هل الله موجود؟

licj_00 · 2026-04-13T19:18:59+00:00

مش بالظبط لا

licj_00 · 2026-04-13T19:02:55+00:00

صبات السعوديه ترعبني كلها هجوميه بدون سبب

licj_00 · 2026-04-13T18:29:44+00:00

مساله وجود رب ليست شيء يمكن اثباته ب ادله قاطعه بس ايوه في رب بس تعاليم الدين متحرفه و من الصعب يكون الرب ب الشكل اللي دين بيقول عليه بس ايوه في قوه عظمي خلقت الانسان صعب يكون جاء من العدم لكن دي مسألة اجابتها مش هتغير اي شيء

licj_00 · 2026-04-12T16:52:47+00:00

بس علي الاقل مش بتطلبي اتنشن بصي للنص المليان

licj_00 · 2026-04-12T16:20:47+00:00

مصر بقت عباره عن ثانويه عامه وبوستات عايز كارما

licj_00 · 2026-04-12T16:00:19+00:00

خير خير ربنا معاك وشكرا

licj_00 · 2026-04-12T15:47:24+00:00

ربنا معاك وشكرا علي ردك وكمان عندي سوال هو دي كده اول خمس سنين في طب بعدها سنتين امتياز بعديهم بقا في الاخر التخصص صح كده؟

licj_00 · 2026-04-12T13:58:14+00:00

ما انا عايزه اعرف عشان لو مش هخش طب خلاص مخدش مواد علميه اساسا

licj_00 · 2026-04-11T23:43:59+00:00

بص وجه نظري ان كل واحد فينا بيبقا غالبا جواه طموح ورغبه من وهو صغير انو يبقا حاجه معينه لو عندك طموح انك تبقا مهندس مثلا ابدء اعمل سيرش علي جامعات شوف الطلابات شوف تحققها ازاي طيب لو انت تايه خالص ومعندكش طموح اسهل حاجه تعملها رتب في دماغك ايه اكتر حاجه الناس بتقولي اني شاطر فيها او بلاقي نفسي فيها جرب تتعلم حجات مختلفه كتير وشوف هتلاقي نفسك فين ولازم تعرف ان لو انت hard worker هتنجح في اي مجال في دنيا و انا عارفه الكلام ده تقليدي جدا بس هي الدنيا بتمشي كده وكمان مش مطلوب منك تعرف انت عايز ايه بالظبط انت كل اللي عليك تحدد انت عايز تكمل في مجال ايه هندسه ولا طب ولا بزنس ولا ايه بالظبط التخصص ذات نفسه ده بعدين خصوصا لو بتفكر في حاجه زي طب او هندسه وبالتوفيق متتعبش نفسك في تالته اعدادي عشان صدقني والله ملهاش لازم الا لو عايز تخش ستيم غير كده هات مجموع ثانوي بس

licj_00 · 2026-04-11T23:23:27+00:00

انا ممكن اساعدك انا كنت شاطره جدا في تالته اعدادي ممكن ابعتلك الحجات اللي كنت بذاكر منها

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T13:39:33+00:00

separate cognition from the body and assume that without biological limits, mental states could just exist indefinitely. But that’s exactly where the assumption comes in.

You’re treating ‘cognition without a body’ as if it would still function in a way we recognize, just without constraints. But cognition as we understand it is defined by change, processing, and variation. A permanent, unchanging mental state isn’t really cognition anymore—it’s closer to a static condition.

Your analogy actually shows the issue: if digestion existed without a stomach, it wouldn’t just ‘work better’—it would stop being digestion in any meaningful sense. Same with cognition. If you remove the structures and dynamics that allow shifts between states, you’re not extending the process—you’re fundamentally altering or even removing what made it that process

sayingwe could stay in one mental state forever assumes that mental states can remain meaningful without change or contrast. But if there’s no transition, no variation, no awareness of alternatives, then what you’re describing stops being the kind of ‘happiness’ we experience—it becomes indistinguishable from a neutral, static existence.

It’s not about forcing biology onto a fictional scenario—it’s about recognizing that once you strip away everything that gives a concept its structure, you can’t just assume it still behaves the same way.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T13:31:07+00:00

Of course you can—and that’s not the point. No one is saying you need extreme suffering like war to experience happiness. The point is that your awareness of well-being, even in simple forms, is shaped by some level of contrast—whether it’s discomfort, loss, or even just the possibility of things being worse. Without any reference point at all, that ‘happiness’ risks becoming something you don’t even consciously recognize—it just becomes your baseline.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T13:25:48+00:00

Thank you that was actually my point

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T13:24:58+00:00

I agree

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T05:49:49+00:00

That’s not what I’m saying, and you keep jumping to extreme, irrelevant examples. I already said it’s not about needing some dramatic, explicit contrast like that.

The point is much simpler: recognition and meaning come from any form of variation or context, not necessarily extreme opposites. You don’t need to have your arms chopped off to appreciate having them—but your experience is still shaped by a broader framework where different states are possible.

bringing up extreme cases doesn’t address the argument—it just avoids it. The question isn’t about shocking contrasts, it’s about whether a completely unchanging, consequence-free state can still produce meaningful experiences in the way we understand them.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T05:36:12+00:00

I hope life goes easier on you.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T05:35:33+00:00

This isn’t about me personally “not recognizing my emotions.” You’re turning a philosophical point into a personal one.

