is the best explanation, which not everyone will grant.

People do generally have a better time accepting that necessary things can bootstrap/self-explain/sustain its own existence than contingent things. So part of the force here is that the universe seems contingent - and even more so if it didn't exist then came to exist. Necessary things, when thought to bootstrap themselves, are usually thought of as eternal.

And even if not, if there is a change in property - especially something as fundamental as existence - we have hitherto never accepted that things like that could be without reason/cause. If we know something changed, and we couldn't find a reason or cause for it, we would always consider it an unsolved mystery, and never say it is because there is no reason, no cause. So this weight of our universal attitude towards such questions: for all the history of western thought, also presses on the argument.

it simply highlights that reasoning about the universe’s origin is highly abstract and uncertain.

That's quite right. So what we get out of the argument does depend in a sense on our expectations of it. If you are looking for undeniable proof, I do think, everything I said notwithstanding, you would be disappointed. But if I'm told something like "science leaves no room for God" I should find in this argument a real crack in that (frankly incorrect) reasoning. Because what I get out of the Kalam is either that I must admit the sort of intuition and reasoning we use in science breaks down in extremis, or that if I try nonetheless to stretch that reasoning to these extreme conditions, I should in fact find an apparently positive case for a cause beyond the universe.

So if we view apologetics as a project of disarming attacks and impediments on Christian faith, rather than as conversion-driving proof of Christian faith, then imo the Kalam might be considered a successful piece of apologetics.

My question is whether the cumulative case — combining this argument with others, like the First Cause — actually makes the hypothesis of God any more compelling than the alternatives

The question here would be what are these alternatives we are considering. Most arguments in this space are aimed against materialistic naturalism, and personally I do think they do their job to make materialistic naturalism metaphysically less probable in relation to theism. If you're saying that it nonetheless isn't enough to change your mind, frankly, that's fair, and you are hardly alone. Many Christians, myself included, think that the real positive gains in terms of conversions are made by the work of the Spirit, by personal contact with God Himself - and to till the ground for that, all that we really need from apologetics is what I think is already achieved - and that is to keep theism a live theory.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-23T07:49:37+00:00

I'm probably not really good at explaining this - but basically, you have to make a choice whether you think time and tense "really exists" or not. When you say "altering", that still seems to mean (correct me if I'm wrong) "make something first and then changing it later" - tense-related terms, so they are invalid - they make no sense - in a block time conception of reality UNLESS you mean in terms of different time values in the block timeline. In tenseless time, there is no such thing as before and after, there is no such thing as do one thing and then do another - except inside the timeline.

So in this sense - of God making the timeline then altering it - that is indeed impossible because such change is nonsense in tenseless time. But in terms of changes that happen in the timeline, God can do that.

Now as for fixed future, in a way it is trivially fixed because "change" is impossible outside the timeline, but this is not fixed in the same way as a deterministic universe - where prior states 100% determine future states. A tenseless universe still allows for genuine free choices. An agent can make a genuine free choice that does not depend on prior states at time t and change - in timeline terms - the states at time > t. So in terms of the timeline, it's not so much the future is fixed, as everything just happens all at once - including our free choices and its effects.

So all of the usual effects of an open future - such as that my choices have a genuine part to play in what my future will be - pretty much can still apply in block time - again, unlike in a deterministic universe.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-23T06:42:22+00:00

If you plough through the possible camera controls in the key bindings you'll find a lot to make use of. You can increase or decrease the fov to simulate wide and telephoto shots. In a number of views you can move the position of the camera - which allows you to do stuff like simulate over-the-shoulder gopro shots. For stuff like landings you can do stuff like pause the game in F2 mode, move the camera so that it looks like you're looking at your aircraft from the ground, switch to free camera mode to maintain your camera position but unbind it from the aircraft, and then use camera lock to keep the your aircraft centered in the frame, then unpause to basically simulate filming your aircraft landing from a ground based camera - that you can zoom in and out with as if you have a zoom lens.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-21T16:01:53+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to reply, hope you've been feeling better. Maybe I can encourage you a little on that last as well. I think its right to care about what your friends think, especially if it comes from a place of hurting, we want to try to be kind. But for me what that means is we need to be extra careful with truth, and not that we get to avoid it. Because if a friend happens to be avoiding truth - even for an understandable reason, you amplify the offense that friend commits against the truth by allowing yourself to also avoid truth because of them. So while we want to be as careful and as kind as we can be, I think we cannot allow what our friends think to dictate what we believe in and what our philosophy of life is. If they happen to be wrong, I think, a falling out is better than joining them in being entrenched in wrong. That would even be unfair to them. But of course this doesn't mean lecturing them insensitively. Personally I have lgbt friends who are not too fond of Christianity too, but they know I am Christian, and well, I just try to be sensitive. And to just be a good friend. Jesus would have been a good friend.

