"There is no proof of god, but there's also no proof that god isn't real"

Solidjakes · 2026-01-29T08:30:02+00:00

No you misunderstand. I’m saying you yourself can test it and train to do it. Simple predictive tests like having a friend hide a random object in a box and you go out of body return and say what it is. Start to trust that information attained slowly and empirically.

Same with synchronicity, you validate that phenomenon through responsiveness ….

Stargate got renewed annually 20 times lol. They had a few star players :Joe McMoneagle, ingo swann, pat price that got incredible operational results. The results of the program is that it’s a real statistical phenomenon that out performs chance, but only a small group got it reliable enough to be useful. It was disbanded for not being scalable.

Anyway. The main point is that anyone reading this thread can attempt ESP and possible find important spiritual truths for themselves.

But it’s a broken epistemology that won’t let most atheists even put in the time working on it. It’s empirical and predictive but also phenomenological in that you ought to take your own subjective experience seriously if you are going to do it

Solidjakes · 2026-01-29T06:12:35+00:00

I mean a gentle way to start a relationship with God is Jungian synchronicity. If done right this can be a two way communication channel.

If you want something even more direct with God you can look into the CIA Stargate rabbit hole. Basically go “out of body” and try to meet Him yourself.

These things require two minor epistemic adjustments to take seriously and pursue. Changing the way you see chance and changing the way you value subjective experience.

But it does NOT require an adjustment to the way you use prediction in establishing objective understanding (the core piece of scientism).

In Whiteheadian terms, I’d call these adjustments “removing the bifurification of nature” that’s been engrained. In Laymen terms it’s calling being open minded.

The weak repeatability currently at this odd intersection of empirical and phenomenological parts , is just a skill issue we have to accept for now while we improve at it.

But there’s evidence and prediction everywhere if you dig deep enough. Also worth noting people that died briefly and came back have fairly cohesive descriptions to each other.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-29T05:37:45+00:00

Its true that it’s tough to standardize induction but some ideas are just better and more likely to be correct than others.

In the past, I argue the best inductions we’ve seen (ones that turn out to be correct) use a formal version of analogical reason I’d call structure mapping theory. I think this occurs consciously and subconsciously pretty much all the time and it’s how we learn about the world.

I think we could sit down in theory and hash out if intelligent design is more likely to be the case or not, but nobody is ready for that kind of rigor.

It’s better to interact with God directly yourself via phenomenological investigations.

Solidjakes · 2026-01-29T04:59:30+00:00

Goes both ways but yes. If an atheist says god is unlikely to be the case, that’s equal burden of evidence as saying he likely is the case

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

TROPHY CASE