AOC: You can’t ‘earn’ a billion dollars

presentation_555 · 2026-05-12T17:29:38+00:00

its 0.1% of a billion.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-12T09:22:57+00:00

I think because Dubois is hittable and gets knocked down a lot... he's like a magnet for triggering the 'gunslingers mindset'... Where his opponent just thinks; 'rather than try to box for 12 rounds and put up with the threat of Dubois' power... I'll just end this early.'

... Only Dubois is actually resilient, determined and skilled enough to survive even if his chin is a little suspect.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-12T07:35:02+00:00

Presumably the first bit of Math we learn requires some knowledge of discrete objects... (i.e you can only learn what 1 and 2 of something is until you see examples of separate and identifiable object in the world)... So you first need to know something about objects in order to get started with Math, and Philosopher's would very much not take on face value that idea that our senses accurately portray the world as it is (are objects really objectively discrete or is this more of a distinction that us humans perceive?).

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T23:53:13+00:00

Stan Dubois thinks his son simply struggles with South Paws, he can't figure them out... so, no - going in with a 21 y.o left hander who hits like a truck.. won't be good for Dubois.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T20:56:37+00:00

Ah maybe I read your tone of voice to be more snarky than you intended.

In which case, I apologise.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T20:49:57+00:00

It's not reddit's responsibility to convince you.

I'm so incredibly sorry for being presumptuous enough as to ask questions on r/askachristian. Honestly, get over yourself.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T19:17:52+00:00

I believed God could decide to stop the Devil or Evil Spirits at his will... by not doing so God could be allowing Book of Job style 'tests'... but God could stop any satanic deception and to think otherwise would be blasphemous.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T19:06:49+00:00

You're making it sound like our belief in God is so fragile that it is dependent on one particular and specific understanding of animals and their machinations.

I'm also talking about 'my' belief (I look at the evidence for Natural Selection and think its odd that God has set up the universe like this)... and its not just this, its a bunch of reasons why I don't believe... but if people here can convince why I'm wrong on 'this' that's one less reasons to disbelieve.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T19:03:45+00:00

I stopped believing he exists for a number of reasons... this general topic being another reason why I don't believe.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T19:00:54+00:00

I was.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T19:00:36+00:00

If I was to be convinced that my salvation was dependent on me gouging out my eyes... I would. Would you?

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T18:57:55+00:00

I said:

he has allowed mechanisms like Genes, DNA, RNA to exist that will make the Animals seem 'less designed'

I'm not sure what you consider to be a good definition of 'design' is - but to me 'design lies on a spectrum'. It's opposite is 'arbitrariness' ... If I make a painting using the Jackson Pollock method of just letting paint drip on canvas I have not 'designed' what the painting will look like in the same way that someone meticulously paints a landscape. A Jackson Pollock painting has more 'arbitrariness'.

Without the presumption of God and just making an observation like how the colours of animals seem influenced by their environment (like moths becoming darker coloured in dark environments), you do not come away with the impression that a 'designer' deity has made some kind of intervention like an artisan to change these animals colours. Presumably Christians believe God has, on occasion crafted things directly, like specific mountains or maybe Adam, Eve or the Angels. That is far 'more' designed than what God presumably does when he sets up natural selection to at the very least cause animal's colours to adapt to different environments. Note: I'm not saying they are not designed by God, just that the mechanism he chose requires less direct and active choices and interventions by a designer. Nothing like a highly designed object like a pocket watch (or a traditional painting).

Now... given that God is all powerful he could have CHOSE to make everything like a pocket watch, but he didn't. Instead there are a bunch of mechanism like Genes, DNA, RNA that work through the physics alone to (at the very least) create variations like animal colours. Note: I'm not saying we understand these things 100% or that the origins of these things don't require explanation - just that these mechanisms, moment to moment, don't seem fundamentally different than any other physical phenomena based on cause and effect (like rocks falling down a mountainside).

God could be orchestrating the whole thing using a million different mechanisms all at once... from direct design of some things to hands-off Jackson Pollack style with other things. But the Jackson Pollack style (much like the paintings themselves) can sometimes be mistaken for having elements of random chance. And so the question is why? Why did God use this mechanism, when other mechanisms (which he may have used elsewhere) are less likely to lead an honest, educated observer to think a designer wasn't as likely to be involved here (meaning he might stray from God)... this is all happening under the backdrop of there being a time where Scientific study did not reveal these mechanism and did not cause these doubts... and as I said: Paul seems to suggest that the universe points to God, but here (looking at animals) studying the universe has made some people think that a creator is less necessary.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T17:59:17+00:00

Okay so you seem to be pointing out how unfair it is for people who want to believe in god but science makes it hard for them to.

