Holt biology answers to worksheets
AskScience: Got Questions? Get Answers.
2008.09.05 09:32 AskScience: Got Questions? Get Answers.
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
2011.07.26 21:33 impotent_rage Ask Feminists!
This is a place to ask feminists your questions and to discuss the issues with feminists. If you've wondered what most feminists think about certain things, what our response is to certain issues, how we think certain things should be handled, or why we have adopted the positions and stands that we have, this is your place to get your questions answered! Or if you have feedback or ideas and would like a feminist response to your thoughts, this is a place to have that discussion.
2011.03.29 15:13 arabidopsis Biology Homework
A place to get help with your biology homework!
2024.05.19 10:18 tyrrorreignns 37M Gay guy from Ohio(USA) looking for new friends to chat and game with
Hello potential friends! I'm a cis gay man from northwest Ohio who was born and raised here but spent the last 15ish years in southern Arizona near the Mexican boarder. A lot of things have happened in the last year and it's made me realize that, while I have queer friends, I don't have any friends who are also gay men and as such there's a certain connection and understanding that I've been missing in my life. I'm sure we all understand how difficult it can be to find people to share multiple large aspects of your life and I'm hoping to find that here.
A few quick answers to what I assume will be common questions.
Career: I normally work in medicine but had a rare medical event of my own last year that left me unable to work temporarily and I am still on the mend. Hoping to get back to working soon!
Family: I'm currently living with an old friend from high school and her family while I recover from the above.
Marital status: forever alone, lol
Pets: 3 dogs. They are my world and they also have the combined cognitive function of a can of spray paint
Interests: - Video games: easily my biggest hobby. I'm a through and through Zelda fan oh and love most RPGs. Recently I've mostly been in to more comfy game or open world games. Common evening activities are Minecraft/modded Minecraft, Stardew valley, Skyrim, the Sims, core keeper. Though recently my closest guy friend and I have been hoping to try some of the spooky co-op games like lethal Company as he does love his horror games.
I just realized how long this is getting so I think I will try to wrap up. I'm a nerdy gaymer just looking for similar people who want to have fun and be there for each other. As you can see I tend to be long-winded, excessively verbose, and stupidly sarcastic. Fair warning, I'm currently basically following an Australian time zone as my best mate lives in Melbourne and it's easier for me to talk to her this way so don't be surprised if I'm not conscious during the day. Hope to hear from some lovely folks soon!
submitted by tyrrorreignns to gayfriendfinder [link] [comments]
A few quick answers to what I assume will be common questions.
Career: I normally work in medicine but had a rare medical event of my own last year that left me unable to work temporarily and I am still on the mend. Hoping to get back to working soon!
Family: I'm currently living with an old friend from high school and her family while I recover from the above.
Marital status: forever alone, lol
Pets: 3 dogs. They are my world and they also have the combined cognitive function of a can of spray paint
Interests: - Video games: easily my biggest hobby. I'm a through and through Zelda fan oh and love most RPGs. Recently I've mostly been in to more comfy game or open world games. Common evening activities are Minecraft/modded Minecraft, Stardew valley, Skyrim, the Sims, core keeper. Though recently my closest guy friend and I have been hoping to try some of the spooky co-op games like lethal Company as he does love his horror games.
- Science: my forte is mostly in human biology but I'm also quite fond of tech and gadgets even if I don't understand them
- Books: I love fantasy and made a commitment to myself a few years ago to avoid anything with sad endings (the depression and anxiety have enough fodder on their own, thank you) so I've also been consuming a lot of gay romance
- TV/Movies: I'm actually really bad at this. I tend to watch the same things over and over as background noise while I game rather than consume new media. So... If you like watching the great British bake off for the hundredth time...
I just realized how long this is getting so I think I will try to wrap up. I'm a nerdy gaymer just looking for similar people who want to have fun and be there for each other. As you can see I tend to be long-winded, excessively verbose, and stupidly sarcastic. Fair warning, I'm currently basically following an Australian time zone as my best mate lives in Melbourne and it's easier for me to talk to her this way so don't be surprised if I'm not conscious during the day. Hope to hear from some lovely folks soon!
2024.05.19 09:40 d_pock_chope_bruh Progenitors
It started with a whisper, a shiver of information that slithered through the corridors of the CIA like a cold, uninvited guest. I was a senior analyst, tasked with sifting through the static and noise of global intelligence. But this—this was different. It was 2009 when the first document crossed my desk, a classified report from the Global Access Program. The title was innocuous: “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – Preliminary Analysis.” But the content… it was nothing short of extraordinary.
The initial report detailed sightings of craft with capabilities far beyond our own. These weren’t the erratic, drunken movements of weather balloons or the technological marvels of hostile nations. These were intelligent, deliberate maneuvers, the kind that hinted at minds far advanced from ours. It was chilling, but it was only the beginning.
As weeks turned into months, the trickle of information became a flood. Documents stamped with the highest levels of classification described encounters, recoveries, and, most disturbingly, autopsies. The recovered bodies weren’t the little green men of popular culture. They were eerily humanoid, yet undeniably otherworldly. Their skin had a silicon-like quality, translucent and tough, and their eyes—large, dark, and haunting—seemed to pierce through the veil of secrecy we so desperately tried to maintain.
I was part of a small, compartmentalized team, tasked with understanding the implications of these findings. The government’s approach was twofold: reverse-engineer the technology and determine the intentions of these visitors. But as our understanding grew, so did our fear.
One evening, after hours of staring at grainy footage of a UFO darting through the sky over a desolate military base, I received a call. The voice on the other end was panicked, speaking in hushed, frantic tones. It was one of our field operatives, stationed at a classified recovery site. They had just intercepted a transmission. It wasn’t human.
The transmission was a distress signal, but not one of desperation. It was a call to arms. These beings, it seemed, were not just explorers. They were scouts, and their mission was not benign. The transmission hinted at a hive mind, a collective consciousness that controlled these entities. They were here to assess, to probe, and to prepare. For what, we could only speculate.
Days later, another recovery operation took place. A craft was shot down over the Nevada desert, and the bodies retrieved told a horrifying story. They were connected, biologically and technologically, to this hive mind. When one entity was captured, the others knew. When one died, they all felt it. The implications were staggering. We were not just dealing with isolated visitors; we were confronting a unified front.
The more we learned, the more paranoid our superiors became. Orders came down to contain the information at all costs. Whistleblowers were silenced, dissenters disappeared. But the truth was too big to contain. The technology we recovered was decades, if not centuries, ahead of our own. Anti-gravity propulsion, energy sources that defied our understanding of physics, biological materials that healed and adapted.
And then came the darkest revelation. The autopsies revealed something even more unsettling. These beings had genetic material strikingly similar to our own. They weren’t just visitors; they were progenitors. We were their experiment, their creation. The implications shattered every paradigm we held dear. Religion, science, history—all of it was called into question.
As I sit here, penning this confession, I know my time is limited. They will come for me, as they have come for others. But the truth must be known. We are not alone, and we never have been. Our governments have hidden this from us, not out of malice, but out of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the truth, fear of the inevitable.
To you who reads this, understand this: the veil has been lifted. The shadows hold secrets that are darker and more profound than we can imagine. And the truth, once revealed, will change everything.
This is my testament. Believe it, or don’t. But know this: the world is not as it seems. The universe is vast, and we are not the apex of creation. We are but a fragment in a grand, terrifying design.
The truth is out there, waiting to be uncovered. And when it is, the world will never be the same.
The progenitors, as we came to call them, had motives far more complex and far-reaching than simple exploration or conquest. The truth unraveled slowly, like an intricate tapestry revealing a grand design. It began with fragments of intercepted communications and culminated in a terrifying, awe-inspiring understanding of our place in the universe.
The progenitors did not come from a distant star merely to observe. They were architects of life, and Earth was their grand experiment. Our planet, teeming with diverse life forms, was a controlled environment, a living laboratory designed for a singular purpose: evolution.
From the ancient texts to modern scientific discoveries, we’ve always sought answers to our origins. The progenitors provided those answers, but they came at a cost. We discovered that they seeded countless worlds, each designed to test different variables of life. Earth was unique due to its biodiversity and its potential for intelligent life.
The genetic similarities between us and the progenitors weren’t just a coincidence. They were deliberate. By seeding their own DNA into the primordial soup of Earth, they ensured a certain path of evolution. Our intelligence, our creativity, our very civilization were results of their intricate design. We were, quite literally, their children, bred and cultivated to reach a specific level of advancement.
But why? The reasons were as complex as they were chilling. The progenitors were not just scientists; they were facing an existential crisis. Their civilization, once spanning galaxies, was in decline. They needed a solution to prevent their extinction, and their answer was found in genetic diversity and adaptability.
Earth and its human inhabitants were part of a grander scheme: to evolve a species capable of assimilating their consciousness, their essence, into a new form. Our rapid technological advancement was not just a natural progression but was subtly influenced to accelerate our development. They needed us to reach a level where we could understand and perhaps even merge with their advanced consciousness.
We learned through decrypted communications and rare encounters that the progenitors were a hive mind, an interconnected collective consciousness. Over millennia, they had lost individuality, becoming a singular entity spread across countless biological hosts. This form of existence had its limits, and they sought to evolve beyond those constraints. They aimed to create a hybrid species—humans with the potential to host their collective consciousness.
This wasn’t just about survival; it was about transcendence. By merging with us, they hoped to achieve a new state of being, combining their ancient wisdom and collective power with our adaptability and creativity. We were to be the vessels for their next evolution.
However, this plan wasn’t without resistance. Among the progenitors, there were factions. Some believed in the purity of their collective consciousness, resisting the idea of merging with what they considered lesser beings. These internal conflicts spilled over into their actions on Earth, leading to sporadic yet significant interventions in our history.
As our understanding grew, so did the dread. The government’s attempts to contain this knowledge were born out of sheer terror. How could they explain to the world that we were bred for a purpose beyond our control? That our creators intended to use us to save themselves?
The intercepted transmissions became increasingly desperate. The progenitors’ time was running out, and their interest in Earth intensified. Reports of sightings and encounters surged. The military engaged in numerous clandestine operations to intercept and study these beings, leading to an underground war of sorts.
And then came the ultimate revelation: the progenitors were already among us. Their advanced technology allowed them to blend in, to influence, and to manipulate. The rise and fall of civilizations, the sudden leaps in technology, the inexplicable events in history—they were all part of the progenitors’ intricate plan to guide us towards the inevitable merging.
The truth, when finally pieced together, was more than earth-shattering. It was paradigm-shattering. We were not alone, nor were we masters of our fate. We were pawns in a cosmic game, engineered for a destiny we had yet to fully comprehend. The progenitors, our creators, were not gods but beings driven by survival and evolution, using us as their means to an end.
As I document this, I know the implications are beyond comprehension. The world must know, not to incite fear, but to understand. We stand at the brink of an unprecedented revelation, one that will redefine our existence and our place in the universe.
This is the truth, unfiltered and unvarnished. We are the progeny of ancient architects, part of a grand design stretching across the stars. Our future is intertwined with theirs, and the choices we make now will determine the fate of both our species.
submitted by d_pock_chope_bruh to scarystories [link] [comments]
The initial report detailed sightings of craft with capabilities far beyond our own. These weren’t the erratic, drunken movements of weather balloons or the technological marvels of hostile nations. These were intelligent, deliberate maneuvers, the kind that hinted at minds far advanced from ours. It was chilling, but it was only the beginning.
As weeks turned into months, the trickle of information became a flood. Documents stamped with the highest levels of classification described encounters, recoveries, and, most disturbingly, autopsies. The recovered bodies weren’t the little green men of popular culture. They were eerily humanoid, yet undeniably otherworldly. Their skin had a silicon-like quality, translucent and tough, and their eyes—large, dark, and haunting—seemed to pierce through the veil of secrecy we so desperately tried to maintain.
I was part of a small, compartmentalized team, tasked with understanding the implications of these findings. The government’s approach was twofold: reverse-engineer the technology and determine the intentions of these visitors. But as our understanding grew, so did our fear.
One evening, after hours of staring at grainy footage of a UFO darting through the sky over a desolate military base, I received a call. The voice on the other end was panicked, speaking in hushed, frantic tones. It was one of our field operatives, stationed at a classified recovery site. They had just intercepted a transmission. It wasn’t human.
The transmission was a distress signal, but not one of desperation. It was a call to arms. These beings, it seemed, were not just explorers. They were scouts, and their mission was not benign. The transmission hinted at a hive mind, a collective consciousness that controlled these entities. They were here to assess, to probe, and to prepare. For what, we could only speculate.
Days later, another recovery operation took place. A craft was shot down over the Nevada desert, and the bodies retrieved told a horrifying story. They were connected, biologically and technologically, to this hive mind. When one entity was captured, the others knew. When one died, they all felt it. The implications were staggering. We were not just dealing with isolated visitors; we were confronting a unified front.
The more we learned, the more paranoid our superiors became. Orders came down to contain the information at all costs. Whistleblowers were silenced, dissenters disappeared. But the truth was too big to contain. The technology we recovered was decades, if not centuries, ahead of our own. Anti-gravity propulsion, energy sources that defied our understanding of physics, biological materials that healed and adapted.
And then came the darkest revelation. The autopsies revealed something even more unsettling. These beings had genetic material strikingly similar to our own. They weren’t just visitors; they were progenitors. We were their experiment, their creation. The implications shattered every paradigm we held dear. Religion, science, history—all of it was called into question.
As I sit here, penning this confession, I know my time is limited. They will come for me, as they have come for others. But the truth must be known. We are not alone, and we never have been. Our governments have hidden this from us, not out of malice, but out of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of the truth, fear of the inevitable.
To you who reads this, understand this: the veil has been lifted. The shadows hold secrets that are darker and more profound than we can imagine. And the truth, once revealed, will change everything.
This is my testament. Believe it, or don’t. But know this: the world is not as it seems. The universe is vast, and we are not the apex of creation. We are but a fragment in a grand, terrifying design.
The truth is out there, waiting to be uncovered. And when it is, the world will never be the same.
The progenitors, as we came to call them, had motives far more complex and far-reaching than simple exploration or conquest. The truth unraveled slowly, like an intricate tapestry revealing a grand design. It began with fragments of intercepted communications and culminated in a terrifying, awe-inspiring understanding of our place in the universe.
The progenitors did not come from a distant star merely to observe. They were architects of life, and Earth was their grand experiment. Our planet, teeming with diverse life forms, was a controlled environment, a living laboratory designed for a singular purpose: evolution.
From the ancient texts to modern scientific discoveries, we’ve always sought answers to our origins. The progenitors provided those answers, but they came at a cost. We discovered that they seeded countless worlds, each designed to test different variables of life. Earth was unique due to its biodiversity and its potential for intelligent life.
The genetic similarities between us and the progenitors weren’t just a coincidence. They were deliberate. By seeding their own DNA into the primordial soup of Earth, they ensured a certain path of evolution. Our intelligence, our creativity, our very civilization were results of their intricate design. We were, quite literally, their children, bred and cultivated to reach a specific level of advancement.
But why? The reasons were as complex as they were chilling. The progenitors were not just scientists; they were facing an existential crisis. Their civilization, once spanning galaxies, was in decline. They needed a solution to prevent their extinction, and their answer was found in genetic diversity and adaptability.
Earth and its human inhabitants were part of a grander scheme: to evolve a species capable of assimilating their consciousness, their essence, into a new form. Our rapid technological advancement was not just a natural progression but was subtly influenced to accelerate our development. They needed us to reach a level where we could understand and perhaps even merge with their advanced consciousness.
We learned through decrypted communications and rare encounters that the progenitors were a hive mind, an interconnected collective consciousness. Over millennia, they had lost individuality, becoming a singular entity spread across countless biological hosts. This form of existence had its limits, and they sought to evolve beyond those constraints. They aimed to create a hybrid species—humans with the potential to host their collective consciousness.
This wasn’t just about survival; it was about transcendence. By merging with us, they hoped to achieve a new state of being, combining their ancient wisdom and collective power with our adaptability and creativity. We were to be the vessels for their next evolution.
However, this plan wasn’t without resistance. Among the progenitors, there were factions. Some believed in the purity of their collective consciousness, resisting the idea of merging with what they considered lesser beings. These internal conflicts spilled over into their actions on Earth, leading to sporadic yet significant interventions in our history.
As our understanding grew, so did the dread. The government’s attempts to contain this knowledge were born out of sheer terror. How could they explain to the world that we were bred for a purpose beyond our control? That our creators intended to use us to save themselves?
The intercepted transmissions became increasingly desperate. The progenitors’ time was running out, and their interest in Earth intensified. Reports of sightings and encounters surged. The military engaged in numerous clandestine operations to intercept and study these beings, leading to an underground war of sorts.