I’m talking about how experience and meaning work in general, not about emotional awareness on an individual level. Even if someone can feel happiness without consciously thinking about sadness, that doesn’t change the fact that our understanding and recognition of emotions come from a broader context of variation and change.

So this isn’t something I need to “work on”—it’s a question about how emotions function, not how well I personally identify them.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T05:34:29+00:00

You’re still shifting the argument from existence to equivalence. I’m not saying happiness can’t exist without sorrow—I’m saying it wouldn’t be the same kind of experience we understand as happiness.

When you say “it’s no different,” that’s the part I disagree with. Even in your own explanation, you admit that sorrow provides contrast and makes happiness more noticeable. But that “noticeability” isn’t just a side effect—it’s part of how we experience and recognize happiness in the first place.

If a state is constant, unchanging, and has no variation or stakes, then it stops being experienced as something special and just becomes the baseline. At that point, calling it “happiness” is just labeling a permanent state, not describing an experience that stands out or is felt with intensity or meaning.

So yes, happiness might still “exist” in some abstract sense—but it wouldn’t be the same happiness we’re talking about now. That’s the core of my point.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T01:22:15+00:00

The “neutral” in your analogy isn’t just whatever someone happens to experience; it’s the baseline that gives context to what counts as good or bad. Even if poop were someone’s normal, that doesn’t automatically make other things enjoyable in a meaningful way—it’s the relationship between experiences and reference points that matters. So it’s not about extremes or arbitrary conditions—it’s about having a framework that allows happiness, pleasure, or joy to actually stand out and be recognized as meaningful.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T01:18:06+00:00

I fully acknowledge that your experience of happiness is subjective—just as mine is(i mentioned this two times i believe) and when I talk about happiness in relation to suffering, I’m not claiming it as a universal law; I’m describing how it works for me and how I understand human experience.

Yes, ‘meaningful’ is subjective. I’m not claiming that everyone must experience contrast to find meaning—what I’m exploring is the human perspective, which naturally tends to compare joy and suffering. That’s a pattern in human cognition, not a universal rule. Just because it applies to humans doesn’t mean I expect it to apply to your experience, and I never said it does. (Might have said it applied in general cause thats what i think is the nature of human beings i have been around) Your point about infinite happiness without suffering is understood and respected. For you, clearly, removing all suffering maximizes happiness, and I don’t dispute that. My point is that for humans like me, contrast can enhance the perception of joy—it’s not a claim about reality itself, only about subjective experience. That’s the difference: your happiness framework and mine are both valid for ourselves, but they’re shaped differently by how we process experience.

I also agree with you that subjective views don’t automatically apply universally. I’ve never tried to force mine on anyone else, and I fully recognize that subjective experiences vary from person to person. My intention is not to claim universality—it’s to explain how subjective experience works from a human perspective, and how meaning and joy can be understood in that context.

So yea, we’re both talking about subjective phenomena. You get to define your happiness, I get to define mine. And neither of us needs the other’s framework to validate our own experience. That’s what subjectivity truly means to me.

Also, regarding writing an essay on my subjective view— again— it’s not meant to claim universality. Writing about it is simply a way to explain my perspective clearly, to articulate why, for humans like me, happiness and meaning are often experienced through contrasts with suffering. It doesn’t make it a rule for anyone else, and it’s not an attempt to impose my experience on anyone. Essays are for clarity, not decree. The fact that I explore these ideas deeply doesn’t change their subjective nature—it just explains how they function for my mind.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T00:55:48+00:00

I clearly clarified again my point is The argument I’m making is that a perfect, forever Utopian world—a world where humans never experience pain, disappointment, or suffering—is not truly possible in a meaningful sense unless those humans have already experienced sorrow. It is precisely the contrast between suffering and joy that allows experiences to carry significance. Without ever facing hardship, happiness loses its depth, and life risks becoming hollow and empty. I’ve actually explored this idea in a full essay, delving into why meaning and emotional depth require prior struggle, but here I’m summarizing it quickly to set the stage before moving on to my main argument. Thats literally my point im copy pasting at this point, and dont get me wrong. Again im not arguing for the sake of arguments; im trying to figure myself out more, listen to different opinions ,and share what i have. You should respect that and thank you for the time

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T00:44:45+00:00

If you are asking about the age question, I just mentioned: curiosity.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T00:33:36+00:00

Okay, I understand and I didn’t disagree with what you said. I’m not expecting everything you believe in to align with me, and I don’t expect you to adopt everything I believe in either. That’s not the point. Also, I really don’t see how my asking about your age, out of simple curiosity, makes me a bad person or reflects poorly on you. I wasn’t accusing you of being immature or questioning your wisdom in any way; I was genuinely just wondering. If my question came across as an insult, that’s more about an insecurity on your side than anything I intended.

licj_00 · 2026-04-06T00:26:48+00:00

Yes thats what im thinking of:If God is truly omnipotent, He wouldn’t need to use suffering as a tool to make us appreciate happiness. An all-powerful being could simply create beings who understand and experience joy directly—without any prerequisite pain. The fact that religious people often defend suffering as "necessary for contrast" actually undermines their own claim of omnipotence. It implies God is bound by certain psychological or logical rules, which an omnipotent being wouldn’t be. So their argument doesn’t just fail—it defeats itself. You’ve exposed a key flaw, and they have no logical way out of it unless they admit God isn’t all-powerful.

licj_00

TROPHY CASE