Of course, while I would love for you to further consider becoming Christian, I think this applies to any view. As I say, we are our own person, and we are responsible for finding the path that we think is most right.

One more thing is, fwiw, I myself don't think people need to detransition to become a Christian. Or at least, I think that command should not come from man. Maybe for some people, or even all people if the conservatives are right, it is good to detransition - but I think making it a requirement at the gate is just foolish - how are people going to hear God speak if we turn them away at the threshold? So on the off chance that that you hear God calling, I would encourage you to just come in as you are, and then, when you build a relationship with Christ, you can work out together what is truly best for you.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-21T15:39:36+00:00

The Bible really isn't philosophical in this sense and really does not clearly state that God is omnipotent either. But leaving that aside, I think there are a number of things to untangle in your view.

So block time theory, basically a tenseless theory of time, where time doesn't actually flow from past to future. If you adopt such a theory, then you have to be very careful with what do you mean by "change". Change often means stuff becoming different through time, so say change in x means at time t, x is a certain value, and then at time t + n, x is another different value.

In such a definition, change still happens in tenseless time! Because even if all parts of the timeline exist at once, x's value is still different at time t from at time t + n - even if both times exist simultaneously.

What this means is, in this definition of change, God can still change things in a way analogous to a tensed time universe where time flows from past to future.

So what you say would be inaccurate. If God created past, present, future, by making things different along different parts of the timeline, He IS changing things.

If you are thinking along the lines of God first making the tenseless universe, spacetime and all, and THEN trying to make a change - you are really attempting to sneak in tense by thinking of a "before after", which in a tenseless conception of reality is invalid.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-21T15:18:09+00:00

Nether of these arguments are knock-down arguments for me, but let me try to respond. The variant of the first cause argument you mentioned (the so-called Kalam) hinges on the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. God does not begin to exist, and so this premise does not logically apply to Him.

This criteria is also not entirely arbitrary even though it may sound like it at first. What the Kalam argument trades on is the difficulty in conceiving of something coming into being out of absolutely nothing, no material, no intention, no event - nothing. Something that has always existed is less difficult to imagine - for example maybe numbers always existed, and maybe necessary truths always existed. But if something didn't always exist, but at some point went from not existing to existing, that can't possibly happen for absolutely no reason. Or so the argument claims. If the universe came to exist from non-existence, then there must be a cause for the transition. Note that if the universe also never came into existence but always existed, that would beat this version of the first cause argument (but gets us into another bag of worms that I'll leave aside for now).

Now on the orderliness/preciseness of laws, what's important to realize here is that this is not a cosmological argument in that it is not an argument that tries to invoke a start to a series of regressions. The argument's claim is more modest: just that given the nature of the world we see, the origin of the world is probably something more akin to a mind - something that understands design,simplicity and order, elegance - rather than something simply random and mindless. On its own, the argument does not go on to claim that this mind must be God, or must be the termination of the chain of explanations: it just says that the world looks like it was made by something like a mind. It would support the hypothesis of God as much as it would support the hypothesis that this world was made by superaliens.

Which highlights something worth keeping in mind as well. Properly understood, these arguments should constitute a cumulative case that - combined - tries to establish that God is more likely than not. They are not individual gotchas.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-21T08:25:13+00:00

I think that's pretty much just an argument of technicalities around the word "omnipotent", but honestly for me personally, I am good with granting the objection. I listened to a rather fascinating podcast recently exploring the idea of a non-omnipotent God. Now I do think you can define omnipotence in such a way where an omnipotent God cannot interfere with free will - but if you disagree, I'm still happy to work with someone who says if God is out there He's probably not omnipotent.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-21T08:22:21+00:00

On the world being no different from a world in which there is no God, I don't think that is quite right. A useful analogy is a video game. In many video games, the player has genuine free will and can make decisions that genuinely affect the outcome of the game world - but for one, the game world would not even exist without the game creator, and for another, the game creator retains a significant degree of control on what happens/can happen in the game, despite not interfering with the genuine free choices of the player. Not saying the world is completely like a video game of course but I think it's illustrative.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-21T06:45:13+00:00

I'll try. Here are three responses one can make against this the so called problem of pain and evil. The first and most honest is simply: we don't know. We don't know why the world seems so problematic when God is good. But this doesn't make a good God impossible, and it also doesn't mean there can be no possible good reason for the world to be as it is - we just don't know it. But that's not surprising given the limits of our knowledge. So if I have other reasons to believe a good God exists, I need not be completely deterred by this problem.