And then came the ultimate revelation: the progenitors were already among us. Their advanced technology allowed them to blend in, to influence, and to manipulate. The rise and fall of civilizations, the sudden leaps in technology, the inexplicable events in history—they were all part of the progenitors’ intricate plan to guide us towards the inevitable merging.
The truth, when finally pieced together, was more than earth-shattering. It was paradigm-shattering. We were not alone, nor were we masters of our fate. We were pawns in a cosmic game, engineered for a destiny we had yet to fully comprehend. The progenitors, our creators, were not gods but beings driven by survival and evolution, using us as their means to an end.
As I document this, I know the implications are beyond comprehension. The world must know, not to incite fear, but to understand. We stand at the brink of an unprecedented revelation, one that will redefine our existence and our place in the universe.
This is the truth, unfiltered and unvarnished. We are the progeny of ancient architects, part of a grand design stretching across the stars. Our future is intertwined with theirs, and the choices we make now will determine the fate of both our species.
2024.05.19 09:24 ReasonAndHumanismIN The greatness of our people will depend on the extent to which we can out-West the West at their own scientific, technological, and intellectual traditions.
Looking around, I see that there is one thing that is common to prosperous and advanced societies worldwide: they avidly pursue a high degree of excellence in science, technology, and commerce that have their origins in the West. The scientific and rational worldview is a core part of their cultures. There are some exceptions to this, such as some middle-eastern nations that coast on oil wealth. But the trend largely holds.
As a rank amateur, I have often thought about what it is about the West that made them the epicenter of the modern scientific and industrial revolution. I don't have any definitive answers yet, but my current thesis is that it's the heritage of philosophical inquiry of ancient Greece that sets them apart. The Islamic world itself flourished intellectually for a while when it freely pursued the kind of philosophical inquiry that was typical of the ancient Greeks.
When you look at the "munitraya" of Greece - Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - you find some interesting features.
I am sure that I am over-simplifying matters. For instance, neo-Platonists and neo-Pythagoreans were religious and mystical cults. Aristotle was wrong about many fundamental notions that he took for granted. Newton was as much a "sorcerer" indulging in alchemy as he was a rigorous natural philosopher. The West had its dark ages where certain aspects were not allowed to be questioned.
But that notwithstanding, it's clear to me that if our people are to have a shot at true greatness and glory, we must out-West the West at their own game. I further believe that this must be a citizen-led, peer-to-peer affair. We must all be thinking about how deeply and authentically we can naturalize the Western intellectual and scientific traditions in our society.
The sooner we can do this, the better we will be able to face the challenges that we are up against today.
submitted by ReasonAndHumanismIN to scienceisdope [link] [comments]
As a rank amateur, I have often thought about what it is about the West that made them the epicenter of the modern scientific and industrial revolution. I don't have any definitive answers yet, but my current thesis is that it's the heritage of philosophical inquiry of ancient Greece that sets them apart. The Islamic world itself flourished intellectually for a while when it freely pursued the kind of philosophical inquiry that was typical of the ancient Greeks.
When you look at the "munitraya" of Greece - Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - you find some interesting features.
- They all took reason very seriously; in fact, Aristotle laid the foundations of Western logic. There was a recognition that it was not enough to know the truth, but also, that it's important to justify why things are true. To do this, they didn't take recourse to religious doctrines, but argued from naturalistic first principles.
- They are marked by a profound sense of straightforwardness and intellectual humility. They dared to inquire while fully admitting their ignorance. Socrates was said to be the wisest man in the Hellenic world because he knew that he knew nothing; he didn't experience any "loss of face" in doing so. There was no compulsion to be "profound"; in fact, he scoffed at faux profundity, and was pretty much killed for being a nuisance. When you read their works, you never get a sense of being talked down to by a "wise", "all-knowing" seer; instead, it's more like having a conversation with an advanced peer.
- They took a deep interest in nature and the real problems that people faced. Socrates asked questions about how to live a good life in practical terms. Aristotle was probably the first great empirical scientist, avidly examining specimens for his studies in Biology. Nature and mundane human affairs were not something to be overcome, but to be studied and explored. I feel that it could almost be said that the pursuit of truth for the Greeks meant the study of nature. You see this sentiment in Newton - a prototypical natural philosopher - who spoke of himself as a child gazing at a vast ocean of truth.
- They had a keen interest in Mathematics and an appreciation for its beauty. We see this trend begin as early as Pythagoras who had a mystical faith in the ability of Mathematics to reveal Truth. Plato considered training in Mathematics as an integral component of the education of rulers. Mathematics was useful, true, but they pursued it also for the sake of its beauty. Here too, they were not merely interested in collecting Mathematics facts, but in proving them from first principles accepted by everyone. We see an insistence on justification come up again and again throughout Western culture.
I am sure that I am over-simplifying matters. For instance, neo-Platonists and neo-Pythagoreans were religious and mystical cults. Aristotle was wrong about many fundamental notions that he took for granted. Newton was as much a "sorcerer" indulging in alchemy as he was a rigorous natural philosopher. The West had its dark ages where certain aspects were not allowed to be questioned.
But that notwithstanding, it's clear to me that if our people are to have a shot at true greatness and glory, we must out-West the West at their own game. I further believe that this must be a citizen-led, peer-to-peer affair. We must all be thinking about how deeply and authentically we can naturalize the Western intellectual and scientific traditions in our society.
The sooner we can do this, the better we will be able to face the challenges that we are up against today.
2024.05.19 09:07 tyrrorreignns 37M Gay guy from Ohio(USA) looking for new friends to chat and game with
Hello potential friends! I'm a cis gay man from northwest Ohio who was born and raised here but spent the last 15ish years in southern Arizona near the Mexican boarder. A lot of things have happened in the last year and it's made me realize that, while I have queer friends, I don't have any friends who are also gay men and as such there's a certain connection and understanding that I've been missing in my life. I'm sure we all understand how difficult it can be to find people to share multiple large aspects of your life and I'm hoping to find that here.
A few quick answers to what I assume will be common questions.
Career: I normally work in medicine but had a rare medical event of my own last year that left me unable to work temporarily and I am still on the mend. Hoping to get back to working soon!
Family: I'm currently living with an old friend from high school and her family while I recover from the above.
Marital status: forever alone, lol
Pets: 3 dogs. They are my world and they also have the combined cognitive function of a can of spray paint
Interests: - Video games: easily my biggest hobby. I'm a through and through Zelda fan oh and love most RPGs. Recently I've mostly been in to more comfy game or open world games. Common evening activities are Minecraft/modded Minecraft, Stardew valley, Skyrim, the Sims, core keeper. Though recently my closest guy friend and I have been hoping to try some of the spooky co-op games like lethal Company as he does love his horror games.
I just realized how long this is getting so I think I will try to wrap up. I'm a nerdy gaymer just looking for similar people who want to have fun and be there for each other. As you can see I tend to be long-winded, excessively verbose, and stupidly sarcastic. Fair warning, I'm currently basically following an Australian time zone as my best mate lives in Melbourne and it's easier for me to talk to her this way so don't be surprised if I'm not conscious during the day. Hope to hear from some lovely folks soon!
submitted by tyrrorreignns to gayfriendship [link] [comments]
A few quick answers to what I assume will be common questions.
Career: I normally work in medicine but had a rare medical event of my own last year that left me unable to work temporarily and I am still on the mend. Hoping to get back to working soon!
Family: I'm currently living with an old friend from high school and her family while I recover from the above.
Marital status: forever alone, lol
Pets: 3 dogs. They are my world and they also have the combined cognitive function of a can of spray paint
Interests: - Video games: easily my biggest hobby. I'm a through and through Zelda fan oh and love most RPGs. Recently I've mostly been in to more comfy game or open world games. Common evening activities are Minecraft/modded Minecraft, Stardew valley, Skyrim, the Sims, core keeper. Though recently my closest guy friend and I have been hoping to try some of the spooky co-op games like lethal Company as he does love his horror games.
- Science: my forte is mostly in human biology but I'm also quite fond of tech and gadgets even if I don't understand them
- Books: I love fantasy and made a commitment to myself a few years ago to avoid anything with sad endings (the depression and anxiety have enough fodder on their own, thank you) so I've also been consuming a lot of gay romance
- TV/Movies: I'm actually really bad at this. I tend to watch the same things over and over as background noise while I game rather than consume new media. So... If you like watching the great British bake off for the hundredth time...
I just realized how long this is getting so I think I will try to wrap up. I'm a nerdy gaymer just looking for similar people who want to have fun and be there for each other. As you can see I tend to be long-winded, excessively verbose, and stupidly sarcastic. Fair warning, I'm currently basically following an Australian time zone as my best mate lives in Melbourne and it's easier for me to talk to her this way so don't be surprised if I'm not conscious during the day. Hope to hear from some lovely folks soon!
2024.05.19 08:43 Slow_Accident_6523 Elementary School Teacher Needs Advice on Leveraging AI in the Classroom and Building Effective Bots!
Hi everyone,
I'm an elementary school teacher from Germany experimenting ChatGPT in my classroom in different ways to make learning more fun and effective. So far I am just winging it and seeing what sticks. My principal is super supportive in letting me trying stuff out to see what works. I am under no illusion that students won't be using AI for school at some point so I see it as my responsibility to teach them how to use it to learn instead of cheat. Maybe not in elementary school but they definitely will later. Here’s what I’ve done so far:
-Helped students get feedback and improve their stories.
-Used voice to text to help with reading aloud and enunciation.
-Took photos of homework worksheets to create core concept sheets for better understanding.
-Made advanced questions and contextual assignments to match students’ interests.
-Created questions to deepen understanding of the material.
But I need some help and advice:
-Improving GPT Responses: Sometimes the answers I get are too detailed or not focused enough. How can I make GPT responses better and more to the point?
-Homework Assistance Bot: I want to build a bot that students can use in the morning to review their homework. They can scan their homework, find mistakes, and understand what they did right and wrong. It could also ask deeper questions for my advanced students. I think this will make homework more effective, especially for those who struggle and don’t get enough feedback. I have seen GPTs where you just have to type in a number to continue and it guides you through a predetermined set of questions. Something like that would be sweet for my young students.
Next school year, we’ll get access to a ChatGPT API, and hopefully, all students will get tablets. It seems like our state is setting us up to experiment. Data protection laws might become an issue, but as long as all student work uploaded is anonymous, we should be good—though nobody knows exactly how it will work yet.
I'm also working on showing my still skeptical colleagues the benefits of AI. My principal is supportive and sees the potential, even if they don’t fully get it yet. They’re encouraging me to help my colleagues see the value too. A lot of them are super skeptical. They think it is just the next toy that will fry our students brain not seeing the incredible potential IF used right. Please, please help me! I feel like a Trailblazer exploring a whole new world of education. There literally is nothing to work off of. I understand the accuracy of ChatGPT can be iffy so I always have to be considereate of that but with the proper context and right prompt it is basically 90% good for literally every student no matter their background. I will take that 90% for every student over me not being able to give every single student the attention they deserve. I don't want perfect to become the enemy of good. Plus I suspect when the next school year starts in September when I really want to shift to more adaptive learning we already have a slightly better iteration that will solve a lot of issues.. Exciting times but also really challenging.
submitted by Slow_Accident_6523 to ChatGPT [link] [comments]
I'm an elementary school teacher from Germany experimenting ChatGPT in my classroom in different ways to make learning more fun and effective. So far I am just winging it and seeing what sticks. My principal is super supportive in letting me trying stuff out to see what works. I am under no illusion that students won't be using AI for school at some point so I see it as my responsibility to teach them how to use it to learn instead of cheat. Maybe not in elementary school but they definitely will later. Here’s what I’ve done so far:
-Helped students get feedback and improve their stories.
-Used voice to text to help with reading aloud and enunciation.
-Took photos of homework worksheets to create core concept sheets for better understanding.
-Made advanced questions and contextual assignments to match students’ interests.
-Created questions to deepen understanding of the material.
- Made guides for parents to help with homework.
- had students make posters on the benefits and dangers of AI and fed that into CHatGPT to assist in transforming that content into a podcast that my students then recoreded with GarageBand
But I need some help and advice:
-Improving GPT Responses: Sometimes the answers I get are too detailed or not focused enough. How can I make GPT responses better and more to the point?
-Homework Assistance Bot: I want to build a bot that students can use in the morning to review their homework. They can scan their homework, find mistakes, and understand what they did right and wrong. It could also ask deeper questions for my advanced students. I think this will make homework more effective, especially for those who struggle and don’t get enough feedback. I have seen GPTs where you just have to type in a number to continue and it guides you through a predetermined set of questions. Something like that would be sweet for my young students.
Next school year, we’ll get access to a ChatGPT API, and hopefully, all students will get tablets. It seems like our state is setting us up to experiment. Data protection laws might become an issue, but as long as all student work uploaded is anonymous, we should be good—though nobody knows exactly how it will work yet.
I'm also working on showing my still skeptical colleagues the benefits of AI. My principal is supportive and sees the potential, even if they don’t fully get it yet. They’re encouraging me to help my colleagues see the value too. A lot of them are super skeptical. They think it is just the next toy that will fry our students brain not seeing the incredible potential IF used right. Please, please help me! I feel like a Trailblazer exploring a whole new world of education. There literally is nothing to work off of. I understand the accuracy of ChatGPT can be iffy so I always have to be considereate of that but with the proper context and right prompt it is basically 90% good for literally every student no matter their background. I will take that 90% for every student over me not being able to give every single student the attention they deserve. I don't want perfect to become the enemy of good. Plus I suspect when the next school year starts in September when I really want to shift to more adaptive learning we already have a slightly better iteration that will solve a lot of issues.. Exciting times but also really challenging.
2024.05.19 08:40 ShaiPhoneSupport My (29m) disabled Father (63) who I live with is killing himself with alcohol and I'm not sure whether to help him or walk away
This is going to be a bit of a heavy one guys, I wouldn't normally post such private matters on the internet but I'm really at a loss right now and have no one to turn to - the veil of anonyity afforded by reddit helps as well.
Firstly, some backstory; my dad is a paraplegic from the waist down and confined to a wheelchair, has been since he was 24 due to an unknown virus he contracted which basically ate away at his spinal chord. He is not my biological father as due to his condition he and my Mum were unable to conceive and utilized the donor father route using IVF, though, for all intents and purposes I consider him my Dad.
His drinking and cannabis smoking were the main reason my Mum left my twin brother and I when we were 14, Dad never worked and spent his days getting wasted in front of the television leaving the sole responsibility of basically everything on my Mum. After years of this taking a toll on her health she up and left one day, running away with a work colleague who could offer her a better life with the caveat that her children were not a part of it. So my Dad has been our sole "parent" since I was 14 basically, not the greatest caretaker or role model but he was there and the sole reason my brother and I weren't homeless at such a tender age so I have to be grateful to him for that.
Now, I moved out when I was 16 due to teenage conflicts with him but had to move back with him 3 years ago after sustaining a head injury that left me unable to work for a time. I wouldn't say he's a bad person but he's just.. (in my eyes at least) a loser and a fool. To elaborate on that statement, his days are spent doing nothing else other than what I remember from when I was a kid.. drinking and smoking weed. I've recently returned to work and when I get home at around 5 to 6pm he's either already in bed or in a stupor. I'm sick of coming home to a bumbling fool, half the time, even when he is sober, his sentences don't even make sense or he will engage in a conversation that is totally irrelevant to the one we are supposedly having. He leaves a mess around the house and when I try to pull him up about little day to day things like not cleaning up or not sorting the recycling properly he will either become angry and confrontational or use his disability as an excuse. He pushes cannabis and alcohol on me CONSTANTLY always encouraging me to drink and smoke with him and never takes a single no for an answer. Today he was almost incoherently pouring himself shots of whiskey while completely trashed so I took the bottle off him and placed it on a high shelf while telling him that he'd had enough, again he became annoyed and laid in to me (verbally) that I was abusing a disabled guy by doing so and said something like "it makes me happy so why does it matter to you".
I know by now the obvious answer seems that I should cut ties and live my own life and I am finally in a situation financially where I could do so but the thing with that is, I'm all he's got and he's my only parent, I guess unless you are in the same situation it would be hard to understand but I loathe the thought of basically abandoning him to die in squalor yet at the same time I'm trying my best to keep myself afloat and live life well with everything I have been through in recent years and despite my best efforts I can't seem to do anything to get through to him.
Thoughts?
submitted by ShaiPhoneSupport to Advice [link] [comments]
Firstly, some backstory; my dad is a paraplegic from the waist down and confined to a wheelchair, has been since he was 24 due to an unknown virus he contracted which basically ate away at his spinal chord. He is not my biological father as due to his condition he and my Mum were unable to conceive and utilized the donor father route using IVF, though, for all intents and purposes I consider him my Dad.