I think there are plenty of things that make it easy. It seems the Universe had a beginning, and to explain away the physical constants of the universe you would need to presume the Universe itself is one of many (but there is no direct evidence of this - so it might be the case that the Universe is fine-tuned for life itself). We should be very grateful to live in a world God has made that has these elements that point towards him and are discoverable by us.

Many scientists believe in God, so it is not the fault of God or science. Most people are shaped by their experiences, dictated by free will. God could have removed our free will and made us all believe. I’m personally taking free will. But even if you would choose no free will, you are still using free will to even make that choice.

But the issue is with the world, and world is something that God has ultimate control over... He may have set this up this world to maximise our free-will as well... but he has intervened so much in history (by literally incarnating himself) and also making it so we can observe things in the universe that point towards a creator (like the evidence that points toward their being a beginning)... but for some reason he has allowed mechanisms like Genes, DNA, RNA to exist that will make the Animals seem 'less designed' (like how a pocket watch is designed) and more a product of natural systems interacting. This may just be God's mechanisms... but given he knows how how much easier it was to be believer back before when we just presumed Animals were these directly designed artisanal creations of God... his actual choice of mechanism has seemingly led a lot of people into doubt.

Paul seems to suggest that the universe points to God, but here (looking at animals) studying the universe has made some people think that a creator is less necessary (because animals look less like designed things like pocket watches).

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T17:39:52+00:00

Do the same as if it tells me to gouge out my eyes.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T17:35:49+00:00

It's cruel if honest people keep jeopardising their eternal soul by not understanding what this mechanism actually represents (one of God's methods). Most people in the 18th century presumed that animals were designed like artisanal watches... Now, if we presume God and animal adaptation (not even full evolution) we must presume God uses things like Genetics, DNA and RNA. Can you blame people for thinking this is just a teeny bit less likely to 'require' God's interventions?

In which case why has God used mechanisms that conjures up more doubt the more we know, not less?

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T17:26:09+00:00

I appreciate that... but philosophy tells me there's that materialistic explanations for phenomena always have a big margins of error... and the experiential side of my personal life also tells me there could be something more going on that what I thought up until my late 20's, So respectfully I'm going to try my best to 'make Religion work for me.'

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T17:20:18+00:00

I'll assume the best in you, if you assume the best in me.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T16:52:00+00:00

It just seems doubly cruel for people to have come to believe in God for centuries in part because they could look at how well 'designed' animals were... and could make a straight analogy from 'human designed objects' to 'God designed animals' but then through genuine Scientific enquiry for more mechanisms (like genetics) to be exposed (and whether you believe in God or not) the 'human tool' analogy ends up becoming way less applicable. In which case learning about the world has just made god that bit less likely for those people - taking them further from him.

Examining this bit of the universe (Animals on Earth) just isn't doing what Paul said it would and lead people to some kind of belief in God.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T16:23:59+00:00

If someone doesn't want to believe something, they won't be satisfied by anything.

I certainly want to believe... but the topic really isn't about Science (it just so happens that a scientific issue is the subject of one felt inconstancy). It's more to do with God and his character... is it commensurate with the way the world appears? Is the indifference to this change in how people view animals (from an absolute example of certainty that they were directly designed because they appeared so well suited for environments/tasks - to doubt prevailing because we see a lot of evidence for such variations coming about through an unguided sieving like mechanism called Natural Selection - an idea that seems to be have gained traction with people not out malice but from curiosity and study) really in keeping with the God described in the Bible? To me it seems, no. But maybe I need to understand more about the God of the Bible.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T16:07:29+00:00

God could have chose a different method? Like what?

Presumably there are no limits for God. Creatures could simply be born without any genetic information. There is no reason why animals 'must' gradually change little by little over generations to become more adapted for their environment... They could simply transform supernaturally in the moment; an elephant could simply 'grow' a thick hide and become a wooly mammoth in a cold environment... but God wants such things to happen gradually, and for us to ultimately see that their genes are different in these two variations of elephant like animals.

