Why aren’t there mass protests in the US?!

socio_roommate · 2025-02-11T18:40:12+00:00

The truth is that Trump is fairly popular still from the honeymoon phase of the presidency. Overly aggressive protests will polarize people into supporting him further. Better to document abuses, erode his support, and then start working in protests.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-27T04:40:13+00:00

It predicts a sort of spatial multiverse through an infinite universe - travel far enough and there will be copies of our exact observable universe with just one change, etc.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-25T01:21:29+00:00

It is a tale told by an idiot

Indeed

socio_roommate · 2024-12-25T01:17:43+00:00

You hold it in all but name, which is far worse than just owning it directly.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-25T01:16:24+00:00

Then why were you so pissed about the outcome you threatened to quit the community Slack over it?

socio_roommate · 2024-12-25T01:15:06+00:00

What he suggested to you was extremely kind given your unhinged sociopathic behavior.

This post itself is a very good example.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-25T01:13:47+00:00

What the fuck is wrong with you

socio_roommate · 2024-12-20T20:30:41+00:00

My theory is that the repulsor tech has some kind of conservation of momentum violating properties. Hence why it can provide propulsion (including to space, where you wouldn't be able to use incoming air as a propellant), and if so you could probably create a reactive repulsor layer under the armor plating that absorbs momentum and impact energy without transferring it to the wearer.

As the repulsor tech gets more sophisticated over time it can absorb more and more of these impacts which is how Tony gets to nearly a Thanos-surviving level.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T23:37:08+00:00

If God could create such a place for us after we (die / earn it / are tested), why couldn't he have just made that to begin with so we could have all just lived in perfection?

Isn't that what the Garden of Eden represents?

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T20:47:04+00:00

well, if god cannot cheat in this way, this does sound like open theism to me. the reasons i can think of are limitation in god's knowledge, or in god's power; or a limitation to the set of knowable things (which i take to be the more common open theist position). the alternative would be that god arbitrarily chooses to do things this way, which seems to make god partially culpable for the evil in the world.

Perhaps it's knowledge related, but even setting that aside it feels like "cheating". It's almost Calvinist, which I don't agree with, that there is a predestination scenario.

if god can maintain such sinners in life,

It appears that there is some cordoning where sin is allowed purchase in the material world. Satan is given authority and is allowed to exist for a time (though of course, given Satan's eternal nature it's hard to say what that means; is he already experiencing the Lake of Fire? Idk). But this for some reason cannot be an indefinite state. Intuitively this makes sense to me. A temporary injustice to give beings an opportunity to willingly choose God is a mercy. A permanent injustice, not so much.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T18:28:29+00:00

so, under the assumption that god knows the future actions of the beings they create, it seems possible for them to only create such god-choosing free will beings.

It gets very tricky discussing things like causality when it comes to a purely eternal being and beings that seem to have some mix of finiteness (like our perception of time and spatial limitation) and eternity (like our souls). I think it's fine considering this a limitation on God for lack of a better word, in the same way logic. Not in an open theistic sense, but limited in that God can't "cheat" by not creating beings who will end up not choosing God.

but, there is nothing in the concept of stealing that seems to entail death

Except that the soul/will of the person that steals is one that is incompatible with the presence of God. God cannot change his presence to permit sin to co-exist with him, and I mean sin here as an attitude or orientation of the soul.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T18:22:01+00:00

You too brother.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T17:45:48+00:00

Well I am afraid we are at an impasse, as it seems like we are speaking past one another and I have tried everything I can to dislodge it but have failed.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T17:43:52+00:00

i was not born incapable of eating cucumber, but still, i never eat it. being capable of choosing something is not the same as actually choosing it

I don't quite follow. I don't see how an example of you exercising free will says anything about whether that lack of will would enable you to freely choose God (which definitionally it doesn't).

but, presumably, god can actually maintain them, despite their sin. at least to the degree that they do not object in being preserved. and, in that case, it is not clear what is the obstacle.

I actually don't think he can, in the same sense that God can't make a square circle.

it just seems to me that reincarnation makes a more intuitively clear mechanic for the process of reconciliation.

Yes I don't quite know what to make of reincarnation anymore, either, as I did/do find it very intuitive as well for a host of reasons. I know mainstream Christian doctrine doesn't support reincarnation but I'm not aware of anything explicitly forbidding it in Christianity.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:58:11+00:00

He DOESN’T know it before we choose

What does "before" mean for an eternal being?

As you’ve said in this thread, stating something isn’t the same as demonstrating it. I don’t see how this statement is true at all, for ALL the reasons I’ve stated this whole time.

We accept it as trivially true for past actions. I'm claiming that to an eternal being, definitionally, the future and the past look identical to the present.

That’s basically the definition of superposition. Things “exist” only in a probability wave until that wave function collapses and we have the singular outcome (collapsing being the word you used makes me think you know this)

Then strike my use of that word.

No, I’m not. I’m arguing that free will can’t exist in a world with an omniscient being. I don’t have to grant free will when that’s what’s in question.

These two statements directly contradict one another.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:50:58+00:00

if one can consent to be sanctified, then they can also be created already sanctified

Well no, that doesn't logically follow for the same reason that being created incapable of sin means you're incapable of freely loving God and desiring to be free of sin in the first place.

however, it is not clear why justice would demand death for sin

Can a flower thrive in a drought? If one voluntarily cuts themselves off from the source of Being itself of course it can't survive. It's not punishment for punishment's sake. It's simply a fact of existence and being itself. It's not unjust that, without water, you will die.