His drinking and cannabis smoking were the main reason my Mum left my twin brother and I when we were 14, Dad never worked and spent his days getting wasted in front of the television leaving the sole responsibility of basically everything on my Mum. After years of this taking a toll on her health she up and left one day, running away with a work colleague who could offer her a better life with the caveat that her children were not a part of it. So my Dad has been our sole "parent" since I was 14 basically, not the greatest caretaker or role model but he was there and the sole reason my brother and I weren't homeless at such a tender age so I have to be grateful to him for that.
Now, I moved out when I was 16 due to teenage conflicts with him but had to move back with him 3 years ago after sustaining a head injury that left me unable to work for a time. I wouldn't say he's a bad person but he's just.. (in my eyes at least) a loser and a fool. To elaborate on that statement, his days are spent doing nothing else other than what I remember from when I was a kid.. drinking and smoking weed. I've recently returned to work and when I get home at around 5 to 6pm he's either already in bed or in a stupor. I'm sick of coming home to a bumbling fool, half the time, even when he is sober, his sentences don't even make sense or he will engage in a conversation that is totally irrelevant to the one we are supposedly having. He leaves a mess around the house and when I try to pull him up about little day to day things like not cleaning up or not sorting the recycling properly he will either become angry and confrontational or use his disability as an excuse. He pushes cannabis and alcohol on me CONSTANTLY always encouraging me to drink and smoke with him and never takes a single no for an answer. Today he was almost incoherently pouring himself shots of whiskey while completely trashed so I took the bottle off him and placed it on a high shelf while telling him that he'd had enough, again he became annoyed and laid in to me (verbally) that I was abusing a disabled guy by doing so and said something like "it makes me happy so why does it matter to you".
I know by now the obvious answer seems that I should cut ties and live my own life and I am finally in a situation financially where I could do so but the thing with that is, I'm all he's got and he's my only parent, I guess unless you are in the same situation it would be hard to understand but I loathe the thought of basically abandoning him to die in squalor yet at the same time I'm trying my best to keep myself afloat and live life well with everything I have been through in recent years and despite my best efforts I can't seem to do anything to get through to him.
Thoughts?
2024.05.19 08:33 Bitter_Ad_4878 Reflections on why it didn’t work from an ex stepmom with an ‘ours’ baby.
My baby’s first birthday just passed and I’ve been reflecting a lot on why this arrangement and relationship didn’t work for me. As per my past posts, I recently left my relationship with our child and there are lots of reasons why. We came together as a ‘family’ to celebrate ours baby’s birthday as it was the mature thing to do / that’s what he wanted so I happily obliged. As an ex-‘stepmom’, we have lots of feelings that are often ignored, we are silenced as we’re not the ‘real parent’ however are expected to act and love and care like real mother’s do. Most of the emotional and domestic labour falls on us, particularly because we’re female and these partners can’t be assed half the time with doing this stuff. I’m not quite sure it’s the same for stepdads but I’d love to hear more about your experiences. Here’s what I reflected on… it’s a long one sorry! - I hated how the SKs were raised. They don’t have to answer people when they’re spoken to (waiters, doctors, relatives etc) which I find embarrassingly rude. They look unkempt and messy, this is especially mortifying in public. I’m not talking about grubby little babies, that’s to be expected, but 7 - 14 years old should be well groomed; not roll out of bed and go out for the day in their grotty tracksuits. They’re iPad kids and are allowed to be on them 24/7 which I don’t agree with. They don’t even leave the house on the weekends to go out and do activities at either house unless it was me taking them (and paying for it too!) this is not how I would raise my child. It’s 100% their parents’ fault. - it fell on me, as a first time mom, to foster relationships between the half siblings. Their dad would hang back whilst he would expect me to ensure they are present for bath time or other important things concerning my baby. To be breastfeeding, pumping around the clock on zero sleep and then having to sit there and try to force an iPad kid to care was exhausting and quite frankly not my job, especially whilst their dad is sitting there on his phone. - the financial aspect. It was expected of me to pay half for children which aren’t mine. This included the house he rented which included two extra bedrooms that I didn’t need, the groceries which would fill their lunchboxes, the ingredients for dinner(s) that would all be gobbled up in one fell swoop plus leisure activities and outings. I would never expect a new partner to pay half for my child, ever. - the constant comparisons between half siblings by their dad and his family. No one wants to hear about how similar the children look (especially when they don’t) when the other kids were to somebody else. No new mom wants to hear about the baby mama’s birth, how she handled pregnancy or first time motherhood, whether she handled it ‘like a champ’. It’s extremely hurtful as everyone is different ! - joining a family doesn’t mean that your own experiences or traditions get cancelled out. I hate when my ex would say “well you joined our family!”. Nope, you also got together with me and I have cultural traditions which are important to me too and important that my child celebrates them as well (like making a big deal about birthdays! I love to celebrate them; they are indifferent). - made to feel like none of my first time mom experiences mattered. There was never any excitement from him towards our baby’s achievements. As a first time mom, everything my baby achieves is unbelievable (like clapping, laughing etc) To him, his children always either did it faster, better, in a funnier way. I didn’t need to hear about those experiences, they weren’t relevant to my experience. I also wasn’t allowed to recoup from my c-section as they came home and partner couldn’t help me as he had to ‘tend to them’. - never feeling at home in the home. Of course his children should feel comfortable at home with their dad, I don’t dispute that, but sadly I didn’t feel like I could be myself there. I couldn’t breastfeed my child in front of the TV or have my own quiet time to just read or decompress. I either had to listen to YouTube on maximum volume or be forced to be smushed into the corner of the couch so they could spread out on their games. I found myself escaping all the time and felt so much happier when they weren’t around. - the relationship not being worth it to endure bad behaviour, tantrums etc. Sadly without the biological bond, it’s much harder to accept bad behaviour from children that aren’t yours, especially ones you can’t discipline. I just found that our relationship wasn’t worth all the bad times. The bad outweighed the good. - no effort being put into our relationship. He couldn’t be bothered doing anything socially, hardly was affectionate etc. He claims he’s depressed but he has no problem travelling solo. He’s just depressed that he doesn’t have a live in nanny / maid that does everything for him regarding the kids.
That’s all I can think of for now. There’s probably so many more but my brain hurts from overwhelm lol Would love to hear if any of these reasons resonated with you & if you’ve stuck it out this far, thank you for reading!
submitted by Bitter_Ad_4878 to stepparents [link] [comments]
That’s all I can think of for now. There’s probably so many more but my brain hurts from overwhelm lol Would love to hear if any of these reasons resonated with you & if you’ve stuck it out this far, thank you for reading!
2024.05.19 08:15 ReasonAndHumanismIN The greatness of our people will depend on the extent to which we can out-West the West at their own scientific, technological, and intellectual traditions.
Looking around, I see that there is one thing that is common to prosperous and advanced societies worldwide: they avidly pursue a high degree of excellence in science, technology, and commerce that have their origins in the West. The scientific and rational worldview is a core part of their cultures. There are some exceptions to this, such as some middle-eastern nations that coast on oil wealth. But the trend largely holds.
As a rank amateur, I have often thought about what it is about the West that made them the epicenter of the modern scientific and industrial revolution. I don't have any definitive answers yet, but my current thesis is that it's the heritage of philosophical inquiry of ancient Greece that sets them apart. The Islamic world itself flourished intellectually for a while when it freely pursued the kind of philosophical inquiry that was typical of the ancient Greeks.
When you look at the "munitraya" of Greece - Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - you find some interesting features.
I am sure that I am over-simplifying matters. For instance, neo-Platonists and neo-Pythagoreans were religious and mystical cults. Aristotle was wrong about many fundamental notions that he took for granted. Newton was as much a "sorcerer" indulging in alchemy as he was a rigorous natural philosopher. The West had its dark ages where certain aspects were not allowed to be questioned.
But that notwithstanding, it's clear to me that if our people are to have a shot at true greatness and glory, we must out-West the West at their own game. I further believe that this must be a citizen-led, peer-to-peer affair. We must all be thinking about how deeply and authentically we can naturalize the Western intellectual and scientific traditions in our society.
The sooner we can do this, the better we will be able to face the challenges that we are up against today.
TLDR: see title!
submitted by ReasonAndHumanismIN to unitedstatesofindia [link] [comments]
As a rank amateur, I have often thought about what it is about the West that made them the epicenter of the modern scientific and industrial revolution. I don't have any definitive answers yet, but my current thesis is that it's the heritage of philosophical inquiry of ancient Greece that sets them apart. The Islamic world itself flourished intellectually for a while when it freely pursued the kind of philosophical inquiry that was typical of the ancient Greeks.
When you look at the "munitraya" of Greece - Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - you find some interesting features.
- They all took reason very seriously; in fact, Aristotle laid the foundations of Western logic. There was a recognition that it was not enough to know the truth, but also, that it's important to justify why things are true. To do this, they didn't take recourse to religious doctrines, but argued from naturalistic first principles.
- They are marked by a profound sense of straightforwardness and intellectual humility. They dared to inquire while fully admitting their ignorance. Socrates was said to be the wisest man in the Hellenic world because he knew that he knew nothing; he didn't experience any "loss of face" in doing so. There was no compulsion to be "profound"; in fact, he scoffed at faux profundity, and was pretty much killed for being a nuisance. When you read their works, you never get a sense of being talked down to by a "wise", "all-knowing" seer; instead, it's more like having a conversation with an advanced peer.
- They took a deep interest in nature and the real problems that people faced. Socrates asked questions about how to live a good life in practical terms. Aristotle was probably the first great empirical scientist, avidly examining specimens for his studies in Biology. Nature and mundane human affairs were not something to be overcome, but to be studied and explored. I feel that it could almost be said that the pursuit of truth for the Greeks meant the study of nature. You see this sentiment in Newton - a prototypical natural philosopher - who spoke of himself as a child gazing at a vast ocean of truth.
- They had a keen interest in Mathematics and an appreciation for its beauty. We see this trend begin as early as Pythagoras who had a mystical faith in the ability of Mathematics to reveal Truth. Plato considered training in Mathematics as an integral component of the education of rulers. Mathematics was useful, true, but they pursued it also for the sake of its beauty. Here too, they were not merely interested in collecting Mathematics facts, but in proving them from first principles accepted by everyone. We see an insistence on justification come up again and again throughout Western culture.
I am sure that I am over-simplifying matters. For instance, neo-Platonists and neo-Pythagoreans were religious and mystical cults. Aristotle was wrong about many fundamental notions that he took for granted. Newton was as much a "sorcerer" indulging in alchemy as he was a rigorous natural philosopher. The West had its dark ages where certain aspects were not allowed to be questioned.
But that notwithstanding, it's clear to me that if our people are to have a shot at true greatness and glory, we must out-West the West at their own game. I further believe that this must be a citizen-led, peer-to-peer affair. We must all be thinking about how deeply and authentically we can naturalize the Western intellectual and scientific traditions in our society.
The sooner we can do this, the better we will be able to face the challenges that we are up against today.
TLDR: see title!
2024.05.19 07:53 SigmaINTJbio Death
As logical people, with a great capacity for logically interpreting the world around us, and an understanding of the biological inevitably of death, how do you cope with it?
Although many of us feel an extremely strong bond with pets, I’m more interested in how we deal with the death of a loved one. I have never married, but have suffered the losses of both of my siblings (older brother when I was 14, and younger sister when I was 22).
I’m now 60 and my mother has had two strokes. My father is stage IV prostate/bone cancer and will be dead within weeks if not days.
So my question is, what is the interplay between logic and emotion for the INTJ when dealing with the death(s) of family? For reference, my dying father is a malignant narcissist who ONLY criticized me for my entire life. The death of my brother caused me to become a Sigma Male INTJ since my family exploded and I was left on my own to figure out what life was about. That probably helped me become INTJ, and I believe it caused me to be a Sigma Male.
I can’t answer all comments, or even any, but I WILL read them to try and learn from you fine people.
submitted by SigmaINTJbio to intj [link] [comments]
Although many of us feel an extremely strong bond with pets, I’m more interested in how we deal with the death of a loved one. I have never married, but have suffered the losses of both of my siblings (older brother when I was 14, and younger sister when I was 22).
I’m now 60 and my mother has had two strokes. My father is stage IV prostate/bone cancer and will be dead within weeks if not days.
So my question is, what is the interplay between logic and emotion for the INTJ when dealing with the death(s) of family? For reference, my dying father is a malignant narcissist who ONLY criticized me for my entire life. The death of my brother caused me to become a Sigma Male INTJ since my family exploded and I was left on my own to figure out what life was about. That probably helped me become INTJ, and I believe it caused me to be a Sigma Male.
I can’t answer all comments, or even any, but I WILL read them to try and learn from you fine people.
2024.05.19 07:52 laxguy1019 Help
 | Every time I click generate new academic evaluation so I can see what classes I need to take this keeps popping up and I can’t click anything on it. submitted by laxguy1019 to GaState [link] [comments] |
2024.05.19 07:31 ReasonAndHumanismIN The greatness of our people will depend on the extent to which we can out-West the West in their own scientific, technological, and intellectual traditions.
Looking around, I see that there is one thing that is common to prosperous and advanced societies worldwide: they avidly pursue a high degree of excellence in science, technology, and commerce that have their origins in the West. The scientific and rational worldview is a core part of their cultures. There are some exceptions to this, such as some middle-eastern nations that coast on oil wealth. But the trend largely holds.
As a rank amateur, I have often thought about what it is about the West that made them the epicenter of the modern scientific and industrial revolution. I don't have any definitive answers yet, but my current thesis is that it's the heritage of philosophical inquiry of ancient Greece that sets them apart. The Islamic world itself flourished intellectually for a while when it freely pursued the kind of philosophical inquiry that was typical of the ancient Greeks.
When you look at the "munitraya" of Greece - Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - you find some interesting features.
I am sure that I am over-simplifying matters. For instance, neo-Platonists and neo-Pythagoreans were religious and mystical cults. Aristotle was wrong about many fundamental notions that he took for granted. Newton was as much a "sorcerer" indulging in alchemy as he was a rigorous natural philosopher. The West had its dark ages where certain aspects were not allowed to be questioned.
But that notwithstanding, it's clear to me that if our people are to have a shot at true greatness and glory, we must out-West the West at their own game. I further believe that this must be a citizen-led, peer-to-peer affair. We must all be thinking about how deeply and authentically we can naturalize the Western intellectual and scientific traditions in our society.
The sooner we can do this, the better we will be able to face the challenges that we are up against today.
submitted by ReasonAndHumanismIN to TamilNadu [link] [comments]
As a rank amateur, I have often thought about what it is about the West that made them the epicenter of the modern scientific and industrial revolution. I don't have any definitive answers yet, but my current thesis is that it's the heritage of philosophical inquiry of ancient Greece that sets them apart. The Islamic world itself flourished intellectually for a while when it freely pursued the kind of philosophical inquiry that was typical of the ancient Greeks.
When you look at the "munitraya" of Greece - Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle - you find some interesting features.
- They all took reason very seriously; in fact, Aristotle laid the foundations of Western logic. There was a recognition that it was not enough to know the truth, but also, that it's important to justify why things are true. To do this, they didn't take recourse to religious doctrines, but argued from naturalistic first principles.
- They are marked by a profound sense of straightforwardness and intellectual humility. They dared to inquire while fully admitting their ignorance. Socrates was said to be the wisest man in the Hellenic world because he knew that he knew nothing; he didn't experience any "loss of face" in doing so. There was no compulsion to be "profound"; in fact, he scoffed at faux profundity, and was pretty much killed for being a nuisance. When you read their works, you never get a sense of being talked down to by a "wise", "all-knowing" seer; instead, it's more like having a conversation with an advanced peer.
- They took a deep interest in nature and the real problems that people faced. Socrates asked questions about how to live a good life in practical terms. Aristotle was probably the first great empirical scientist, avidly examining specimens for his studies in Biology. Nature and mundane human affairs were not something to be overcome, but to be studied and explored. I feel that it could almost be said that the pursuit of truth for the Greeks meant the study of nature. You see this sentiment in Newton - a prototypical natural philosopher - who spoke of himself as a child gazing at a vast ocean of truth.
- They had a keen interest in Mathematics and an appreciation for its beauty. We see this trend begin as early as Pythagoras who had a mystical faith in the ability of Mathematics to reveal Truth. Plato considered training in Mathematics as an integral component of the education of rulers. Mathematics was useful, true, but they pursued it also for the sake of its beauty. Here too, they were not merely interested in collecting Mathematics facts, but in proving them from first principles accepted by everyone. We see an insistence on justification come up again and again throughout Western culture.
I am sure that I am over-simplifying matters. For instance, neo-Platonists and neo-Pythagoreans were religious and mystical cults. Aristotle was wrong about many fundamental notions that he took for granted. Newton was as much a "sorcerer" indulging in alchemy as he was a rigorous natural philosopher. The West had its dark ages where certain aspects were not allowed to be questioned.