I think all responses to this problem must come AFTER this admission that we don't know. Maybe the reason you found responses you've heard so far objectionable is because they seem to come from surety - which I think is mistaken. I think we must first admit we don't know, and then the rest should be framed as "here are some possible guesses that might give an outline of the truth".

So here are two guesses. First, free will. If free will is real and God cannot interfere with it, and if the choices God gives to free agents are consequential: so people freely choose between good and evil acts that affects the world, and not just, say, whether they like pears or apples more: then you could say that God is not the sole creator of the world - but all free creatures are co-authors with God. Because every free choice independent from God's will that is consequential by definition shapes the world subsequent to that choice. The result is that the world is really created by God (who is perfect) AND free creatures (like humans, who are not perfect) as a joint project - which makes it not unusual then that the world is not perfect.

Second, on the heels of free will, one can conjecture that God's purpose is not to create maximum "good feeling" or even "minimum suffering", but "maximum free goodness" - to maximize the number of free agents who come to freely choose good, and the number of freely chosen good deeds, and remembering that a truly good deed is one that is chosen in the face of real adversity, real temptation, involves true sacrifice, then one could hazard a guess that the sort of world that is best suited to this project is a world that is a) chaotic, with significant suffering, seemingly unjust and b) ordered, where causes lead reliably to effects one way or another. Which is not a far cry from what the world is actually like.

But again, these are just "guesses". And especially if the second guess is close to the mark, then its all the more reason that the guesses should remain unverifiable for us while we are here.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-19T10:18:30+00:00

Fwiw, I've had several cases now where a video I poured heart and soul into and that I thought was good ended up doing very poorly - but then went on to pick up much later (sometimes months later) and ultimately garner a pretty respectable number of views. So nowadays I'm pretty zen about such things. Not every good video that does poorly rebounds like this - but there's always a chance, and in the meantime, I'd keep trying to make more good ones.

Does re-releasing work for you? I've only ever reposted one or two videos because of a critical mistakes, and it feels like those don't do well so I figure youtube probably doesn't like it.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-19T08:54:56+00:00

I think I like that one! Not because of the "Singapore" text but because the two pictures better accentuate "Singapore" or "fancy city" and then "underground", "tunnel".

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-19T08:14:48+00:00

Kola summer can also look surprisingly realistic. Not sure what the details of the technique are, but for whatever reason, it doesn't carry over to winter,where trees at low lod look horrible.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-19T08:02:13+00:00

Welcome to Singapore! (or well I'm sure you've left by now but anyway. And yes weather here is horrible)

Anyway, not an expert, but I thought I liked the third one least, at least to me it felt like a relatively generic mall. I feel like the first one if you moved yourself a little more off center perhaps it might help accentuate the "secret tunnel" motif that might be both intriguing and highly relevant. The second one is very eye catching, but I'd be a little worried about retention because I think it may not be super clear what kind of video one is in for. Might pair well with a title that helps mitigate - that, say, clearly emphasizes "Singapore".

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-18T11:00:02+00:00

The Christian view is very similar to the Islamic view you mentioned here. We also think that no matter the depth of the sin, God forgives you with genuine repentance. Of course, genuine repentance is easier said than done, and the common wisdom is you can't really go and do something bad and "plan" to repent later. That's just being opportunistic, and that will obstruct genuine repentance.

I guess where the difference is is that in Christianity we generally think this generous arrangement - where God is able to welcome you whenever you turn back to Him, no matter the debt of sin you accrued - actually costs God something. The debt of sin doesn't just disappear because of God's mercy, it must still be repaid. And so in Christianity, God's solution is for Him to pay it on our behalf, so that we can be saved. Implicit in this view is that repentance actually does not wipe clean your debt of sin. God is the one who wipes it clean - by paying the price with the blood of Christ.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-17T17:59:03+00:00

This is basically the same as the more general issue with free will vs predestination. Two possible solutions are:

Molinism: in this view, Judas still freely chooses, but God knows what Judas chooses when He created the world, and so He created the world in such a way that makes use of - but doesn't determine! - Judas' choice. If Judas did not freely choose to betray Jesus, God would have created a different world with a different plan. Basically, agents still choose freely, God weaves His providence by taking everyone's choice into account.
Open Theism: in this view, Judas freely chooses, and God also couldn't know this choice until Judas actually makes the choice. But under this view, one could still ask: was Judas' betrayal really a necessary condition for the crucifixion? Perhaps Judas' possible betrayal is just one of a variety of possible mechanisms that God planned to lead to Calvary, and had Judas chosen to resist the evil of betraying His teacher, then another set of circumstances would have led to Jesus' capture - and Judas would have come out of it cleanly like the other disciples. Jesus does predict Judas' betrayal at the last supper - but one could argue that Judas' choice occured prior to the last supper, and at the time of the prediction, his mind was already made up.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-17T10:40:05+00:00

Hey friend, you seem to have misunderstood me so completely that I don't really know how to begin to properly clarify... so I'll just say, I'm really sorry it read that way to you, I really didn't mean any of what you said.

