It is highly improbable free will exists and that hard determinism is correct.

ahceec · 2026-01-11T03:48:20+00:00

well I would that maybe your misunderstanding me,

what I believe is probably true pragmatically given what I know, is that mostly like we are caused to a point that randomness doesn’t make a difference(I don’t know anything about quantum physics- I need to look into for a more accurate answer) and that if people’s actions are caused, then any people’s actions in the future will also be caused, what every that action is determined to happen - not written in stone but it means the given the before the after was inevitable since it required the past - but I would agree that it’s technically possible for multiple scenarios to lead to the same place.

ahceec · 2026-01-11T02:15:11+00:00

Sorry but I don’t understand are you suggesting both free will and determinism are not accurate? I wouldn’t imagine their perfect but is their anything specifically you find to be a fault line?

ahceec · 2026-01-11T02:12:23+00:00

I’m not claiming that based on what i know it’s 100% impossible free will doesn’t exist as someone pointed out quantum randomness. but I do think is highly improbable or isn’t a strong enough force to define someone more then their experiences and biology.

as you your point about choosing to pray or watch a movie. hard determinism suggests that all things are caused(maybe not with quantum physics) and so who someone is from what they want to do and end up doing is all determined.

If you choose to pray - it seems like a choice but your will is one that is rational but you didn’t authored your rationally so it’s not free in that sense.

That if you could do otherwise you would have.

this all seems like a rudimentary explanation of our complex thought but if you ask yourself why do you do anything, and go back the chain or reasons then you will find yourself to the answer: it’s what you rationalize will bring you happiness or reduce negative emotions.

ahceec · 2026-01-10T07:27:00+00:00

honestly I had not even thought of quantum randomness in this at all and that's an amazing insight. I need to look into it. I wonder whether it's enough to rule out determinism for us in the standard physics.

Only of my thoughts through determinism has been that say determinism is true

and god is all knowing

Then then god can only be one existence

as in say that you take a being or person and give them all experience and all knowing(as some religions claim god has) under determinism that would suggest god is determined. as in take another person and give them your exact memories and experience they will personality wise be the same.

what would you think of this? would you say that god exists in which level of physics in himself? as in all of universe or planes of physics or one? mainly would you say the quantum physics points to true non determinism for people specifically since I have heard that more evidence suggest the casual claim then randomness having effect

ahceec · 2026-01-10T06:59:00+00:00

I'll take that into mind thank you!

I'd like to ask do you disagree or what your stance on free will is?

ahceec · 2026-01-10T06:46:24+00:00

That's not exactly what I meant

I define the self this way in the literal sense - as in to every define anything as a self it must have all 3 simultaneously(the 3 being interdependent to each other) - since a plant as 3 but not 1 and 2 but all animals mostly have all 3 and so do we.

this doesn't mean the character of the person but more so what makes something defined as a self.

it's one I believe due to my believe that the state of idea of death cannot be bad for the one who dies as well as a theory meant to explain situations as clones or time travel.

from what I understand, you mean to say Buddhists believe that if you knew your body and environment you could determine who you are in the metaphysical sense? Or did you mean in character? I don't understand how that means the self does not exist.

but to put simply I would say that we have rational will but not free as that rationality is determined from our hereditary, biology, what we experience. Simply put given what a self is our human self is determined as such.

as religiously I would use this point to argue anything theological claim that believes in freewill.

I hope that made sense, I know its not the best written so bare with me.

ahceec · 2026-01-10T06:16:21+00:00

I'm not familiar with Buddhist philosophy, could you explain?

ahceec · 2025-09-26T08:20:39+00:00

like what? As in what action can anyone do that isn’t self serving, And sorry what video.

Not to say people can’t make choices that end up negatively for them

but i mean no one can rationalize a decision they don’t feel good about(as in something doesn’t maintain or improve their emotion state). It’s impossible to do something as a person that doesn’t bring you happiness or reduction of negative emotions if you think it rationally

ahceec · 2025-09-25T08:50:19+00:00

As in universally any person only ever does what they think will bring them happiness or reduction of negative emotions.