But that notwithstanding, it's clear to me that if our people are to have a shot at true greatness and glory, we must out-West the West at their own game. I further believe that this must be a citizen-led, peer-to-peer affair. We must all be thinking about how deeply and authentically we can naturalize the Western intellectual and scientific traditions in our society.
The sooner we can do this, the better we will be able to face the challenges that we are up against today.
2024.05.19 07:04 ThreeMonthsTooLate [Marvel Comics] Nightcrawler is the Winding Way - Revised
So, I posted this theory a while back but it seems that most people didn’t read through it due to it being too long. So here I am back again with my best to briefly summarize the theory with the major points of evidence from the comics that I have found. It’s still going to be a lot but, hopefully, this will help get the broad idea across. Then if you have any specific points you can hopefully find them answered in the sections beneath it.
For context, you only need to read the Basic Premise section to get the basic gist of the theory, all the remaining sections are where I outline the evidence to support it.
~Basics of the Theory~
Margali Szardos is a powerful witch in Marvel comics who has shown being particularly hungry for magical power – doing everything from manipulating her daughter, Amanda Sefton, into getting her Illyana’s Soul-Sword so that she could use it in a killing spree to obtain magical power from her victims (Excalibur #85), to attempting to steal the power of a demon living under London nearly destroying it in the process (Excalibur #100), to forcibly mind-swapping with her daughter to save herself leaving Amanda to be tortured by Belasco (revealed X-Men: Unlimited #19), opening a magical rift to the World Beyond to obtain its power which forced her daughter to sacrifice herself to close it (4th Nightcrawler series #1-4), to finally selling Nightcrawler out to ORCHIS to obtain the Hope-sword that was lodged in Kurt’s chest (Legion of X #7-10).
All of these villainous actions raise an important question – why did Margali adopt Nightcrawler? After all, it’s not like Margali went around adopting children – only Nightcrawler. In fact, outside of Kurt, the only other child that Margali has ever displayed an interest in obtaining was a young Scarlet Witch (Mystic Arcanum: Scarlet Witch) which is concerning given just how magically powerful Scarlet Witch is.
This all points to the idea that Margali only took Kurt in because she got something out of it – very likely magical power. This wouldn’t be nearly so concerning if Margali Szardos wasn’t also the Sorceress Supreme of one of the most mysterious and unexplained magical systems in all of Marvel.
~Part 2 – The Winding Way is WIERD~
So, I’m just going to come out and say it - the Winding Way makes no sense in the current understanding of magic in Marvel Comics. Even characters like Dr. Strange – one of Marvel’s masters of magic – has basically no idea how the Winding Way actually operates. There is a data page in Legion of X #9 that outlines the basics of what the Winding Way is and how it operates.
According to the data page, the Winding Way is an exocentric magic system – that is to say a form of magic that is powered by an external source to the user – which its various wielders experience cycles of power and powerlessness. As far as characters like Strange are aware, it remains unclear if there is a physical “Way” or if that is simply metaphor.
The strange thing about the Winding Way is that there is no other magical system in Marvel where this cycle of users having powers and being powerless is even a thing. Whenever an exocentrically powered sorcerer loses their powers, it is always a form of punishment. This is true with Dr. Strange when he lost 99% of his powers back during the War of the Seven Spheres story. This is true with Juggernaut who loses his powers whenever he and Cyttorak – the entity that powers the crimson gem that Juggernaut uses for his powers. It’s even true for someone like Thor and his hammer. No where else in Marvel is there a system of magic where cycles of power is a thing.
All of this raises the question of whether the fluctuating cycles of power the Winding Way are actually a natural part of the Winding Way or whether they due to something else – like, say the power source of the Winding Way trying to continuously punish the various practitioners but being unable to due to their attention being split up.
Ultimately, the only truth that we can glean about the Winding Way is that nobody but the practitioners of the Winding Way ultimately know how it works and even then, characters like Margali and Amanda have proven time and again that their word cannot be trusted.
~Part 3 – the Szardos Family, Cthon, & Wundagore Mountain~
Interestingly, a different Sorcerer Supreme Sgt. Sebastian Szardos – the Sorcerer Supreme of World War II – has his own insights about the Winding Way, though they are rather vague. Firstly, in the 8th series of Avengers #50, Sebastian claims that the Winding Way has ties with Mt. Wundagore – which was famously the tomb of Cthon before Scarlet Witch absorbed him. This seems to suggest that the Winding Way originates either via Cthon or his creation – the Darkhold.
What is more interesting is that the Winding Way doesn’t seem to be practiced during the time of the Second World War as Sgt. Szardos states that only his great grandmother on his mothers side even knew about the Winding Way – Sebastian himself clearly wasn’t a practicing member. This is peculiar as Margali Szardos demonstrates an unusual amount of familiarity with the position of Sorcerer Supreme in Uncanny X-Men Annual #4 when she stole the Eye of Agamotto off of Dr. Strange with a mere gesture. Given that Sebastian and Margali share the last name and Sebastian was a known former Sorcerer Supreme while Margali – as far as I can tell – has never been, this would seem to suggest that there is some sort of familial connection between Margali and Sebastian. This in turn seems to suggest that the Winding Way experienced some sort of revival with Margali.
My theory is that the Winding Way started out as a sort of ritual that originated with the Darkhold and was initially practiced by the Szardos family over the centuries to siphon power off of Cthon to keep him in check and imprisoned - hence why there are other Szardos clan members such as Theodosia as shown in that run of Avengers. This would mean that if my theory of Nightcrawler being the Winding Way is true, then it would mean that he is only the current source of the Winding Way.
~Part 4 – Nightcrawler is still related to Azazel (and Azazel is a demon)~
Now a major aspect in this is that Nightcrawler is where exactly would Nightcrawler’s magical powers come from? After all, he’s the son of Mystique and Destiny – two mutants with no sort of magical capabilities, right? Well, that’s… complicated.
Firstly, it’s important to note that the X-Men Origins: Blue retcon is… frankly, not very well thought out. There are a bunch of things that it just gets plain wrong and contradict a bunch of previously established X-Men lore – everything from the fact that Destiny would have been too old to give birth to Nightcrawler, to Rogue’s age being way too young (she was adopted by D&M when she was 13 not 5), to the fact that Mystique canonically cannot mimic mutant x-genes - meaning Nightcrawler shouldn’t have teleportation with this retcon, and much, much more. On top of all that, the fact that the only evidence supporting the idea that it ever even happened is from Mystique and Destiny – two of Marvel’s most notorious liars – and you got yourself an extremely messy and rather dubious retcon.
Putting all that aside, going based on what the retcon has established there are a few ways in which Kurt might have inherited some sort of magical power.
Primarily, Kurt is still technically related to Azazel – yes, Mystique “mimicked” Azazel’s DNA in Kurt’s conception but given that in genetics it is the sequence of DNA that matters and not the source of that sequence, Mystique’s “Mimicked” DNA is still ostensibly Azazel’s DNA. Azazel is an established master of dark magic – specifically soul magic – and used to rule over a legit Hell Dimension during the time of Kurt’s birth – making him a legit hell lord similar to Mephisto or Dormammu. Given that Hell Lords are also considered the Sorcerer Supremes (as in the strongest) of their respective dimension, this would suggest that Azazel once held some major power, regardless of if he’s a demon or not. And as it has been established, magic is inheritable as shown with Clea (the daughter of Umar), Daimon Hellstrom (son of Marduk Kurios), and at least half the cast of Strange Academy, it would stand to reason that Nightcrawler could also inherit magical power from him.
Now, I know what you are saying – “But, Azazel isn’t a demon! Chuck Austen said so!” And while, yes, Chuck Austen has clearly gone on record to say that Azazel is only a demonic looking mutant instead of an actual demon, it’s been kind of invalidated by the thing that every other writer for Azazel – including the likes of Chris Claremont – have referred to Azazel as a demon at least once either on-panel or in interviews. And frankly, there’s nothing in the lore that says that Azazel cannot be both a demon and a mutant – after all, Magik is both a demon and a mutant at the same time. And let’s be real here, Chuck Austen doesn’t deserve nice things when it comes to the X-Men.
However, Azazel is not the only DNA that Mystique apparently mimicked – Baron Christian Wagner was also added onto that list for some reason. This is odd as why would Destiny and Mystique feel the need to include Baron Wagner at all in the genetic makeup of Nightcrawler unless there was something special about the Baron. However, the only uniquely genetic thing we learn about him is that he’s seemingly infertile – which may suggest that there is some sort of genetic anomaly going on with him, such as maybe a repressed X-gene.
~Part 5 – Amanda Sefton/Jimaine Szardos history in Marvel Comics~
Another aspect of this theory is that – if it is true – it suddenly explains a lot of what Kurt’s ex, Amanda Sefton has been doing in comics since she was first introduced in 1976. You see, Amanda Sefton followed Kurt back from Germany and began dating him under a different name – which Kurt was not aware of. She only reveals the truth after the events of Uncanny X-Men Annual #4. This unfortunately supports Kurt’s accusation in Uncanny X-Men #206 that Amanda used a spell to make Kurt fall in love with her to begin with – an accusation which Amanda has never confirmed nor denied.
Amanda’s peculiar behavior continued into Excalibur where she was manipulated by Margali into obtaining Illyana’s Soul-Sword from Kitty Pryde – who had previously given the Soul-Sword to Dr. Doom and then Darkoth, with it returning to her both times. Upon obtaining the Soul-Sword, Margali then used it to go on a killing spree against the other members of the Winding Way to obtain their power for herself. Following this, Margali’s failed attempt to steal the power of a demon beneath London, and Kurt and Margali rescuing Amanda from Belasco after Margali body-swapped with her daughter to save her own skin – Amanda ended up taking over Limbo, supposedly in the name of protecting earth.
However, then we have the smoking gun of Amanda’s meddling – during the 3rd Nightcrawler solo series, it is revealed that Amanda fused the Soul-Sword with Nightcrawler without telling him. Her reason for doing so? “To protect the Soul-Sword from falling into the wrong hands.” This lie is so glaringly bad that not even Nightcrawler buys it and he calls Amanda out for not being honest with him.
~Part 6 – Amanda’s Bad Lie and What it Means~
And frankly why would anyone believe Amanda’s claim? Amanda is a sorceress – which means that she is infinitely more qualified than Nightcrawler to keep the Soul-Sword safe than he is. Even if she couldn’t do so, why didn’t she take the Soul-Sword to someone like Dr. Strange?
On top of that, Amanda took the Soul-Sword away from Kitty Pryde claiming that Kitty wasn’t qualified to keep the Soul-Sword safe due to her not being a trained sorceress. Well, guess who’s also not trained in sorcery and thus – by Amanda’s own logic - would not be able to keep the Soul-Sword safe? Nightcrawler.
Except, Kitty technically was able to keep the Soul-Sword out of the wrong hands – back during Excalibur #37 she phased the Soul-Sword into a rock which even Rachel Summers channeling the power of the Phoenix Force was not able to remove it from – it wasn’t removed until Doom came knocking and got Kitty to willingly remove it for him. So why couldn’t Amanda do something similar? Why fuse it with Kurt and endanger him?
And to top it all off, Amanda still needed the Soul-Sword. She was ruling over Limbo – a dangerous hell dimension full of power-hungry demons. Her magical powers are of the Winding Way – meaning that they wax and wane. So quite literally, Amanda needs the Soul-Sword – a weapon which every demon in Limbo fears – to keep herself in power; something which was proven in New X-Men #37 when Belasco walked back into Limbo and ousted her.
~Part 7 – Amanda took over Limbo to learn about the Soul-Sword~
So, what was Amanda really up to? Well, to understand Amanda’s actions in the 3rd Nightcrawler series, we first need to go back to Amanda’s actions in previous series. What’s interesting is that Amanda’s interest in the Soul-Sword was first manifest through Margali – who reveals in Excalibur: Minus One that there is a prophecy that the Soul-Sword would pass first into Margali’s hands and then into Amanda’s hands but would result in both of their dooms.
However, Amanda doesn’t really demonstrate any sort of interest in the Soul-Sword until after Margali used it to obtain power in the Winding Way during Excalibur. While she didn’t get the opportunity to act after the events of Margali’s failed London project due to her mother mind-swapping with her, Amanda’s actions in taking over Limbo after X-Men: Unlimited #19 was more likely due to Amanda wanting to obtain and learn more about the Soul-Sword than about her trying to protect earth.
You see, as Limbo was in no position to even threaten earth until Belasco had obtained the Soul-Sword following Margali ending up there – meaning that if Amanda had simply obtained the Soul-Sword and left Limbo, Limbo would not have been able to endanger Earth. Instead, Amanda stayed. Why? Because if there was anywhere in the universe where you wanted to learn about a Soul-Sword and how it works, Limbo is the dimension to do so.
~Part 8 – Nightcrawler and Magik are… Soulmates?~
So, why did Amanda fuse the Soul-Sword with Nightcrawler? Well, ultimately because a major function of the Soul-Sword is that it can be used as a countercharm which can undo other spells – potentially meaning that Amanda could use it to undo the Winding Way and restore the two halves of Kurt’s soul back together again.
However, another aspect of the Soul-Sword is that it is dangerous to magical creatures and Kurt’s magical soul would already be weakened after years of being separated. Amanda must have figured that if she bonded the non-magical half of Kurt’s soul to the Soul-Sword would allow for her to bypass the more dangerous aspects of the Soul-Sword and allow her to restore Kurt.
And as a result of Amanda’s meddling, when a demonically possessed Pixie ripped the Soul-Sword out of Nightcrawler during X-Infernus, it left behind a void in Kurt’s Soul as established in Legion of X #10, which allowed for the Hopesword to later form. This also seemingly gave Illyana’s Soul-Sword a new ability to damage Techno-Organic beings which it did not possess before. This also means that Nightcrawler and Magik are… soul-mates(?) for the lack of a better term, as they are both bound together through the Soul-Sword after Amanda undid Illyana’s bond with Kitty, though this fact has never been established or confirmed in the comics.
~Part 9 – Destiny caused Magik to be kidnapped by Belasco~
Now, I noted in an earlier section that Margali’s fascination with the Soul-Sword was as a result of a prophecy – one that has at least partially come true. The prophecy as laid out during a flashback in Exalibur: Minus One was that the Soul-Sword would pass from into Margali’s hands and then Amanda’s but would result in both of their dooms. Illyana’s Soul-Sword was indeed obtained by Margali back in Excalibur #85 before she lost it to Belasco after falling to Limbo and the Soul-Sword was obtained again by Amanda after taking Limbo over in X-Men: Unlimited #19.
Now, this whole situation is peculiar as Margali herself is not a precog – outside of this one time, we never even hear her do anything similar ever again. However, we know that Destiny is a precog and we also know that she was the one who gave Kurt to Margali, as per the X-Men Origins: Blue retcon, meaning that this prophecy more than likely originates with Destiny. And really, this shouldn’t be a surprise – Mystique hinted at having some sort of a connection with Margali as far back as UXM #142 when she first met Nightcrawler, it was just never clarified what that connection was.
However, this prophecy would have been given to Margali before the Soul-Sword was ever made and before Illyana was even born, which means that either Destiny could predict Illyana being kidnapped by Belasco and creating the Soul-Sword as a result… or she caused Belasco to kidnap Illyana and create the Soul-Sword as a result.
Now, you may question how that’s even possible? After all, how could Destiny cause someone like Belasco to do something when the two haven’t even canonically met?
Well, for this, I would like to point out the unexplained animosity going on between Margali Szardos and Belasco. This is a rivalry that has been mentioned quite a few times – such as back in Excalibur: Minus One, X-Men: Unlimited #19, and the 3rd Nightcrawler series. For some unexplained reason, Margali Szardos and Belasco have a lot of enmity for one another.
So, what’s the cause of this rivalry? Well, during the Dark Web event, Mary Jane Watson and Black Cat were captured by Belasco and sent to retrieve his Soul-Sword – which, as it is explained in the story is something that Belasco could not potentially use up until the events of Dark Web.
So here’s an idea – what if Destiny didn’t specify which Soul-Sword would end up in Margali’s hands, causing Margali to immediately assume that she was talking about Belasco’s (as that would have been the only one in existence at that point) and try to steal it from him.
This then drew Belasco’s attention and caused him to realize that Nightcrawler was somehow the source of Margali’s powers. This would be why Belasco even had his eyes on the X-Men to begin with and why there was a soulless Nightcrawler back in the original Magik series – Kurt was Belasco’s original target. However, the soulless Nightcrawler and Belasco’s obvious shift in attention to Illyana clearly points to the idea that whatever experiments Belasco tried to use to obtain that magical power from Kurt, it only ended in disaster – causing him to turn to Illyana as a replacement.
~Part 10 – the Big Picture… stopping Enigma~
So, if Destiny was ultimately the cause behind all of this – from orchestrating Kurt’s birth, to handing him off to Margali, to telling Margali the prophecy about the Soul-Sword, what is it all ultimately for?