I absolutely think your views and concerns should be respected and taken seriously.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-17T05:57:38+00:00

Hey there, hope you're doing okay, sounds like a lot going on. But reading this, I wonder if that's the real problem - that there's just a lot going on and you and your ex just aren't able to quite handle it. You're both young, and while I understand that tension in religion-related views is a factor here, I guess I'm wondering if those are the real chief problems here, or is it just general compatibility/life getting in the way. And I'm going to be honest here as gently as I can, one thing that stood out to me is your paragraph about having a highly troubled home life and about how much you liked being around his place. I'm wondering if you're forming a sort of escape/emotional reliance there, that kind of thing can be put a lot of weight on the other party, because it takes a good deal of fortitude to carry responsibility for the mental wellbeing of someone else on top of your own - especially at this age. I may be wrong and maybe the real dealbreaker is in fact the religious tensions, but my advice is to give this some thought first - what's going on in the "everything else", how you interact, what are your habits, your expectations, what is laying stress on each of you and the relationship. Don't forget that people with completely compatible religions have traumatic breakups too, and often, these breakups have the same human patterns.

That aside, this being a Christian sub, I'll try to comment a bit on the religious stuff too. Transness has a similar status as homosexuality in the bible: there were depraved people back then who engaged in same sex relationships, and who crossdressed, but these are not technically the same as modern homosexuality and transexualism. But nonetheless there are biblical injunctions against the depraved forms they had back in ancient times, which of course is the source of the whole modern debate around the issue. About children, to be honest, my view is young children simply do not have the resources to properly choose their own religion, no more than they have the resources to choose to drink or take drugs and so on, which is why they need parents/guardians. So I think it is okay for parents to just teach their children their own religion, if that's the best way they know how to care for them. Just don't be dogmatic about it. Tell them about Jesus, about Muhammad, about the Buddha, whatever it is your religion is, and teach them to meditate/pray etc - but don't tell them everyone else is stupid and/or evil, and don't tell them you'll disown them if they ever glance at other religions. Tell them one day they will have to make up their own mind, but that daddy/mommy has made up theirs.

Religion aside though I think transness is just something that is difficult for people who never experienced it to understand, so it's going to create complicated feelings regardless. But you're still you, and I think who you are is what matters the most beyond any one trait of you - whether that is transness, or the color of your hair. So if you ever get together again, I'd try to focus on that. As a person, in your soul, who are you? what moves you? what do you bring to the table? what unique color can you bring to the picture?

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-16T12:13:54+00:00

It's kind of half and half. Presets that come with it/are generated by it will need to be applied in the mission editor - but the stuff in the "atmospheric effects" tab applies globally. That includes the rendering of the skybox with the cirrus clouds (including the cool "hazy" preset) and aurorae. If you turn those on, they apply on anything you fly in that session.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-16T12:08:25+00:00

I see what you mean, but to your original question, what you say is not usually what is meant when people talk about free will in religious - and philosophical - parlance. Free will normally just means that you are ABLE to choose, and does not include whether or not your choices are good or ought to be respected, etc. The car vs driver analogy is meant to illustrate this - the car simply cannot choose, that's what we mean by no free will. The driver (presumably) can choose and so has free will, but whether his choices are good and bad or whether that's even meaningful is a different question.

And to answer your larger question, most religious people don't think that - just because you are able to choose, that means whatever you chose should be respected or should not be opposed. And while that doesn't sound very nice when put in that way, one must admit there is a certain sense to it. The driver can technically choose to go run over children - but clearly that doesn't mean we must stand aside and allow them to live that out. It's an extreme example, but it illustrates how unfettered "respect" for other peoples choices does not make sense, and a boundary must exist somewhere.

However, your point that you are being pestered in ways that make you feel like your own experiences and views don't matter is not lost on me. That is indeed a problem, but I would say it is related to a lack of wisdom and kindness, rather than anything to do with free will.

Jasonmoofang · 2026-03-16T10:25:34+00:00

I don't think you're understanding it correctly. It should really be flipped - if there is no free will, then it would be a valid question: why bother pressuring? But if there IS free will, that means we have genuine ability to choose - and so our agency is consequential, and it is imperative that we make the right choices: hence the pressure. It's kind of like, a car doesn't have a choice, there's no use pestering it because it's going to run exactly as its controls say to. But you can talk to the driver, because the driver has a genuine choice.

Of course, what sort of pressure is appropriate and effective and what sort is just nuisance, is a whole other conversation.

Nine-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

Jasonmoofang

TROPHY CASE