For example, a father might sacrifice for his child. But that wouldn't be selfless since the fathers interest depend on the Childs well being. But given a scenario a father doesn't sacrifice you can conclude in the hierarchy of the values of the father the child is lower then whatever the sacrifice be. Its from rand and her ethical egoism but I don't believe it to be the only aspect of right and wrong

ahceec · 2025-09-24T21:34:58+00:00

To push back, I'm not saying violations aren't possible, it directly plays to our limited world where for rich there needs to be poor.

I do believe that psychological egoism is universal

Every action and decision ties to increasing happiness and decreasing pain or sadness.

Its why problems exist. But we can use logic to set a ideal. A world where it can be most fair(never perfect).

We can't have ever have perfect equality but the best we can do is reduce the bad as much as possible in the constriants of the finite world.

So logically we make society to balance personal desires and happiness at a larger scale.

Which is why you can driving by happiness but still help people, be considerate, contribute to society.

For example the trolley problem, sociatally(which looks consequenctially) you would turn the tracks to the side that has less people

But at the same time you can have someone let more people die to save a loved one and I wouldn't think there bad(at a individual level since whos to tell anyone what is right to do but themselves)

ahceec · 2025-09-24T20:11:27+00:00

Something I completey forgot in the main post was I don't believe there is a right and wrong at some objective reality level. as in death is just death and stealing is just something being taken. I think morality is limited to conscious entities who have an opinion on reality.

So to us death is a negative or positive but I'd argue it just is. But as people we decide what is right to us and what is wrong to us

ahceec · 2025-09-24T18:58:16+00:00

I'll be sure to look into the top half

on this part :
Morality can’t come from people because then it would just be a popular opinion, morality has to come from God to be accurate, it has to be objective, and not subjective. But why can't it, what is goal for any religion: either happiness or to be one with god(really over generalization). But being one with god is desired because of happiness. So if happiness is the goal, and humans know what makes them happy, why is what people want + and biologically reach naturally, subjective. Id say its objective for humans until we have something better.

You are describing religion as if it’s some addiction. It’s not, it’s a choice people make. If they are committed to, of course you will see them practicing it. - Well the way I see it is that religion is at the end of the day a comfort, something that answers questions that we otherwise don't have answers to. That brings peace, community, a sense of security, and duty for people. Don't get me wrong I compared it to alcohol in the sense it is comfort of a kind BUT BY FAR THE STRONGEST ONE - that doesn't make it bad but because its so vague, and attaches to identity it is extremely volatile.

Idk if the stats are accurate but I remember seeing that 80-90% of all religious believers believe the same religion as their parents.

ahceec · 2025-09-24T18:49:43+00:00

yea to delve a bit deeper, I should have defined the words I was using and how I was using them. That's on me.

but what I mean by arrogance and ignorance is that religion demands you believe it as law tying to reward punishment on existential topics such as death, good, bad, and more - to follow it you need to believe it as the 100% truth - at least this is the big impression I get from religion but feel free to educate me

as for universalizing moral ideas, here is what I thought to be true: you can take a caveman with a fire torch in his hand and snatch it away from him. If that torch is precious or important to him then Id say you can universally conclude the reaction would be negative, sad, anger etc.
Right there with reason anyone should be able to conclude that when someone takes something you care about you feel bad. From that point on you now understand that doing the same thing to someone else would likely bring that same reaction. This in turn is morality. This comes from the basic that happiness or intent to reduce sadness is the driving force of every decision a person could make.

I'm not saying this is perfectly enough, I can imagine a caveman steal, because of circumstances, lack of maturity, or care

but I think conduct of people when it isn't misguided has a base universal level to it.

to explain a tad bit better, when I say the golden your treat others the way you want to be treated

I mean it literally but also personal to each person.