Well, what it is almost certainly not for is the given answer of defeating Azazel. Simply put, Azazel has never been so major of a threat that creating a super special prophecy child was needed. Heck, he was killed in Dark X-Men by the demonic version of Nightcrawler, so how difficult would it have been for Mystique and Destiny to do it? No, Azazel’s defeat was a bonus that Irene used to justify Kurt’s birth to Raven, not the focus.
Ultimately, there’s only one answer as to who Kurt was conceived to stop – Enigma. The original Nathaniel Essex who transcended space and time and who Irene knew to be an existential threat to all Mutantkind.
This answer even explains some of Irene’s other past actions, such as why she was involved with the Black Womb project – yes, she was keeping an eye on Sinister, but she was also learning as much about the mutant x-gene in preparation for Kurt’s birth.
It also explains why she handed Kurt over to Margali at all – the Winding Way is described in the datapages of Legion of X as being something akin to a No-Place – something that Enigma and other Dominions famously have trouble seeing into. Thus, by hiding Kurt’s magical half in the No-place until the time was right and creating the means by which to release him from that prison, Destiny ensures Enigma’s defeat.
Or does she? Because as far as the current X-Men comics have been going, there is nowhere near the development needed to have my theory take place. At this point, only the Hopesword is established which begs the question of whether the Winding Way is meant to be the thing to stop Enigma or if the Hopesword is. As of this point in X-Men Forever (2024) #4, the Hopesword is what was needed to stop Enigma… for some reason. So far, all that the sword has accomplished is being handed off from Kurt to Exodus to Hope… who was then killed by the Phoenix and sent the Hopesword back to Kurt. We’ll have to wait and see if anything else comes of it.
Personally though, I kind of like the idea that everything Destiny did in orchestrating the creation of the Hopesword and/or the Winding Way was kind of a pointless thing in the end. It’s kind of poignant for Destiny’s character – being the same woman who thought that killing Senator Kelly would prevent the Days of Future’s Past Timeline when she was in fact going to cause that very timeline to happen – to have all her manipulations and schemes to create this weapon against the existential threat that Enigma presented… only to have that threat be dealt with in some other way, leaving Irene to deal with the consequences of her own actions and question whether it was worth putting Kurt through all of that. Maybe that’s just me though.
Conclusion
So yeah, that’s most of the evidence supporting this theory. There are a few other things – such as Margali potentially being the reason why Kurt was killed during Second Coming and potentially causing his mental break down during the Extraordinary X-Men story, but those are more auxiliary to these major points.
But yeah, let me know what you guys think down below. Do you think this theory is onto something or is it way off base?
submitted by ThreeMonthsTooLate to FanTheories [link] [comments]
For context, you only need to read the Basic Premise section to get the basic gist of the theory, all the remaining sections are where I outline the evidence to support it.
~Basics of the Theory~
Nightcrawler is the Winding Way is basically the idea that X-Men’s Nightcrawler got his soul ripped in half when he was a child by his adopted mother – Margali Szardos – who used the magical half of Kurt’s soul to form the source of her power, the Winding Way.~Part 1 – Margali Szardos is the Worst Adoptive Mother of All Time~
Nightcrawler would have inherited this magical power from Azazel, who he is still technically biologically related to, as well as potentially the combination of genes from Mystique, Destiny, and Baron Wagner.
Amanda Sefton – after seeing Margali use Illyana’s Soul-Sword to obtain power in the Winding Way, took over Limbo to study it before fusing it with Kurt’s soul in the hopes of being able to use the Soul-Sword to undo her mother’s work and restore Kurt to being whole again.
Ultimately, Destiny gave the baby Kurt to Margali knowing full well she would do this to him to hide his true power from Enigma (the Nathaniel Essex that became a Dominion), who she had Kurt concieved in order to defeat.
Additionally, she told Margali of a prophecy about a Soul-Sword falling into Margali’s hands knowing that Margali would attempt to steal Belasco’s Soul-Sword, that Belasco would turn his attention to Nightcrawler to steal that magical power for herself which would result in Illyana being kidnapped by Belasco after he gave up trying to steal the power from Kurt and thus create said Soul-Sword as well as – eventually – the Hope-sword.
Margali Szardos is a powerful witch in Marvel comics who has shown being particularly hungry for magical power – doing everything from manipulating her daughter, Amanda Sefton, into getting her Illyana’s Soul-Sword so that she could use it in a killing spree to obtain magical power from her victims (Excalibur #85), to attempting to steal the power of a demon living under London nearly destroying it in the process (Excalibur #100), to forcibly mind-swapping with her daughter to save herself leaving Amanda to be tortured by Belasco (revealed X-Men: Unlimited #19), opening a magical rift to the World Beyond to obtain its power which forced her daughter to sacrifice herself to close it (4th Nightcrawler series #1-4), to finally selling Nightcrawler out to ORCHIS to obtain the Hope-sword that was lodged in Kurt’s chest (Legion of X #7-10).
All of these villainous actions raise an important question – why did Margali adopt Nightcrawler? After all, it’s not like Margali went around adopting children – only Nightcrawler. In fact, outside of Kurt, the only other child that Margali has ever displayed an interest in obtaining was a young Scarlet Witch (Mystic Arcanum: Scarlet Witch) which is concerning given just how magically powerful Scarlet Witch is.
This all points to the idea that Margali only took Kurt in because she got something out of it – very likely magical power. This wouldn’t be nearly so concerning if Margali Szardos wasn’t also the Sorceress Supreme of one of the most mysterious and unexplained magical systems in all of Marvel.
~Part 2 – The Winding Way is WIERD~
So, I’m just going to come out and say it - the Winding Way makes no sense in the current understanding of magic in Marvel Comics. Even characters like Dr. Strange – one of Marvel’s masters of magic – has basically no idea how the Winding Way actually operates. There is a data page in Legion of X #9 that outlines the basics of what the Winding Way is and how it operates.
According to the data page, the Winding Way is an exocentric magic system – that is to say a form of magic that is powered by an external source to the user – which its various wielders experience cycles of power and powerlessness. As far as characters like Strange are aware, it remains unclear if there is a physical “Way” or if that is simply metaphor.
The strange thing about the Winding Way is that there is no other magical system in Marvel where this cycle of users having powers and being powerless is even a thing. Whenever an exocentrically powered sorcerer loses their powers, it is always a form of punishment. This is true with Dr. Strange when he lost 99% of his powers back during the War of the Seven Spheres story. This is true with Juggernaut who loses his powers whenever he and Cyttorak – the entity that powers the crimson gem that Juggernaut uses for his powers. It’s even true for someone like Thor and his hammer. No where else in Marvel is there a system of magic where cycles of power is a thing.
All of this raises the question of whether the fluctuating cycles of power the Winding Way are actually a natural part of the Winding Way or whether they due to something else – like, say the power source of the Winding Way trying to continuously punish the various practitioners but being unable to due to their attention being split up.
Ultimately, the only truth that we can glean about the Winding Way is that nobody but the practitioners of the Winding Way ultimately know how it works and even then, characters like Margali and Amanda have proven time and again that their word cannot be trusted.
~Part 3 – the Szardos Family, Cthon, & Wundagore Mountain~
Interestingly, a different Sorcerer Supreme Sgt. Sebastian Szardos – the Sorcerer Supreme of World War II – has his own insights about the Winding Way, though they are rather vague. Firstly, in the 8th series of Avengers #50, Sebastian claims that the Winding Way has ties with Mt. Wundagore – which was famously the tomb of Cthon before Scarlet Witch absorbed him. This seems to suggest that the Winding Way originates either via Cthon or his creation – the Darkhold.
What is more interesting is that the Winding Way doesn’t seem to be practiced during the time of the Second World War as Sgt. Szardos states that only his great grandmother on his mothers side even knew about the Winding Way – Sebastian himself clearly wasn’t a practicing member. This is peculiar as Margali Szardos demonstrates an unusual amount of familiarity with the position of Sorcerer Supreme in Uncanny X-Men Annual #4 when she stole the Eye of Agamotto off of Dr. Strange with a mere gesture. Given that Sebastian and Margali share the last name and Sebastian was a known former Sorcerer Supreme while Margali – as far as I can tell – has never been, this would seem to suggest that there is some sort of familial connection between Margali and Sebastian. This in turn seems to suggest that the Winding Way experienced some sort of revival with Margali.
My theory is that the Winding Way started out as a sort of ritual that originated with the Darkhold and was initially practiced by the Szardos family over the centuries to siphon power off of Cthon to keep him in check and imprisoned - hence why there are other Szardos clan members such as Theodosia as shown in that run of Avengers. This would mean that if my theory of Nightcrawler being the Winding Way is true, then it would mean that he is only the current source of the Winding Way.
~Part 4 – Nightcrawler is still related to Azazel (and Azazel is a demon)~
Now a major aspect in this is that Nightcrawler is where exactly would Nightcrawler’s magical powers come from? After all, he’s the son of Mystique and Destiny – two mutants with no sort of magical capabilities, right? Well, that’s… complicated.
Firstly, it’s important to note that the X-Men Origins: Blue retcon is… frankly, not very well thought out. There are a bunch of things that it just gets plain wrong and contradict a bunch of previously established X-Men lore – everything from the fact that Destiny would have been too old to give birth to Nightcrawler, to Rogue’s age being way too young (she was adopted by D&M when she was 13 not 5), to the fact that Mystique canonically cannot mimic mutant x-genes - meaning Nightcrawler shouldn’t have teleportation with this retcon, and much, much more. On top of all that, the fact that the only evidence supporting the idea that it ever even happened is from Mystique and Destiny – two of Marvel’s most notorious liars – and you got yourself an extremely messy and rather dubious retcon.
Putting all that aside, going based on what the retcon has established there are a few ways in which Kurt might have inherited some sort of magical power.
Primarily, Kurt is still technically related to Azazel – yes, Mystique “mimicked” Azazel’s DNA in Kurt’s conception but given that in genetics it is the sequence of DNA that matters and not the source of that sequence, Mystique’s “Mimicked” DNA is still ostensibly Azazel’s DNA. Azazel is an established master of dark magic – specifically soul magic – and used to rule over a legit Hell Dimension during the time of Kurt’s birth – making him a legit hell lord similar to Mephisto or Dormammu. Given that Hell Lords are also considered the Sorcerer Supremes (as in the strongest) of their respective dimension, this would suggest that Azazel once held some major power, regardless of if he’s a demon or not. And as it has been established, magic is inheritable as shown with Clea (the daughter of Umar), Daimon Hellstrom (son of Marduk Kurios), and at least half the cast of Strange Academy, it would stand to reason that Nightcrawler could also inherit magical power from him.
Now, I know what you are saying – “But, Azazel isn’t a demon! Chuck Austen said so!” And while, yes, Chuck Austen has clearly gone on record to say that Azazel is only a demonic looking mutant instead of an actual demon, it’s been kind of invalidated by the thing that every other writer for Azazel – including the likes of Chris Claremont – have referred to Azazel as a demon at least once either on-panel or in interviews. And frankly, there’s nothing in the lore that says that Azazel cannot be both a demon and a mutant – after all, Magik is both a demon and a mutant at the same time. And let’s be real here, Chuck Austen doesn’t deserve nice things when it comes to the X-Men.
However, Azazel is not the only DNA that Mystique apparently mimicked – Baron Christian Wagner was also added onto that list for some reason. This is odd as why would Destiny and Mystique feel the need to include Baron Wagner at all in the genetic makeup of Nightcrawler unless there was something special about the Baron. However, the only uniquely genetic thing we learn about him is that he’s seemingly infertile – which may suggest that there is some sort of genetic anomaly going on with him, such as maybe a repressed X-gene.
~Part 5 – Amanda Sefton/Jimaine Szardos history in Marvel Comics~
Another aspect of this theory is that – if it is true – it suddenly explains a lot of what Kurt’s ex, Amanda Sefton has been doing in comics since she was first introduced in 1976. You see, Amanda Sefton followed Kurt back from Germany and began dating him under a different name – which Kurt was not aware of. She only reveals the truth after the events of Uncanny X-Men Annual #4. This unfortunately supports Kurt’s accusation in Uncanny X-Men #206 that Amanda used a spell to make Kurt fall in love with her to begin with – an accusation which Amanda has never confirmed nor denied.
Amanda’s peculiar behavior continued into Excalibur where she was manipulated by Margali into obtaining Illyana’s Soul-Sword from Kitty Pryde – who had previously given the Soul-Sword to Dr. Doom and then Darkoth, with it returning to her both times. Upon obtaining the Soul-Sword, Margali then used it to go on a killing spree against the other members of the Winding Way to obtain their power for herself. Following this, Margali’s failed attempt to steal the power of a demon beneath London, and Kurt and Margali rescuing Amanda from Belasco after Margali body-swapped with her daughter to save her own skin – Amanda ended up taking over Limbo, supposedly in the name of protecting earth.
However, then we have the smoking gun of Amanda’s meddling – during the 3rd Nightcrawler solo series, it is revealed that Amanda fused the Soul-Sword with Nightcrawler without telling him. Her reason for doing so? “To protect the Soul-Sword from falling into the wrong hands.” This lie is so glaringly bad that not even Nightcrawler buys it and he calls Amanda out for not being honest with him.
~Part 6 – Amanda’s Bad Lie and What it Means~
And frankly why would anyone believe Amanda’s claim? Amanda is a sorceress – which means that she is infinitely more qualified than Nightcrawler to keep the Soul-Sword safe than he is. Even if she couldn’t do so, why didn’t she take the Soul-Sword to someone like Dr. Strange?
On top of that, Amanda took the Soul-Sword away from Kitty Pryde claiming that Kitty wasn’t qualified to keep the Soul-Sword safe due to her not being a trained sorceress. Well, guess who’s also not trained in sorcery and thus – by Amanda’s own logic - would not be able to keep the Soul-Sword safe? Nightcrawler.
Except, Kitty technically was able to keep the Soul-Sword out of the wrong hands – back during Excalibur #37 she phased the Soul-Sword into a rock which even Rachel Summers channeling the power of the Phoenix Force was not able to remove it from – it wasn’t removed until Doom came knocking and got Kitty to willingly remove it for him. So why couldn’t Amanda do something similar? Why fuse it with Kurt and endanger him?
And to top it all off, Amanda still needed the Soul-Sword. She was ruling over Limbo – a dangerous hell dimension full of power-hungry demons. Her magical powers are of the Winding Way – meaning that they wax and wane. So quite literally, Amanda needs the Soul-Sword – a weapon which every demon in Limbo fears – to keep herself in power; something which was proven in New X-Men #37 when Belasco walked back into Limbo and ousted her.
~Part 7 – Amanda took over Limbo to learn about the Soul-Sword~
So, what was Amanda really up to? Well, to understand Amanda’s actions in the 3rd Nightcrawler series, we first need to go back to Amanda’s actions in previous series. What’s interesting is that Amanda’s interest in the Soul-Sword was first manifest through Margali – who reveals in Excalibur: Minus One that there is a prophecy that the Soul-Sword would pass first into Margali’s hands and then into Amanda’s hands but would result in both of their dooms.
However, Amanda doesn’t really demonstrate any sort of interest in the Soul-Sword until after Margali used it to obtain power in the Winding Way during Excalibur. While she didn’t get the opportunity to act after the events of Margali’s failed London project due to her mother mind-swapping with her, Amanda’s actions in taking over Limbo after X-Men: Unlimited #19 was more likely due to Amanda wanting to obtain and learn more about the Soul-Sword than about her trying to protect earth.
You see, as Limbo was in no position to even threaten earth until Belasco had obtained the Soul-Sword following Margali ending up there – meaning that if Amanda had simply obtained the Soul-Sword and left Limbo, Limbo would not have been able to endanger Earth. Instead, Amanda stayed. Why? Because if there was anywhere in the universe where you wanted to learn about a Soul-Sword and how it works, Limbo is the dimension to do so.
~Part 8 – Nightcrawler and Magik are… Soulmates?~
So, why did Amanda fuse the Soul-Sword with Nightcrawler? Well, ultimately because a major function of the Soul-Sword is that it can be used as a countercharm which can undo other spells – potentially meaning that Amanda could use it to undo the Winding Way and restore the two halves of Kurt’s soul back together again.
However, another aspect of the Soul-Sword is that it is dangerous to magical creatures and Kurt’s magical soul would already be weakened after years of being separated. Amanda must have figured that if she bonded the non-magical half of Kurt’s soul to the Soul-Sword would allow for her to bypass the more dangerous aspects of the Soul-Sword and allow her to restore Kurt.
And as a result of Amanda’s meddling, when a demonically possessed Pixie ripped the Soul-Sword out of Nightcrawler during X-Infernus, it left behind a void in Kurt’s Soul as established in Legion of X #10, which allowed for the Hopesword to later form. This also seemingly gave Illyana’s Soul-Sword a new ability to damage Techno-Organic beings which it did not possess before. This also means that Nightcrawler and Magik are… soul-mates(?) for the lack of a better term, as they are both bound together through the Soul-Sword after Amanda undid Illyana’s bond with Kitty, though this fact has never been established or confirmed in the comics.
