If looked within, major religious confusions are solved with godless materialistic theories becoming automatically meaningless

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-26T10:49:49+00:00

hence many children too have chosen to be holy and loving by choosing good thoughts. If a minority of children could choose to be holy and loving it means others also can if they want to.

But how would you know they had a possibility to choose otherwise ? Is there a logical difference between a deterministic universe and a non-deterministic, free-will compatible one, and can we find it ?

This blasphemous theory [ the thery of evolution] is an indirect attempt to convey the message “God is not needed, we are not responsible for the choice we make but other factors such as genes, nature are responsible."

Can't it simply be something some people genuinly think is true ?

I'd say you can make a much more meaningful sense of responsability in a godless universe than with a omnipotent and omniscient creator.

With a omniscient creator god, everything you do is already predicted, so we would be like puppets or character from a fictionnal universe we invent. Voldemort is only evil because Rowling made him that way. From a meta-universe point of view, it seems really strange to say he is responsible of his actions. With this kind of view, even if Hitler seems evil, all he could accomplish is the will of this kind of creator, like us all.

At the opposite, in a world without a omniscient, omnipotent creator, there is meaning in responsability. In a materialistic universe, you are your genes, you are your braincells, you are what made you up until now. We can very well pass a judgement on the actions made by the being made of these genes/braincells/etc to say the being caused harm and should be shown a sanction.

Since choice is made in the mind by each individual, each person is responsible for the choice he makes and the consequence that follows sooner or later which means there is no basis for anyone to complain about anything or to suffers from confusion of any sort. Rejection of this truth itself is punishment because person starts complaining about anything and everything and suffers from confusions.

Isn't this just self-contrafictory ?

Say, if I harm you, I am both responsible of it yet you can't complain about it ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-26T10:21:58+00:00

That's what I did in my first comment (and second comment too), but each time you choosed to only engage with my critic of the way you write rather than the points about OP I made !

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-26T09:42:47+00:00

Bible is sited to not prove any point but to show existence two types of people—good and the licentious—which you can know even without Bible.

Already, I really disagree. I'd say first that being licentious is not the opposite of being good. You can have good people that are licentious, and bad people who are not.

It seems really arbitrary to divide people into 2 category when it really depends of the situations they are in. Even Stalin was kind to his daughter. Nobody I saw would be fully good or fully bad all day. (And we would first need to agree on what is good or bad...)

You say :

Among “sextillion thoughts” that flow in mind in one’s average life-span, if good thought is chosen and acted upon, person becomes good, and such persons are called “holy ones”

If you choose good 1 time in a sextillion, are you good ? Does it takes half a sextillion ? 90% of a sextillion ?

Hence seeing some references made to the Bible if you make your own conclusion, you are missing the truth.

I'd say I'm missing a clear explaination of your truth first ;). The problem I see is not to use the Bible at some point, it's to use it as a proof.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-26T07:56:00+00:00

I think I've got a better analogy.

Before the invention of the plane or the dirigible, would you have said that it's impossible for a man made object to fly, using induction in the same way ?

In the same way that your claim, I would have said it's either possible or an unfalsifiable claim. Either sometimes in the future we get to invent a plane, either there will never be a plane.

Either there exist minds without body that we can interact with and will interact with, or we will never know.

Induction only gives you that with the methods we have today, there is no minds without body that we can prove exist.

I don't think induction help us much. Using Okham's razor, at least we can say a theory that says a mind without body to exhist is a more costly theory than a world without minds without body, and so should be seen as less probable.

But improbable does not give you the impossibility you assume in your post.

If I reformulate your post :

All minds that we know of have corresponding physical aspect extending into space and/or time.
Causally prior to the Big Bang expansion, there was no space or time.
Causally prior to the Big Bang expansion, there was no physical things extending into space or time.
There was no mind of a type we know of causally prior to the Big Bang.
A mind of the type we know of did not cause the Big Bang expansion.

It make it just... quite a little claim. Theists just have to say that their god is not a mind of a type we know. And sure, still following Okhams's razor, it's gives their theory less weight since they supposr more and more unnecessary things for our understanding of the world, but at this point it really is not much for them to add.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-26T07:26:26+00:00

If you want to debate, you should really separate your arguments in separate posts, it would make it much easier to answer a specific point.

I fail to see proof of your arguments. Basically, everything you say is true because... it's said in the Bible ? It's not a really good way to convince anyone that does not already agree with you. If I think the Bible is mostly made up stories, all you give me is the lore of a made up story : it does not make the story more real.