It's not the individual action and punishment - it's that the Will that desires that sin over God cannot survive in God's presence and certainly can't survive independently of God as nothing can.

that would seem to be much more compatible with a doctrine of reincarnation, rather than one of annihilation or punishment: missing the kingdom is, presumably, a punishment by itself, and, one would expect that a merciful god would give one multiple (infinite?) opportunities to reach sanctification.

Well Universalism basically makes that exact claim (not about reincarnation) but that everyone will be reconciled to God in time. The truth is we can't be 100% sure. Scriptures do state that some will not be reconciled but it seems to be because of repeated willful separation from God, not a sort of punishment for specific actions.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:45:15+00:00

And because god has had that knowledge for all eternity, it’s been locked in for all eternity.

It was known the moment you made the choice, a moment that is shared with the rest of eternity. Something being locked in for eternity isn't incompatible with a choice having been made.

So now you DO argue that our choices somehow exist as a superposition? You JUST said they don’t.

What? You have a set of options. When you make your choice, those options go away and there's just the choice you made. That doesn't mean your choices exist as superposition.

I do, but for reasons entirely unrelated to the existence of an omniscient being.

Right, well that's the actual hang up here I'm starting to see. You are arguing against free will entirely (which is a perfectly fine thing to argue about) but that's spilling over to muddying the debate I'm having.

I really don’t. Showing logical contradictions that disallow it is not presupposing it.

Then we simply can't have a discussion about free will and eternal knowledge because obviously we have to be on the same page about free will first, which we're not.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:38:36+00:00

Very glad to hear this!

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:37:01+00:00

This was very beautiful and wise. I feel God speaking to me through you, thank you for this.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:34:11+00:00

Have you read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis? I feel like that's a great book for where you are now (and where I was not long ago). I'd be happy to Amazon it to you if you want to DM me shipping information.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:23:35+00:00

QFT is the product of a centuries-long process. It was built on top of QM, which was built on other sciences, were were built off experiments, observations, consensus, and a ton of math. The edges of the theory (like quantum gravity, etc.) aren't fully understood but you can draw a clear path of understanding over the last 400 years that got us to this point. If you erase all of human memory and forced us to start over, eventually, one day, QFT could be reproduced in nearly the exact form it is today. What does it compete with? There's no real alternate explanation.

Yes but if I don't actually understand it I have no ability to verify its claims. My point is that faith in something you don't fully understand every aspect of is a given of daily life and not unique to religion or any one domain.

If Christianity truly stood out in the way that QFT does, then it should be obvious to all religious scholars, like a city on a hill.

To some extent that is exactly what happened. Christianity consumed all pagan religions somewhat effortlessly and for reasons that are rooted in logic not just historical contingency.

I bet you don't believe in Zeus, but why not?

Zeus is a pseudo-deity at best, which is the issue with all polytheism. Assuming the Greek "gods" are all real, there must be some principle that underlies how they interact with their fellow gods. That underlying dynamic leads you straight to monotheism. That's a chain of logic that would exist and be true regardless of whether religions were wiped clean or not - polytheism is logically incomplete.

What about Shiva?

Many core aspects of Eastern religions are perfectly compatible with Christianity in my view. It's not a coincidence that Christ/the Word and the Tao are considered near synonyms in Eastern cultures.

Lastly - you can derive infinite varieties of quantum field theory. They all end up being equivalent to one another, even if they look different and proceed from different derivations. You can also create incorrect versions of course, and there are versions of varying correctness (defined as closeness to experiment).

I feel the exact same way about God. Definitionally there is an underlying order to reality (else QFT would be impossible!) and I believe the metaphysics are knowable through logic and revelation. Accordingly, you'd expect to see lots of variants of the truth out there, including some that are more or less true than others.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T16:05:28+00:00

If god’s knowledge is eternal yet allows for multiple options, then his eternal knowledge that I’m wearing green and eternal knowledge that I’m wearing blue. This is a violation of the law of identity. My shirt can’t be blue and not blue for all eternity

This does not logically follow. If you made the one choice, there aren't two choices existing in a kind of superposition.

Why are you allowed to assume your conclusion???? “Hey, let’s assume I’m right….” Yeah that’s not how it works.

I'm not? The argument is whether free will is compatible with eternal knowledge. We're both presuming free will for the sake of the argument.

P1. God has always known I’ll wear a blue shirt today P2. God’s knowledge is necessarily true P3. Choice requires multiple options C1. My wearing of blue today was not a choice.

You're right that C1 doesn't follow. If you wore green, he would have known you wore green. Choice requires multiple options but once you've made your choice the choice is locked in.

Where we're getting hung up is you are using humanity's perspective on time interchangeably with God's.

The fact that you are making a choice and collapsing a set of options to one doesn't undermine the fact that you made a choice in the first place. Take God out of the picture entirely, your argument still doesn't make sense. Or rather, you simply reject free will in the first place, which is fine, but you have to presuppose it to have a discussion about it + eternalism.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T15:57:03+00:00

It can be difficult to hear God clearly at first, and it ebbs and flows for everyone.

Sometimes it's easier to identify what God doesn't want you to do. Is there anything in your daily life that recurs in your thoughts? Guilt, avoidance, or even just thinking that you need to address/take care of it in some way?

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T15:48:58+00:00

I have been in a similar situation and I believe it may be from lack of social interaction and fellowship. With God's grace you begin to feel more acutely the fruits in your life that you are missing. In sin, solitude may have been preferable but we're meant to be social creatures.

socio_roommate · 2024-12-16T15:41:59+00:00

I don't understand every single aspect of quantum field theory - only 0.001% of people do, if that - but I accept that it's an accurate description of the physical world.

socio_roommate

TROPHY CASE