~Part 9 – Destiny caused Magik to be kidnapped by Belasco~
Now, I noted in an earlier section that Margali’s fascination with the Soul-Sword was as a result of a prophecy – one that has at least partially come true. The prophecy as laid out during a flashback in Exalibur: Minus One was that the Soul-Sword would pass from into Margali’s hands and then Amanda’s but would result in both of their dooms. Illyana’s Soul-Sword was indeed obtained by Margali back in Excalibur #85 before she lost it to Belasco after falling to Limbo and the Soul-Sword was obtained again by Amanda after taking Limbo over in X-Men: Unlimited #19.
Now, this whole situation is peculiar as Margali herself is not a precog – outside of this one time, we never even hear her do anything similar ever again. However, we know that Destiny is a precog and we also know that she was the one who gave Kurt to Margali, as per the X-Men Origins: Blue retcon, meaning that this prophecy more than likely originates with Destiny. And really, this shouldn’t be a surprise – Mystique hinted at having some sort of a connection with Margali as far back as UXM #142 when she first met Nightcrawler, it was just never clarified what that connection was.
However, this prophecy would have been given to Margali before the Soul-Sword was ever made and before Illyana was even born, which means that either Destiny could predict Illyana being kidnapped by Belasco and creating the Soul-Sword as a result… or she caused Belasco to kidnap Illyana and create the Soul-Sword as a result.
Now, you may question how that’s even possible? After all, how could Destiny cause someone like Belasco to do something when the two haven’t even canonically met?
Well, for this, I would like to point out the unexplained animosity going on between Margali Szardos and Belasco. This is a rivalry that has been mentioned quite a few times – such as back in Excalibur: Minus One, X-Men: Unlimited #19, and the 3rd Nightcrawler series. For some unexplained reason, Margali Szardos and Belasco have a lot of enmity for one another.
So, what’s the cause of this rivalry? Well, during the Dark Web event, Mary Jane Watson and Black Cat were captured by Belasco and sent to retrieve his Soul-Sword – which, as it is explained in the story is something that Belasco could not potentially use up until the events of Dark Web.
So here’s an idea – what if Destiny didn’t specify which Soul-Sword would end up in Margali’s hands, causing Margali to immediately assume that she was talking about Belasco’s (as that would have been the only one in existence at that point) and try to steal it from him.
This then drew Belasco’s attention and caused him to realize that Nightcrawler was somehow the source of Margali’s powers. This would be why Belasco even had his eyes on the X-Men to begin with and why there was a soulless Nightcrawler back in the original Magik series – Kurt was Belasco’s original target. However, the soulless Nightcrawler and Belasco’s obvious shift in attention to Illyana clearly points to the idea that whatever experiments Belasco tried to use to obtain that magical power from Kurt, it only ended in disaster – causing him to turn to Illyana as a replacement.
~Part 10 – the Big Picture… stopping Enigma~
So, if Destiny was ultimately the cause behind all of this – from orchestrating Kurt’s birth, to handing him off to Margali, to telling Margali the prophecy about the Soul-Sword, what is it all ultimately for?
Well, what it is almost certainly not for is the given answer of defeating Azazel. Simply put, Azazel has never been so major of a threat that creating a super special prophecy child was needed. Heck, he was killed in Dark X-Men by the demonic version of Nightcrawler, so how difficult would it have been for Mystique and Destiny to do it? No, Azazel’s defeat was a bonus that Irene used to justify Kurt’s birth to Raven, not the focus.
Ultimately, there’s only one answer as to who Kurt was conceived to stop – Enigma. The original Nathaniel Essex who transcended space and time and who Irene knew to be an existential threat to all Mutantkind.
This answer even explains some of Irene’s other past actions, such as why she was involved with the Black Womb project – yes, she was keeping an eye on Sinister, but she was also learning as much about the mutant x-gene in preparation for Kurt’s birth.
It also explains why she handed Kurt over to Margali at all – the Winding Way is described in the datapages of Legion of X as being something akin to a No-Place – something that Enigma and other Dominions famously have trouble seeing into. Thus, by hiding Kurt’s magical half in the No-place until the time was right and creating the means by which to release him from that prison, Destiny ensures Enigma’s defeat.
Or does she? Because as far as the current X-Men comics have been going, there is nowhere near the development needed to have my theory take place. At this point, only the Hopesword is established which begs the question of whether the Winding Way is meant to be the thing to stop Enigma or if the Hopesword is. As of this point in X-Men Forever (2024) #4, the Hopesword is what was needed to stop Enigma… for some reason. So far, all that the sword has accomplished is being handed off from Kurt to Exodus to Hope… who was then killed by the Phoenix and sent the Hopesword back to Kurt. We’ll have to wait and see if anything else comes of it.
Personally though, I kind of like the idea that everything Destiny did in orchestrating the creation of the Hopesword and/or the Winding Way was kind of a pointless thing in the end. It’s kind of poignant for Destiny’s character – being the same woman who thought that killing Senator Kelly would prevent the Days of Future’s Past Timeline when she was in fact going to cause that very timeline to happen – to have all her manipulations and schemes to create this weapon against the existential threat that Enigma presented… only to have that threat be dealt with in some other way, leaving Irene to deal with the consequences of her own actions and question whether it was worth putting Kurt through all of that. Maybe that’s just me though.
Conclusion
So yeah, that’s most of the evidence supporting this theory. There are a few other things – such as Margali potentially being the reason why Kurt was killed during Second Coming and potentially causing his mental break down during the Extraordinary X-Men story, but those are more auxiliary to these major points.
But yeah, let me know what you guys think down below. Do you think this theory is onto something or is it way off base?
2024.05.19 05:33 ShiroeLb [for hire] open for academic commissions
Hi to all of you! I'm Sha, and I'm currently accepting commissions! I can help with any kind of project, be it creative writing, academic support, or anything else.
Here are the things that I can do:
submitted by ShiroeLb to DoneDirtCheap [link] [comments]
Here are the things that I can do:
- Admin tasks: answering phone calls, sending emails, organizing paperwork, etc
- Can tutor General Biology, General Chemistry, Elementary science, etc
- Create ppts, infographics, posters, brochures, invitations
- Data encoding (MS Excel)
- Any typing job *video editing
2024.05.19 04:57 ShiroeLb Hire me
Hi to all of you! I'm Sha, and I'm currently accepting commissions! I can help with any kind of project, be it creative writing, academic support, or anything else.
My Works
Here are the things that I can do:
submitted by ShiroeLb to classifiedsph [link] [comments]
My Works
Here are the things that I can do:
- Admin tasks: answering phone calls, sending emails, organizing paperwork, etc
- Can tutor General Biology, General Chemistry, Elementary science, etc
- Create ppts, infographics, posters, brochures, invitations
- Data encoding (MS Excel)
- Any typing job
2024.05.19 04:53 earthisahellhole the best repartee for people who invalidate your choices?
I'm a woman in her late 20s who's been finding it hard to keep up with the BS responses thrown at me, or just struggle to clap back, as they say. I find it difficult to answer back people who blatantly ask me about my choices in personal and work spheres and then throw back the meanest remarks back at me questioning my choice. It doesn't help that I'm in a conservative, retirement hellhole. People have walked up to my house questioning my parents on my choices.
Just a few instances - Instance one - lady in her late 50s. Asked me when I'm getting married because of my child bearing age closing in. my answer "dunno, but don't want kids, so no timelines', and she laughs it off and says "your generation is MAD".
Instance 2 - discussing CF stance with male colleague (in response ofcourse). He proceeds to say "you better think about it - women have a biological clock and time is running out". For someone who studied biology - men have a biological clock too.
submitted by earthisahellhole to ChildfreeIndia [link] [comments]
Just a few instances - Instance one - lady in her late 50s. Asked me when I'm getting married because of my child bearing age closing in. my answer "dunno, but don't want kids, so no timelines', and she laughs it off and says "your generation is MAD".
Instance 2 - discussing CF stance with male colleague (in response ofcourse). He proceeds to say "you better think about it - women have a biological clock and time is running out". For someone who studied biology - men have a biological clock too.
2024.05.19 04:16 everything_is_stup1d Science or faith? Or both?
I had this sermon yesterday, and it helped me collate my thoughts
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says " [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.
submitted by everything_is_stup1d to Christians [link] [comments]
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says " [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.
2024.05.19 04:15 everything_is_stup1d Science or faith? Or both?
I had this sermon yesterday, and it helped me collate my thoughts
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says " [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.
submitted by everything_is_stup1d to Christianity [link] [comments]
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says " [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.
2024.05.19 04:14 everything_is_stup1d Science or faith? Or both?
I had this sermon yesterday, it helped me collate my thoughts
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says " [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.
submitted by everything_is_stup1d to TrueChristian [link] [comments]
For the everyone, Christianity isn't a self-help or a religion that makes you feel good. It is a faith that is real. Sharing the word and preaching may not turn the hearts of others. You need to clarify the non-believers' doubts. However, this is for everyone to read.
Science doesn't argue that God isn't real. God and science aren't enemies. They are in fact allies. God made science and science proves of God is existence.
1) Faith and science are complementary.
John 4:21-24 describes the Samaritan woman asking Jesus which is mountain/temple is the right place to seek God. Jesus instead tells her how God is spiritual. Heaven and hell are not physical locations, but a spiritual location. Therefore you need to connect to God spiritually.
Science cannot prove about why the existence of any number. For example, why is 7 seven and not 1 or 2 or 3? Science only assumes numbers. What about right and wrongs? We know that they are real things. We believe they are factual. But right and wrongs differ from person to person. Science can not scientifically prove what is right and what is wrong. Science is used to prove the physical and not physical world. But science also cannot prove science. For example science cannot prove where an atom is from. People say the Big Bang, but what caused it to happen(explained later)? God is beyond the physical world. So science is to study the physical world, whereas faith is to know the spiritual world.
2) Faith provides a basis for science
Science is to prove a principle of a law. But you need to assume that this law exists in the first place because if it doesn't then results are unattainable. This is a hypothesis. If the experimental results are achieved, then the law is true. However, when the results cannot be obtained, the law either is false or needs further proving. But He separated the dry land from water as can be seen in Psalm 105:5-9. The waters flowed over the mountains, went into valleys and He set a boundary they cannot cross and would never again cover earth. Same again in the story of Noah. And also can be seen in Genesis 1 when the world was just water. Before He made these boundaries, the waters were chaotic and with no order. God gave order.
In fact there are also many many famous scientists out there who used the Bible for their hypothesis and so far they are all correct. Johannes Kepler said that he was was merely thinking God's thoughts after Him. Isaac Newton said he studied the Bible to prove scientific theories. However, what the Bible says that is in the later part before the end, that cannot be proven yet. Other than that, God made the world follow a fixed law. Therefore, Christianity is a faith with science to prove that it is true. This leads to the last point
3) Science provides evidence for the Christian faith
Romans 1:18-20 says " [18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". This shows that there is so much evidence of God in the world like science and the miracles done. So how can God not have the rights to condemn someone to hell? It isn't because He remained hidden and they didn't have the opportunity to know Him. They closed their hearts and believe in His works but not Him. They have everything around them to prove God exists, but they do not heed.
Psalm 8:3-4 shows us the magnitude and power of God. But there would be critics who disagree because we jump into conclusions and "assume" it's right. What if there is an argument to prove that it is right and it in fact is God's powers?
Kalama Cosmological Argument states: 1. Everything must have a cause. 2. The universe began to exist 3. (if the first 2 points make sense which they do, then) Therefore, the universe must have a cause
The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be used on Islam and Christianity but the Christian God is the true God. In Islam, Muhammad was not the Son of God. He was just a prophet. Neither did he die on the cross for the people to redeem their sins. And I don't need to talk about the kids he married. It's pedophilia and there's no argument that that is very wrong. God is righteous and His son should be righteous as well. We know Jesus was righteous and has never sinned. He bored the cross for our shame and suffered to redeem us. This is the real Son of God. Therefore, only our Christian God is true. The gods of other religions cannot exist because of the Kalam Argument that we can agree is true.
The Big Bang, which people argue that this is how God doesn't exist, was only proven in 2003. Do I believe in the Big Bang? Yes. But you see, science is to study the physical world (definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained). Science only can be used to study the physical world. So the world cannot make the world because the world is science but science cannot make science. In that way, something external must be making the Big Bang happen. So who is this Someone who is external?
Using the Kalam Argument, we can come to a conclusion that 1. The Creator must be extremely powerful to create the world. 2. The Creator has to be non-physical for the world cannot make the world reason. 3. The Creator must be eternal. If not something else would have made Him, thus He would have a beginning. But He cannot have a cause, but cause a cause unless the cause is a person which cannot be true. Complicated to read but try to understand. This sounds like our God that we read about in Gensis! People don't believe because they don't want to, not because they didn't have more than enough evidence to know of God's evidence.
Next, God can use something natural and unnatural to create something. For example, the Red Sea turning red was proven to be because of sediments in the water. And so were the rest of the plague. But the destroyer was a curse (a really bad miracle) and isn't natural. So was Jesus when He went around to heal the sick, blind, deaf, mute, lame, and the possessed. A miracle = cannot be proven by science and totally unrelated to science. Who else can create miracles but by Someone not in the physical world? The consistency in the miracles cannot be a chance. It is the God factor. This can be proven by the Teleolgical Argument.
The Teleolgical Argument says that: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to physical necessity or chance or design (proven by biology, physics or scientific experiments multiple times and would be explained after this) 2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance because unless the universe has a mind then it knows its necessities. And chances are so hard to come by (said later) 3. Thus the universe has to be designed (by God)
Like y=mx+c or other formulas with a constant inside. Gravity, speed of light in vacuum and other laws are also constant.
Now to answer "Can it be by chance?" The answer is 99.999999% no. But let me add that little 0.000001 to prove the God factor. Stephen Hawking said if time at the beginning slowed by 10¹⁰⁰ seconds, the universe would be dead. How can a chance be so accurate? How can there be a chance with such an unspeakable number without a design given? For example, you find an iPhone in the desert and you say its because the winds and weather conditions had assembled and put it together, and Steve Jobs picked it up. So with LOGICAL CONCLUSION, it can be said that there is a Designer to design the universe. According to the first law of thermodynamics, something cannot exist without being created from existing energy. The law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed and Einstein established that energy and mass (the two essense of existence) are essentially the same. But why does God not need a creator? Because the creator would be greater than God. Then won't we worship that creator instead? But thermodynamics only apply to our world. We often forget that God is of a spiritual world and He is eternal, hence, He doesn't need or have a creator.
In conclusion, science and faith are not compatible. That's too weak a word. Science and faith are complementary. Thus, do not disbelieve in God and only believe in science or vice versa. You need something that you can rely on that doesn't change. A constant. Then you might ask why do we believe in a book? We don't believe in book. It's the faith we believe in that is true. As science cannot prove science, the Bible cannot prove the Bible. But so far all the things the Bible was true, even before science had proven these. And those not of science are miracles or not proven yet. If you cannot debut these reasonings, then it only means God is true and that you should start believing in Him. Psalm 8:1-9 shows the magnitude and power of God. Science isn't something we should use to doubt God but to marvel and appreciate the works, even to the finest detail, of God and His designs. Gensis 1:26 says "[26] Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ". We have dominion over the world as through science and the manipulation of science helps us understand God at a deeper scale. Your faith must have a deeper intellectual evidence. What reflects God's words or existence? I know that all He has said and still says has come true and thus will also come true. I know this because I see His works through History, Science etc. Build a faith with facts and knowledge but also with belief. You can further read things to strengthen your faith, like Reasonable Faith(or William Lane Craig, his youtube channel if you hate reading a lot, but since you got this far then maybe you do like reading), or books from Timothy Keller and C.S Lewis.
I would say that faith by knowledge is to accept in God and faith by feelings is to strengthen our love for God. I pray that we would have more brothers and sisters as well who would come to God through all these factors and we would have the brothers and sisters we lost to come back to God. In Jesus's most precious name I pray, Amen.
2024.05.19 03:51 love_the_ocean Ideas for a different series
First post for this subreddit, hi
I’m trying to make my own Star Trek series, and was wondering what were some things yall wished were explored or expanded upon?
I would like to be more comedy based but always down for more serious topics and social commentary
Currently I’m trying to make it more in the perspective of an Alien I’ve made, so I’m also looking for things to explore about human behaviocustoms that might come off as very odd or even bizarre to other alien cultures.