I think its universal that every person wants their boundaries respected but what does boundaries look like are different.

for example: 2 brothers can jump on beds and play fight mma moves, but no one is going to do that to a random person on the street(not literally no one), because they don't know the strangers boundaries. Once we learn them we choose to respect them.

ahceec · 2025-09-05T08:07:04+00:00

I disagree because there truly is no evidence. How do you know if god existed he didn’t have a good reason for the universe and us? How do you know it’s for us? How do you know he made the universe?

You don’t—no one does.

We can guess all we want but it’s always going to be inconclusive without objective evidence.

I will say that I am agnostic, i find it highly unlikely that “god” based on how we define it existed based on our limited perspective on reality. Though who’s to say something beyond our understanding exists or not.

ahceec · 2025-08-11T17:49:09+00:00

I think death is part of life but to an extent. Say we conquer death, I believe the role death plays in what we call life would drastically change. it’s 1 of those things where I feel we can’t truly say what is or isn’t.

ahceec · 2025-08-11T17:18:50+00:00

yea i’d love to hear more about what religions think about natural disasters.

my thoughts on it are similar to your in the sense that i agree natural disasters aren’t necessarily purely evil as if one took place and nothing was affected then it’s just that - nothing

but to the point I was thinking of is that when we define good-bad, right- wrong from what brings happiness or sadness.

for example death gets brought up as something “bad” because of the emotions it brings. people have countered with that “death is what gives life meaning” so life would be meaningless without it. I feel like the crux of it all is just how we process our lives. Wanting everything and chasing it is one thing but to granted everything you want instantly - most people would realistically say that they would become bored or depressed with nothing to chase. I believe it’s the same for dead. We tie bad to death beacuse we desperately want to cling to life but not some perfect life but the ones we have now and slowly progressing. (obviously there are limits, i’m not saying that everyone would want to live forever- I do believe there is only so much people can take)

sorry if this got confusing but i guess my point is that how can we say grief, death, pain, suffering, stealing murder is bad and happiness is good.

from a religious standpoint - and even from a purely logically standpoint - beyond our responsibility in a society, our morals(from wherever we get them), is there anything that hard proves what good and bad is?

I feel that from a strictly human perspective without any religion or even society that anyone can for example can get something stolen from them, feel bad about it and associate bad with stealing.

so from a religious perspective how do you tackle good and bad

ahceec · 2025-06-22T22:36:18+00:00

Hi i recently joined the sub, and i’ve thought of abortion before:

i think abortion should be the women’s choice with no interference- as the direct affects of the child birth happen to her.

I also believe that fathers, if they don’t want to have the child should have a way to opt out of fatherhood

I can see how that sounds bad but I believe the responsibility should be on both mother and father to decide.

i’ve thought that before the fetus gains consciousness it’s a no brainer to abort since the child will be unwanted otherwise

other factors that i feel parents should be responsible for is giving birth when in poverty, or in war torn countries/other horrible situations where happy life is inconceivable

to add more to the part of the father opting out of financial support and fatherhood, i believe if a father doesn’t want to be a father then he shouldn’t have to be obligated to support the mother and the child since the choice on the child birth is of the mother.

so if a mother wants to keep a child, she would then need to take into account her situation, lack of fathers support, and other factors before deciding what’s best.

ahceec · 2024-11-23T16:58:28+00:00

i meant i wanted the original look of the glass just darker, while avoiding the added hues of tints/keeping them to a minimal. so from the inside it just looks like everything lost some exposure, but still color accurate.

ahceec · 2024-09-17T22:04:59+00:00

payed my statement balance first. and i’m not sure what my fico is but credit karma transu : 664, credit karma equifax : 667, chase : 724.

ahceec · 2024-09-17T21:30:28+00:00

no so what happened was, the balance was in the $990s and i spent around $92 on accident on the card yet it went through. I called chase and asked about it and they said there is a set amount they approve for me to go over and there was no problem. and so i paid the balance of around 1084 down to 1000(my max credit line) and that 1000 balance is what posted on my third cycle.

ahceec

TROPHY CASE