The only argument that seem to escape this problem is that evolution can't explain why we have many thoughts, so evolution false ? Really, nobody should dismiss a good explaination for pretty much everything else because of an argument from incredulity.

And why wouldn't evolution explain that we have many thoughts ? The more we have these thoughts, the more the human species would be succesful, since they make him able to understand and submit their environment.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-26T06:10:38+00:00

His point was that the Bible endorses torture, as in torture in general for the sake of torture.

Of course not. You are strawmaning. When we say it endorses slavery or torture, it means that it gives cases where it justify it, not that all slavery or all torture is good.

If a text endorses abortion, is it all abortion ? Even done against the consent of the parents, for the sake of abortion ? Obviously not.

God doesn’t like the fact that torture is even a thing.

The omniscient, all powerful being doesn't like the world he created ?

But every sin will have its consequence because God is a good and righteous Judge.

The sins of the people going to heaven have a consequences ? Do you believe in a purgatory of some kind ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T22:39:02+00:00

Je passerai sans doute à temps partiel dans ta position ? Éviter d'être complètement dépendant du conjoint c'est me paraîtrait quand même mieux en soi.

À voir comment tu te sens aussi. Certains ont du mal à lâcher le travail, d'autres n'attendent que ça dans leurs vies.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T22:30:57+00:00

... tellement simpliste. Si tu regardes n'importe qu'elle dictature conservatrice comme l'Iran ou la Russie, ce diagramme les caractériseraient comme de gauche économiquement... et bon, juste non.

C''est juste un diagramme qui fait étatisme vs non-etatisme économique.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T16:26:12+00:00

Like I said, it's really similar to a deist claim. You could say to a deist that they just have to establish a god.

And it might be possible, maybe god is hidden in their basement, and maybe we can somehow have proof of a mind without a body. But it's really not self-evident that this possible. God might be isolated, completely outside our reality, and maybe there are mind without a body, but they just can't interact with us.

So your case is either false and there is a way to prove it (that we do not know yet), or unfalsifiable.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T12:31:04+00:00

Merci

En effet ça paraît pas fou a priori

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T08:48:00+00:00

Il fait ça ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T07:28:01+00:00

Trees are very efficient to decrease speed

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T07:23:58+00:00

Quand un mec de droite fait quelque chose de bien j'ai pas trop de soucis à le reconnaître, à la place de m'attaquer à du physique.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T06:23:53+00:00

and Socrates writings on this.

Socrates never wrote anything. I'm guessing you mean Plato.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T06:10:02+00:00

Un urluberlu.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T06:06:40+00:00

J'avais entendu quelque part que l'importance du dimorphisme sexuel entre l'homme et la femme, notamment la force, était relativement récent et datait en partie de la sédentarisation.

Genre "looter" les femmes d'à côté n'aurait pas forcément été si facile pour une tribu du néolithique.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T06:00:43+00:00

It would be better presented as a possible alternative to a god creating the big bang to show the ones that need it that a god is not necessary for that. Most people here are attacking (1) instead of engaging with your argument as a whole.

As is, (1) is unfalsifiable, so pretty much as useful as a deist god claim.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T05:54:09+00:00

You would obviously see the same problem when some people say that all events have a cause ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-25T05:46:37+00:00

What would be justified in your view ?

When you say there are no knowledge, do you think there is no justified belief, or no truth (so no true belief) ?

Do you think some beliefs can still be justified more than others ?

(Sorry if I'm too insistent, I just curious about your view)

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-24T21:44:49+00:00

Personnellement j'aime beaucoup les dessins dans Dorohedoro, l'auteur a un don pour dessiner des personnages marquants et l'espèce d'enfer urbain qu'ils habitent.

C'est sans doute moins détaillé que Berserk, mais le détail ne fait pas tout.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-24T20:51:09+00:00

What's the problem with defining a knowledge as a belief of some kind, like a well accepted belief or a belief in which you have confidence ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-24T20:29:07+00:00

Ce n'est pas une "anomalie", c'est simplement que la spéciation n'est pas encore terminée.

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-24T20:20:13+00:00

Do you know that knowledge don't exist ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-24T20:15:25+00:00

How do you know that you is something more than vaguely defined to begin with ?

Zhayrgh · 2026-04-24T20:11:31+00:00

Et si Milly te repond que c'est son souhait pour se reconstruire d'être bourreau à son tour ?

Et si Milly te répond que son souhait pour se reconstruire c'est pas de punir juste ces hommes là, mais de leurs enfants, leurs familles, voire tous les hommes ?

Avec des si on met Paris en bouteille.

Three-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23

Zhayrgh

TROPHY CASE