Another thing I’m exploring with one of the main cast is alien hybridization (if that’s not the right word I’m sorry). We have Spock who is half human half Vulcan but in regards to his physiology he’s pretty much just Vulcan. The character to explore this is half Vulcan half Klingon (I thought it would be interesting to see how that would interact biologically and culturally)
For some context on my alien/his culture:
The planet Iknol is colder than earth (a bit colder than our latest ice age the Pleistocene), the inhabitants live mainly in large calderas and the surrounding mountains. The gravity is also stronger by about 1.5x (14.7 m/s2 as opposed to our 9.8 m/ss) and their blood is purple.
For their culture so far I have my iknolians being very practical and social (multigenerational families sleeping in the same bed social). The default number of kids is 2 because more often than not they have twins. They have 3 cranial ridges that they use to greet each other with ‘headbops’. The post is already long so if you have questions about the Iknolians I can answer them in the comments.
This is in no way being made for profit, just a fun series of my own that I’m trying to make
submitted by love_the_ocean to startrek [link] [comments]
I’m trying to make my own Star Trek series, and was wondering what were some things yall wished were explored or expanded upon?
I would like to be more comedy based but always down for more serious topics and social commentary
Currently I’m trying to make it more in the perspective of an Alien I’ve made, so I’m also looking for things to explore about human behaviocustoms that might come off as very odd or even bizarre to other alien cultures.
Another thing I’m exploring with one of the main cast is alien hybridization (if that’s not the right word I’m sorry). We have Spock who is half human half Vulcan but in regards to his physiology he’s pretty much just Vulcan. The character to explore this is half Vulcan half Klingon (I thought it would be interesting to see how that would interact biologically and culturally)
For some context on my alien/his culture:
The planet Iknol is colder than earth (a bit colder than our latest ice age the Pleistocene), the inhabitants live mainly in large calderas and the surrounding mountains. The gravity is also stronger by about 1.5x (14.7 m/s2 as opposed to our 9.8 m/ss) and their blood is purple.
For their culture so far I have my iknolians being very practical and social (multigenerational families sleeping in the same bed social). The default number of kids is 2 because more often than not they have twins. They have 3 cranial ridges that they use to greet each other with ‘headbops’. The post is already long so if you have questions about the Iknolians I can answer them in the comments.
This is in no way being made for profit, just a fun series of my own that I’m trying to make
2024.05.19 02:29 abillionpuppies Is this terrible? I’m getting no calls back. 26F
Just graduated an MLIS internship and have been applying to any library job I see (from public clerk to academic librarian) and cannot even get an interview. Is it my lack of experience or resume? I don’t know if I should add older jobs I’ve had, but they have nothing to do with library science (I was a warehouse worker and barista) during my undergrad. Thanks!
submitted by abillionpuppies to resumes [link] [comments]
2024.05.19 01:06 guiltyofnothing “Do you comment on Reddit to be an annoying middle child?” Slapfights rage and insults fly as /r/BoomersBeingFools debates if boomers don’t eat enough food
The Context:
A user posts to /BoomersBeingFools wondering if boomers don’t eat enough and are “starving” themselves, and by extension pushing their expectations unfairly onto others.Many users quickly take issue with OOP’s premise. The discussion quickly devolves into multiple slapfights, insults over weight, and the war in Gaza.
The Drama:
Does metabolism change as people age?People commenting it’s cause they’re older and don’t need to eat as much. Yes, I know that could be a part of it, but let’s be honest, it’s mostly them just being judgy/brainwashed by diet culture/think it’s absurd to spend money on eating out…[Continued:]
"Brainwashed by diet culture" ah so in other words you are obese and need to eat a lot and probably deeply into healthy at any size/fat acceptance.
No they just know they don't need 5000 calori3s a day to exist.
I’m obese for wanting to eat some lunch and dinner? 🤯
No I say that because of "brainwashed by diet culture" there's exactly one group that talks like that.
You must not get out much
I do actually it's how I maintain not being fat. Limiting calories to under 2500 and being outside moving a lot.[Continued:]
I lost 140 pounds by eating more. 🤷 starving myself led to weight gain.
I'm sure you eat more but less calories in total. No one increases their calories and losses sorry.
You're wrong. Instunted my metabolism and my body was holding on to the weight to protect me.
I was eating skinless baked chicken and plain broccoli for 2 years and could not lose weight. I was sick and exhausted but worked out all the time.
Started eating carbs and the weight came melting off.
Sorry :)
For sure. Thats why all the body builders are morbidly obese. They eat chicken and broccoli and their body just goes into starvation mode and holds all the fat. Same with like the concentration camps. All those poor morbidly obese starving people. Once we saved them and fed them the weight just shed off. It's the craziest thing.[…]
It's almost like bodies are different, user name doesn't check out, a nerd would know that 🤔
Whatever you need to tell yourself.
i guess the law of thermodymanics doesnt apply to you.[…]
You should get studied. Defying the laws of thermodynamics is pretty impressive!
Tell me you see someone fat in the store and cringe inside/judge them for no reason without ever speaking to them without telling me 😂[Continued:]
You dislike/hate fat people for the horrid crime of being fat when they don't think about you at all and haven't ever wronged you in any way at all.
Also, I can tell you have never struggled with your weight in the past due to not giving a shit how hating random people for looking a certain way effects them. That, or you did struggle once, and bought into the haters telling you you were worth less based on the number on the scale, in which case I am sorry you believe that.
Dude I was 350lbs at my heaviest. People love saying "oh he says weightloss is eat less move more? Clearly he wants to genocide fat people" but no that's not it at all. I lost tons and most of the people around me went from morbid obesity to overweight or a normal weight. We changed our lifestyles and got in shape. The people that didn't lose weight claim all kinds of medical issues but none of them changed their diet and not of them want to work out. It's pretty clear how to lose weight. That's all.
No more no less no hate.
Wanna know how I know you're a liar or incredibly ignorant of how you come off?
You say you don't dislike them but make fun of their physical disabilities like it's funny. It's not funny. You're making fun of them. It's not funny to make fun of people for having disabilities or for how they look. You perpetuate hate against them that makes them feel like crap for being alive. I don't care about your spiel about medical issues or dieting in general or the fat acceptance movement. When you make fun of disabled people who have trouble walking i'm going to call you out on it. That's exactly what you did. Whether they're fat or not I refuse to make fun of people for that.
I have never made fun of a single person. Only a movement that claims you can be healthy at any size. You can't be vastly under or over weight and be healthy.
Whatever you say buddy. Keep on making fun of people because they can't walk or cope some more that it wasn't directed at a specific person. Have fun with that.
Shut the fuck up fattyInsults are made, ending with accusations of sockpuppeting:
I don't think you realize how pathetic you sound. When my jaw was broken I went 6 weeks without solid food and I'm sitting here rolling my eyes at your propensity for letting your stomach color your opinions of other people. I'd bet dollars to dimes that your body mass index is over 30.[Continued:]
Hey.
You should know:
It costs $0 to not be a dick.
I'll pay that cover charge any day of the week. Especially when I'm dealing with a major league dipshit like [Candy_cane999]Wow, you’re disgusting. It’s not that deep
Radagast was brown, nerd.
Says the person here gossiping about their relative's metabolism. "Not that deep" lol you made a judgment about an entire generation of people because your family member wasn't hungry..lol fuck off
I bet you are high as a kite right now from all the users here agreeing with you, even if they haven't a fucking clue what they are talking about.
Seriously, though, how fat are you? I'm guessing fat enough that you can't hide that stomach roll when you sit down.
High as a kite? Huh? Relax weirdo, it’s just Reddit
You still haven't told us how fat you are.Damn this guy hates fat people !
I used to be one.
So now you just hate fat people for fun?[…]
People with no self control, ESPECIALLY when that self control would benefit their health, are people who are functionally useless as human beings. They are the pieces of shit who would hoard food while everyone else is starving.
It ain't for fun.
Do you comment on Reddit to be an annoying middle child?
Ahhh yes. The fat people are useless excuse. Okay bud have fun out there!
It seems you have to self control over your feelings little guy. Go out there and practice some self control!
Bitter, party of one.
Get a life, chill[Continued:]
😂sounds like you’re projecting. What’s it like still living in your boomer mom’s basement?Get a life, chillAh yes, the mating call of people who "have lives"...ohhhhhh the irony.
lol "projecting", I see you have your masters in Reddit psychology.
What’s it like still living in your boomer mom’s basement?Oooooof, sounds like someone is...................................................................................projecting.
You do realize calling someone fat is the easiest most insecure insult to throw out there. Classic textbook. Hypocrite
I used to be fat as fuck, 270lbs at 5'10. I'll judge you fatties all I damn well please.
You keep avoiding answering the question. You're a landwhale, aren't you?
Ahha! There it is. It’s because you hate yourself. Hope you’re in therapy
The more you avoid this the more we know what kind of person we are dealing with.[…]
You talk shit about people who have self control to excuse how fat and disgusting you are.
Dude why admit that, all you are showing is that you had become really fat, and rather than learn a healthy relationship with food even at that extreme point, you just chose to hate food in general. You took the easy way out because nobody ever taught you portion control. Your loss I guess.[…]
I admit it because I was raised in a home where I couldn't get up until my plate was clean and my mother made sure there were never leftovers that way. I admit it because it is the truth and I don't lie or omit details to make myself sound better. I admit it to show I can relate to being a fatfuck. I admit it because being fat is a choice.
”why would you say something true about yourself!?" - if that isn't Reddit-in-a-nutshell I don't know what is.
I'm just saying it makes you look like you just hated yourself and were pushing that onto another person that may or may not have a healthier relationship with food than you, that's all.
They didn't answer did they?Then, there’s this:
After several attempts they've avoided even talking about their fat stores and are now trying the victim angle.
No doubt. Fatty McFat Fat can't comprehend people not being addicted to constant feedings.
Reddit in a nutshell.
Bro's talking to himself on an alt
OP is a fat fuckOne user thinks they’re speaking uncomfortable truths:
As a former fatass this was my immediate thought
I knew as soon as he said road trip to FloridaFor wanting lunch and dinner? You’re sick
They’re someone whos whole identity is shoving food in their mouth. Look at their username
Eat shit.
If StandardSafe isn’t willing to say it again, I will: grow up and get over it. 99% of the people who say they “aren’t heavy” actually are, your dad was probably just being a concerned parent. “unhealthy relationship with food”, LMAO. A first-world problem for sureFinally, the war in Gaza is brought up for some reason:
No, he was just a bully and abusive. But thanks for playing.
That’s a really weird thing to say to a stranger, dude
You ok bro? Did that make you feel good about yourself? To insult a stranger because you personally didn’t have to deal with abuse? Or let me guess, you did, but it made you a “strong man” who knows what’s best for everyone.
You don’t know me. You have no idea what my childhood and young adulthood was like and maybe it sounds like a “first world problem” (which by the way, is so fucking dismissive and gross to say to people when they an issue) to you, but for me it became an eating disorder that I still struggle with in my 40s.
I’m going to try to say this as politely as I can, please fuck off into the sun with your bullshit and go troll somewhere else. You’re an asshole who seems to get off on insulting people to get your pathetic dick hard. I hope you don’t have kids because I worry if you do how fucked up they are and if you’re married I feel terrible for your wife. But let’s be honest, you’re a sad, lonely, angry man who has nothing better to do.
Dumbass takes like this are part of the reason people develop eating disorders on both ends of the spectrum.
You're gonna tell me someone who is suffering from Anorexia/Bulimia just needs to "grow up and get over it"?
You need to grow up and take a biology class.
When did the commenter say she had anorexia/bulimia? Those are actual eating disorders…she just said she eats very little and blames her dad.
A biology class, really? Psychology sounds more like it. Or are you telling me you learned about eating disorders in a bio class? Where was that, at some sort of school that gives out certificates in self-actualization or holistic-healing?
Sorry -- from what school did you get a psychology degree that allows you to label Anoerixa/Bulimia as "actual" eating disorders but not what OP described?
The school of hard knocks 😂 he’s so superior to us that he can diagnose a stranger through the internet on Reddit based on a paragraph that seemed to make him bigly angry.
He’s just a sad man who needs to get off by insulting people. He can go live that life and we’ll be over on this said being human to each other.
You know that on the other side of the apartheid wall Israel set up there are thousands of people who had access to the Dead Sea (and their homes), that was changed by the establishment of Israel. Millions of people around the world are coming to the decision to boycott any company that supports the Israeli Apartheid Occupation. Millions are urging their universities and employers to divest any money and programs with the genocidal force that is Israel. I urge you and your family to take a hard look at yourselves and learn what Israel really is made of. Then the logical decision will be to never visit or spend a dime in Israel until their genocide and apartheid ends. Ty
Take a walk off a short pier.
This response is unhinged.
“Learn about an ongoing genocide, with bombs falling through the air as we speak, that you knowingly or unknowingly support, that we can do something about”
“Your response”
Please just look someone in the eyes today and remember what it means to be a human. Each of us is a library of life, and we’re constantly diminishing the value of each other as “enemies”.
I’d rather that than share air with someone who supports the ongoing genocide. Not for me, not for you, but for the kids and our collective humanity: please learn something new today.
You’re supporting the death of my family in Israel. Seriously, you’re a PoS
Before Israel was, there was Palestine. Palestine was for all. Muslims, Christians, and Jewish families all lived together. We all visited Jerusalem.
When Israel decided that only Jewish people would now be allowed in to these random borders drawn over Palestine, well, that should come off as racist. Now the Christian and Muslim Palestinians had their villages raided and their women raped by a well funded militia, before it became the IDF. This terrorised the Palestinians that lived in their homes, so they ran.
Then these homes were empty.
The land without people for the People without a land. Fabulous. Absolutely fabulous. The people that were born there were displaced by a terrorist militia, and now it was a land magically without a people.
And your family came in, and settled in “Israel”. A family out there has the keys to the very home your family lives in in Israel, although you’ve probably changed the locks by now.
But for generations this land fed them and protected them from the elements. All of a sudden it’s yours?
And the people Israel oppresses, the thousands of Palestinians that are in prison with no trial. Children and women Palestinians have been taken captive for over 70 years!! Where’s the outrage?
Are we not human?
When we say free Palestine from the river to the sea. It’s for everybody. Come by and buy my home. But please don’t show up with an armed force ready to exterminate me for refusing you the home my forefathers have called their own.
TLDR Israel is the fire nation in avatar the last airbender.
The best way I can put it is.. if a bunch of armed chickens showed up and kicked you and your family out of their homes, one day you might want to fight those armed chickens back instead of being homeless. Israel are the armed chickens
The Flairs:
2024.05.19 00:57 honeypuppy Are Some Rationalists Dangerously Overconfident About AI?
AI has long been discussed in rationalist circles. There’s been a lot of focus on risks from artificial intelligence (particularly the idea that it might cause human extinction), but also the idea that artificial general intelligence might happen quite soon and subsequently transform society (e.g. supercharging economic growth in a technological singularity).
I’ve long found these arguments intriguing, and probably underrated by the public as a whole. I definitely don’t align myself with people like Steven Pinker who dismiss AI concerns entirely.
Nonetheless, I’ve noticed increasingly high confidence in beliefs of near-term transformative AI among rationalists. To be fair, it’s reasonable to update somewhat given recent advances like GPT-4. But among many, there is a belief that AI advances are the single most important thing happening right now. And among a minority, there are people with very extreme beliefs - such as quite high confidence that transformative AI is just a few years away, and/or that AI is very likely to kill us all.
My core arguments in this post are that firstly, from an “epistemic humility” or “outside view” perspective, we should be suspicious of confident views that the world is soon going to end (or change radically).
Secondly, the implications of the most radical views could cause people who hold them to inflict significant harm on themselves or others.
As a very prominent and very “doomy” rationalist, I worry that he may have convinced a fair number of people to share similar views, views which if taken seriously could hold its holders to feel depressed and/or make costly irrevocable decisions.
But though I think Yudkowsky deserves the most scrutiny, I don’t want to focus entirely on him.
Take Scott Alexander - he frames himself in the aforementioned link as “not as much of a doomer as some people”, yet gave a 33% probability (later adjusted downwards as a result of outside view considerations like those I raise in here) to “only” ~20%. While this leaves enough room for hope that it’s not as potentially dangerous a view as Yudkowsky’s, I agree with how the top Reddit comment in the original post said:
Other examples can be seen in (pseudo-)prediction markets popular with rationalists, such as Metaculus putting the median date of AGI at 2032, and Manifold Markets having a 17% chance of AI doom by 2100 (down from its peak of around 50% (!) in mid-2023).
But I think his case is increasingly weak the more radically immodest your views here. I’ll explain with the following analogy:
Suppose you were talking to someone who was highly confident in their new business idea. What is an appropriate use of a “modesty” argument cautioning against overconfidence?
A strong-form modesty argument would go something like “No new business idea could work, because if it could, someone would already have done it”. This is refuted by countless real-world examples, and I don’t think anyone actually believes in strong-form modesty.