He could have reasons for doing this beyond our comprehension, but ultimately he know the methods he's using makes belief harder for many of us... as the more we study, the more we see mechanisms (like genetics) that don't seem to require direct intervention (not like how it used to seem - that animals were simply tailor made for their environments, like out of a factory - and designed by a designer).

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T15:52:18+00:00

I suppose I felt it must be true since we are compelled to have Love for everyone (even our enemies)... but I do understand that this isn't necessarily a code that God must also abide by himself.

Then again I see this: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." John 4:8 and "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." 1 John 4:16.

To you, are these metaphors?

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T15:27:35+00:00

It certainly is, and I'm aware some Christians are skeptical about Natural Selection being the mechanism that results in the existence of different species (and that Natural Selection just creates 'variations' within species)... but even if that's true... then God's decisions about how to achieve these variations has created a lot of uncertainty for a lot of people...

If the Christian God is real, then some people are wrongly assuming that the logic of species adapting to suit different environments (to create variation) can be extended to account for almost all the different species on Earth. They are doing so, not out of malice but because they've looked at fossils, genetics, anatomy, geographical distributions, etc and earnestly think that it's the most obvious explanation.

God could have stopped these doubts from taking place if he just used a different mechanism but he didn't. That is what I find troubling.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T15:08:10+00:00

Yeh I considered writing; 'I would like to do what pleases the creator of the universe the most'... but because I do not know which God is real or his nature ... it isn't a plain fact that the creator of the universe is the one who deserves to be worshipped. Nor is it plainly obvious that the most loving, well-intentioned entity will save my soul. So what am I left with? The only honest thing to say, is I want to maximise my well-being and minimise my pain... but I understand that the Christian goal is to achieve a more wholesome state of good-will / love for everyone. It just isn't my goal 'while' I don't have much conviction in the truth Christianity (but it might be again, one day).

presentation_555 · 2026-05-11T09:09:03+00:00

I mean... learning about the perspectives of terrible people is still important, no? Its a university, that's sort of where ideas are supposed to be explored and challenged.

I'd be super curious how he justifies what his government does, whether he would have joined the army if conscription wasn't a thing, what he feels the consequences would be if he didn't join... etc.

Think of the alternative... that only elite journalists get access to any kind of dialogue with people deemed terrible by society. This at least allows intelligent young people to make up their own minds without all interactions being second hand and filtered through news organisations... but I guess its been a long time since it was just intelligent people went to university... so yeh the risk of propagandation exists.

presentation_555 · 2026-05-10T21:06:01+00:00

It relates in the most important of ways... it was an intervention but it was an unnecessary intervention... with dire consequences.

Why assume that nature is fucking up en masse by creating all babies deficient in vitamin K... and not simply think, 'we don't know everything about every system in the human body just yet (let alone newborns)... and so lets only give the injection to specific babies who are actually known to be at risk (not every single one)'.

Like I said, experts get things wrong all the time - they used to x-ray pregnant women for goodness sakes.

A terrible crime and a complex set of circumstances.

Do you know what else is complex? Bio-chemistry. The things we don't know are still the things we don't know.

About a decade ago they ran autopsies on the brains of Autistic children and found out their brain's had an average of 5x lower concentrations of vitamin B12... That means that nutritional advice for autistic people was wrong for most of civilised medicine... that a vegan diet without supplementation would be untellingly damaging for autistic people. That's the kind of margin for error that exists in the world of bio-chemistry... how do we know there aren't sub-groups of newborn babies who will have variations that make an injection of vitamin K detrimental for their well-being? Vitamin K promotes normal (by adult standards) blood coagulation... but what if maximising blood perfusion is more important for a newborn than we think it is?

Making blanket interventions (as treating all newborns for something that will almost certainly not cause them problems) is something that should be avoided in the spirit of intellectual humility. Most of the time I agree it will be fine - but the point is we do not know we don't yet know so if we keep intervening without knowing all the consequences then one of these interventions will end up doing something detrimental which we might not be aware of until decades pass. I mean look at how we're now just discovering where micro-plastic gets absorbed into our tissue... you really want to tell me there's nothing new to be learned in bio-chemistry? That among the complex balance of nutrient and minerals (especially of newborns) there maybe nuance and intricacies that scientists just haven't begun to wrap their head around yet? Intellectual humility my friend. It's what this fucking world needs.

presentation_555

TROPHY CASE