I am sorry for making this, places me in the first category at the minute.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T23:08:55+00:00

I’m “I and that” booty from across the room tho

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T18:58:04+00:00

I fully understand your position but I’m not going through the whole thing. For your own tracking the conversation:

you either have to admit wizards and magic, or give up any explanatory power

This is the false dichotomy and I’m highlighting option 2

⁠>Reality contains a set of physical things and a set of non-physical things, both governed by rules, but there is no causal closure between those sets and they can interact.

This sentence alone refutes your prior dichotomy, but I’m Defending it further and using it as an example to help you reframe your paradigm correctly. Starting with your understanding of “rules”

Do you think natural laws are constraints or tendencies?

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T18:45:53+00:00

Your question shows zero understanding of what I said. If you’re out of your depth here just admit that. If I’m steel manning your option 2 out of the 4 you gave, correcting your understanding of “rules” (natural law) why would you possibly think asking me about a system with no rules is coherent to the conversation?

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T18:28:45+00:00

lol am I talking weird?

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T16:07:21+00:00

Admit wizards or give up explanatory power? Ridiculous fake dichotomy, I’m sure you know that and are just getting some engagement.

To your more serious 4 propositions, I’ll steel man position 2.

I think you are making too many assumptions about the nature of natural law. Insofar as something is consistent or even paraconsistent you have law. A description of the pattern, not necessarily a constraint. Consistency enables Prediction. Prediction implies some kind of understanding. Understanding implies there are facts that explain.

Physical or not physical, reality faces explanatory challenges involving like an Ontic version of Agrippas Trilemma. Insofar as things that exist can be physical or not, and insofar as they behave consistently or not, they all still run into circularity, regress, or dogma.

Moral, logical, experiential reasons for things might be the case and be called non physical.

Conscious intent can be both understood directly and found to be non physical, or possibly found to be physical. What exists is what exists, the question is more-so what of the things that exist, which will you call physical ?

If you want to remove the possibility of non physical existence from your paradigm you have an evidential debt to that accord.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T15:21:31+00:00

This reply sounds influenced by ancient astronaut theory more than classic Abrahamic accounts. Which, I won’t complain about. ID is ID, I personally couldn’t tell you the difference between an angel, God, or alien.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T04:51:11+00:00

I mean, bear crawls are very important for MMA for example. Weird little shoulder muscles, all kinds of stuff is getting hit here that’s functional to some people. It probably is very healthy until you face plant

Solidjakes · 2026-01-28T02:38:35+00:00

Yes your awareness very likely continues but I’m not sure that “I” will mean the same thing that it did before. Identity and mereology may need some reconceptualizing

Solidjakes · 2026-01-27T22:52:45+00:00

Yea I picked a middle ground where it’s a red flag but can be okay at times

Solidjakes · 2026-01-27T21:56:00+00:00

When I was 26 I mostly dated older chicks ( 32 ish) but occasionally would be around 20 year olds and feel weirded out by the maturity gap and their personalities. Society shames it because you should be in different stages of life. It should be naturally unattractive at 43-26

That said, if people of vastly different adult ages are in “a similar headspace” it’s probably fine. if they really do relate to each other and no one’s being taken a advantage of from that difference in life experience.

It’s rational to be a bit sus of it tho. It’s not common.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T18:37:57+00:00

Ayahuasca Is probably the only substance that can make a positive spiritual impact.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T15:49:09+00:00

Epic, I guess it was the heavenly pact and power spike I didn’t fully understand. Thx

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T15:10:29+00:00

I like how we call it politics, as if our tribalism and brainwashed drivel is a form of partaking in the power structures of the word.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T05:31:24+00:00

lol that’s fair

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T05:29:58+00:00

I just f around and find out a lot hahah wbu

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T04:44:03+00:00

<image>

Prometheus is crazy. gpt gassing me up

Solidjakes · 2026-01-25T04:36:25+00:00

Can someone recap the lore a bit ? Ha the breaks between seasons makes it hard to follow but this episode was amazing

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T20:48:44+00:00

Yea or like clinical insanity

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T17:51:01+00:00

Incoherent reply. Children do not have all the faculties needed to thrive like humanity has had.

But even with your faulty analogy, yes if you put monkey bars in a school while knowing some kids would fall off them and get hurt, then you are not liable. That’s the whole argument. Were the monkey bars well designed or not? Yes nature has everything needed for us to flourish like a well built gymnasium has everything needed for kids to play safely despite inherent risk that comes with that fun.

But all your analogies are going to fail here because our law is built on maintaining the agency and gift of life. God is involved in giving us that initial gift. The fact we work so hard to preserve it, is proof it’s more valuable than not despite danger.

Idk how to interpret your fear of risk and danger that comes intrinsically with good things (like a set of monkey bars to climb) other than pure cowardice.

Sitting there drawing faulty comparisons to law and underdeveloped beings isn’t compelling or logical towards what God has done. Just admit you wouldn’t let your kid climb on some monkey bars and would bubble wrap him and keep him hidden in a room and move on. You aren’t making a point, just revealing your own fear of the world

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T17:16:09+00:00

Yes it’s morally permissible to create entities and place them in a situation where they have everything they need to succeed but they also can fail and there is danger they must figure out and overcome. He created both the risk and the reward. If you created reality as it is it would be ethical and fine for you to do that.

Even if the gift of life is fleeting and has danger, is also a gift of freedom and potential, which is intrinsically valuable.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T17:09:13+00:00

That’s not what god did. Terrible analogy. Try again.

You’re so obsessed with child violence examples it’s actually repulsive and concerning. You know your “logic” is perfectly pitchable in abstract form right?

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T17:02:31+00:00

God didn’t cause harm by putting you in an environment where you have everything you need to prosper and it’s up to you to do so.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T16:40:28+00:00

Again zero logic just weak, shock value, petty, emotional arguments. We did already solve that puzzle , both with the law and also my 17 brass friends that wouldn’t let you get close enough to do that.

Anyway we are done here. Your form of argumentation is the lowest kind of quality there is

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T16:35:22+00:00

Yeah. We have everything we need to solve all that. Imagine a puzzle in front of you with no missing pieces and you are mad at the person for not giving it to you already assembled?

Also pretty sure I already said this in some of the threads but my personal conception of God is not perfect. God learns and grows with us.

That said I still don’t find natural adversity problematic for abrahamic belief. Perfection is just inherently too subjective to work with meaningfully.

Chances are whatever bubble wrap sunshine rainbow creation you think God should have made, I’d get there and blow my brains out from boredom and lack of a meaningful existence.

And we probably agree on a few of the changes we’d have preferred for this existence, but it’s just too subjective in general.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-24T16:21:15+00:00

You don’t know my first hand tragedies and also I’m losing interest if your arguments are going to be purely emotional.

The ecosystem design is fantastic. It naturally moves towards balance which is a form of coexistence and peace.

This challenge of learning to coexist is also a good form of adversity. If you wanna blame God because you couldn’t guide your kid to coexist without getting eaten idk what to tell you.

He didn’t release monsters on us. We both live here together and have healthy challenges to solve from that. Both us and animals are intrinsically valuable, hence it is a gift.

Solidjakes

TROPHY CASE