A moderate-form modesty argument would go something like “Some new business ideas work, but most fail, even when their founders were quite confident in them. As an aspiring entrepreneur, you should think your chances of success in your new venture are similar to those of the reference class of aspiring entrepreneurs”.
The arguments against epistemic modesty in Inadequate Equilibria are mainly targeted against reasoning like this. And I think here there’s a case where we can have reasonable disagreement about the appropriate level of modesty. You may have some good reasons to believe that your idea is unusually good or that you are unusually likely to succeed as an entrepreneur. (Though a caveat: with too many degrees of freedom, I think you run the risk of leading yourself to whatever conclusion you like).
For the weak-form modesty argument, let’s further specify that your aspiring entrepreneur’s claim was “I’m over 90% confident that my business will make me the richest person in the world”.
To such a person, I would say: “Your claim is so incredibly unlikely a priori and so self-aggrandising that I feel comfortable in saying you’re overconfident without even needing to consider your arguments”.
That is basically what I feel about Eliezer Yudkowsky and AI.
Let’s take a minute to consider what the implications are if Yudkowsky is correctly calibrated about his beliefs in AI. For a long time, he was one of the few people in the world to be seriously concerned about it, and even now, with many more people concerned about AI risk, he stands out as having some of the highest confidence in doom.
If he’s right, then he’s arguably the most important prophet in history. Countless people throughout history have tried forecasting boon or bust (and almost always been wrong). But on arguably the most important question in human history - when we will go extinct and why - Yudkowsky was among the very few people to see it and easily the most forceful.
Indeed, I’d say this is a much more immodest claim than claiming your business idea will make you the richest person in the world. The title of the richest person in the world has been shared by numerous people throughout history, but “the most accurate prophet of human extinction” is a title that can only ever be held by one person.
I think Scott Alexander’s essay Epistemic Learned Helplessness teaches a good lesson here. Argument convincingness isn’t necessarily strongly correlated with the truth of a claim. If someone gives you what appears to be a strong argument for something that appears crazy, you should nonetheless remain highly sceptical.
Yet I feel like Yudkowsky wants to appeal to “argument convincingness” because that’s what he’s good at. He has spent decades honing his skills arguing on the internet, and much less at acquiring traditional credentials and prestige. “Thinking on the object level” sounds like it’s about being serious and truth-seeking, but I think in practice it’s about privileging convincing-sounding arguments and being a good internet debater above all other evidence.
A further concern I have about “argument convincingness” for AI is that there’s almost certainly a large “motivation gap” in favour of the production of pro-AI-risk arguments compared to anti-AI-risk arguments, with the worriers spending considerably more time and effort than the detractors. As Philip Trammel points out in his post “But Have They Engaged with The Arguments?, this is true of almost any relatively fringe position. This can make the apparent balance of “argumentative evidence” misleading in those cases, with AI no exception.
Finally, Yudkowsky’s case for immodesty depends partly on alleging he has a good track record of applying immodesty to “beat the experts”. But his main examples (a lightbox experiment and the monetary policy of the Bank of Japan) I don’t find that impressive given he could cherry-pick. Here’s an article alleging that Yudkowsky’s predictions have frequently between egregiously wrong and here’s another arguing that his Bank of Japan position in particular didn’t ultimately pan out.
But I do still worry that the ability to contrast with super confident people like Yudkowsky lets the “not a total doomer” people off the hook a little too easily. I think it’s admirable that Scott Alexander seriously grappled with the fact that superforecasters disagreed with him and updated downwards based on that observation.
Still, let’s revisit the “aspiring entrepreneur” analogy - imagine they had instead said: “You know what, I’ve listened to your claims about modesty and agree that I’ve been overconfident. I now think there’s only a 20% chance that my business idea will make me the richest person in the world”.
Sure - they’ve moved in the right direction, but it’s easy to see that they’re still not doing modesty very well.
An anti-anti-AI risk argument Scott made (in MR Tries the Safe Uncertainly Fallacy) is that appealing to base rates leaves you vulnerable to “reference class tennis” where both sides can appeal to different reference classes, and the “only winning move is not to play”.
Yet in the case of our aspiring entrepreneur, I think the base rate argument of “extremely few people can become the richest person in the world” is very robust. If the entrepreneur tried to counter with “But I can come up with all sorts of other reference classes in which I come out more favourably! Reference class tennis! Engage with my object-level arguments!”, it would not be reasonable to throw up your hands and say “Well, I can’t come up with good counterarguments, so I guess you probably do have a 20% chance of becoming the richest person in the world then”.
I contend that “many people have predicted the end of the world and they’ve all been wrong” is another highly robust reference class. Yes, you can protest about “anthropic effects” or reasons why “this time is different”. And maybe the reasons why “this time is different” are indeed a lot better than usual. Still, I contend that you should start from a prior of overwhelming skepticism and only make small updates based on arguments you read. You should not go “I read these essays with convincing arguments about how we’re all going to die, I guess I just believe that now”.
I think this is good evidence for taking AI risk seriously. One important thing it does is raise AI risk out of the reference class of garden-variety doomsday predictions/crazy-sounding theories that have no expert backing.
However, I think it’s still only moderately good evidence.
Firstly, I think we should not consider it as an “expert consensus” nearly as strong as say, the expert consensus on climate change. There is nothing like an IPCC for AI, for example. This is not a mature, academically rigorous field. I don’t think we should update too strongly from AI experts spending a few minutes filling in a survey. (See for instance this comment about the survey, showing how non-robust the answers given are, indicating the responders aren’t thinking super hard about the questions).
Secondly, I believe forecasting AI risk is a multi-disciplinary skill. Consider for instance asking physicists to predict the chances of human extinction due to nuclear war in the 1930s. They would have an advantage in predicting nuclear capabilities, but after nuclear weapons were developed, the reasons we haven’t had a nuclear war yet have much more to do with international relations than nuclear physics.
And maybe AGI is so radically different from the AI that exists today that perhaps asking AI researchers now about AI risk might have been like asking 19th-century musket manufacturers about the risk from a hypothetical future “super weapon”.
I think an instructive analogy were the failed neo-Malthusian predictions of the 1960s and 1970s, such as The Population Bomb or The Limits to Growth. Although I’m unable to find clear evidence of this, my impression is that these beliefs were quite mainstream among the most “obvious” expert class of biologists (The Population Bomb author Paul Ehlrich had a PhD in biology), and the primary critics tended to be in other fields like economics (most notably Julian Simon). Biologists had insights, but they also had blind spots. Any “expert survey” that only interviewed biologists would have missed crucial insights from other disciplines.
Well, suppose you were overconfident about Clinton. You probably didn’t do anything differently in your life, and the only real cost of your overconfidence was being unusually surprised on election day 2016. Even one of the people who was that confident in Clinton didn’t suffer any worse consequences than eating a bug on national television.
But take someone who is ~90% confident that AI will radically transform or destroy society (“singularity or extinction by 2040") and seriously acts like it.
Given that, it seems apparently reasonable to be much more short-term focused. You might choose to stop saving for retirement. You might forgo education on the basis that it will be obsolete soon. These are actions that some people have previously taken, are considering taking or are actually taking because of expectations of AI progress.
At a societal level, high confidence in short-term transformative AI implies that almost all non-AI related long-term planning that humanity does is probably a waste. The most notable example would be climate change. If AI either kills us or radically speeds up scientific and economic growth by the middle of the century, then it seems pretty stupid to be worrying about climate change. Indeed, we’re probably underconsuming fossil fuels that could be used to improve the lives of people right now.
At its worst, there is the possibility of AI-risk-motivated terrorism. Here’s a twitter thread from Emil Torres talking about this, noticeably this tweet in particular about minutes from an AI safety workshop “sending bombs” to OpenAI and DeepMind.
To be fair, I think it’s highly likely the people writing that were trolling. Still - if you’re a cold-blooded utilitarian bullet-biter with short timelines and high p(doom), I could easily see you rationalising such actions.
I want to be super careful about this - I don’t want to come across as claiming that terrorism is a particularly likely consequence of “AI dooming”, nor do I want to risk raising the probability of it by discussing it too much and planting the seed of it in someone’s head. But a community that takes small risks seriously should be cognizant of the possibility. This is a concern that I think anyone with a large audience and relatively extreme views (about AI or anything) should take into account.
Since then I feel there’s a little bit of a vibe shift away from the most extreme scenarios (as exhibited in the Manifold extinction markets), as well as me personally probably overestimating how many people ever believed in them. I’ve found it hard to try to properly articulate the message: “You’re probably directionally correct relative to society as a whole, but some unspecified number of you have probably gone too far”.
Nonetheless, my main takeaways are:
submitted by honeypuppy to slatestarcodex [link] [comments]
I’ve long found these arguments intriguing, and probably underrated by the public as a whole. I definitely don’t align myself with people like Steven Pinker who dismiss AI concerns entirely.
Nonetheless, I’ve noticed increasingly high confidence in beliefs of near-term transformative AI among rationalists. To be fair, it’s reasonable to update somewhat given recent advances like GPT-4. But among many, there is a belief that AI advances are the single most important thing happening right now. And among a minority, there are people with very extreme beliefs - such as quite high confidence that transformative AI is just a few years away, and/or that AI is very likely to kill us all.
My core arguments in this post are that firstly, from an “epistemic humility” or “outside view” perspective, we should be suspicious of confident views that the world is soon going to end (or change radically).
Secondly, the implications of the most radical views could cause people who hold them to inflict significant harm on themselves or others.
Who Believes In “AI Imminence”?
The single person I am most specifically critiquing is Eliezer Yudkowsky. Yudkowsky appears unwilling to give specific probabilities but writings like “Death With Dignity” has caused many including Scott Alexander to characterise him as believing that AI has a >90% chance of causing human extinction)As a very prominent and very “doomy” rationalist, I worry that he may have convinced a fair number of people to share similar views, views which if taken seriously could hold its holders to feel depressed and/or make costly irrevocable decisions.
But though I think Yudkowsky deserves the most scrutiny, I don’t want to focus entirely on him.
Take Scott Alexander - he frames himself in the aforementioned link as “not as much of a doomer as some people”, yet gave a 33% probability (later adjusted downwards as a result of outside view considerations like those I raise in here) to “only” ~20%. While this leaves enough room for hope that it’s not as potentially dangerous a view as Yudkowsky’s, I agree with how the top Reddit comment in the original post said:
Is AI risk the only field where someone can write an article about how they’re not (much) of a doomer when they think that the risk of catastrophe/disasteextinction is 33%?Beyond merely AI risk, claims about “transformative AI” date back to ideas about the “intelligent explosion” or “singularity” that are most popularly associated with Ray Kurzweil. A modern representation of this is Tom Davidson of Open Philanthropy, who wrote a report on takeoff speeds.
Other examples can be seen in (pseudo-)prediction markets popular with rationalists, such as Metaculus putting the median date of AGI at 2032, and Manifold Markets having a 17% chance of AI doom by 2100 (down from its peak of around 50% (!) in mid-2023).
Why Am I Sceptical?
My primary case for (moderate) scepticism is not about the object-level arguments around AI, but appealing to the “outside view”. My main arguments are:- Superforecasters and financial markets are not giving high credence to transformative AI. Both groups have good track records, so we should strongly consider deferring to their views.
- The transformative AI argument is "fishy" (to borrow Will MacAskill’s argument against “The Most Important Century”). It implies that not only we are at an unusually pivotal time in history (perhaps the most important decade, let alone century), but that consequently, rationalists are perhaps the most important prophets in history. When your claims are that extraordinary, it seems much more likely that they're mistaken.
- The “inside view” arguments do not seem very robust to me. That is, they are highly speculative arguments that are primarily discussed among an insular group of people in usually relatively informal settings. I think you should be wary of any argument that emerges via this process, even if you can’t point to any specific way in which they are wrong.
Why I’m Against Highly Immodest Epistemology
However, maybe appealing to the “outside view” is incorrect? Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote a book, Inadequate Equiibria, which in large part argued against what he saw as excessive use of the “outside view”. He advises:Try to spend most of your time thinking about the object level. If you’re spending more of your time thinking about your own reasoning ability and competence than you spend thinking about Japan’s interest rates and NGDP, or competing omega-6 vs. omega-3 metabolic pathways, you’re taking your eye off the ball.I think Yudkowsky makes a fair point about being excessively modest. If you are forever doubting your own reasoning to the extent that you think you should defer to the majority of Americans who are creationists, you’ve gone too far.
But I think his case is increasingly weak the more radically immodest your views here. I’ll explain with the following analogy:
Suppose you were talking to someone who was highly confident in their new business idea. What is an appropriate use of a “modesty” argument cautioning against overconfidence?
A strong-form modesty argument would go something like “No new business idea could work, because if it could, someone would already have done it”. This is refuted by countless real-world examples, and I don’t think anyone actually believes in strong-form modesty.
A moderate-form modesty argument would go something like “Some new business ideas work, but most fail, even when their founders were quite confident in them. As an aspiring entrepreneur, you should think your chances of success in your new venture are similar to those of the reference class of aspiring entrepreneurs”.
The arguments against epistemic modesty in Inadequate Equilibria are mainly targeted against reasoning like this. And I think here there’s a case where we can have reasonable disagreement about the appropriate level of modesty. You may have some good reasons to believe that your idea is unusually good or that you are unusually likely to succeed as an entrepreneur. (Though a caveat: with too many degrees of freedom, I think you run the risk of leading yourself to whatever conclusion you like).
For the weak-form modesty argument, let’s further specify that your aspiring entrepreneur’s claim was “I’m over 90% confident that my business will make me the richest person in the world”.
To such a person, I would say: “Your claim is so incredibly unlikely a priori and so self-aggrandising that I feel comfortable in saying you’re overconfident without even needing to consider your arguments”.
That is basically what I feel about Eliezer Yudkowsky and AI.
Let’s take a minute to consider what the implications are if Yudkowsky is correctly calibrated about his beliefs in AI. For a long time, he was one of the few people in the world to be seriously concerned about it, and even now, with many more people concerned about AI risk, he stands out as having some of the highest confidence in doom.
If he’s right, then he’s arguably the most important prophet in history. Countless people throughout history have tried forecasting boon or bust (and almost always been wrong). But on arguably the most important question in human history - when we will go extinct and why - Yudkowsky was among the very few people to see it and easily the most forceful.
Indeed, I’d say this is a much more immodest claim than claiming your business idea will make you the richest person in the world. The title of the richest person in the world has been shared by numerous people throughout history, but “the most accurate prophet of human extinction” is a title that can only ever be held by one person.
I think Scott Alexander’s essay Epistemic Learned Helplessness teaches a good lesson here. Argument convincingness isn’t necessarily strongly correlated with the truth of a claim. If someone gives you what appears to be a strong argument for something that appears crazy, you should nonetheless remain highly sceptical.
Yet I feel like Yudkowsky wants to appeal to “argument convincingness” because that’s what he’s good at. He has spent decades honing his skills arguing on the internet, and much less at acquiring traditional credentials and prestige. “Thinking on the object level” sounds like it’s about being serious and truth-seeking, but I think in practice it’s about privileging convincing-sounding arguments and being a good internet debater above all other evidence.
A further concern I have about “argument convincingness” for AI is that there’s almost certainly a large “motivation gap” in favour of the production of pro-AI-risk arguments compared to anti-AI-risk arguments, with the worriers spending considerably more time and effort than the detractors. As Philip Trammel points out in his post “But Have They Engaged with The Arguments?, this is true of almost any relatively fringe position. This can make the apparent balance of “argumentative evidence” misleading in those cases, with AI no exception.
Finally, Yudkowsky’s case for immodesty depends partly on alleging he has a good track record of applying immodesty to “beat the experts”. But his main examples (a lightbox experiment and the monetary policy of the Bank of Japan) I don’t find that impressive given he could cherry-pick. Here’s an article alleging that Yudkowsky’s predictions have frequently between egregiously wrong and here’s another arguing that his Bank of Japan position in particular didn’t ultimately pan out.
Why I’m Also Sceptical of Moderately Immodest Epistemology
I think high-confidence predictions of doom (or utopia) are much more problematic than relatively moderate views - they are more likely to be wrong, and if taken seriously, more strongly imply that the believer should consider making radical, probably harmful life changes.But I do still worry that the ability to contrast with super confident people like Yudkowsky lets the “not a total doomer” people off the hook a little too easily. I think it’s admirable that Scott Alexander seriously grappled with the fact that superforecasters disagreed with him and updated downwards based on that observation.
Still, let’s revisit the “aspiring entrepreneur” analogy - imagine they had instead said: “You know what, I’ve listened to your claims about modesty and agree that I’ve been overconfident. I now think there’s only a 20% chance that my business idea will make me the richest person in the world”.
Sure - they’ve moved in the right direction, but it’s easy to see that they’re still not doing modesty very well.
An anti-anti-AI risk argument Scott made (in MR Tries the Safe Uncertainly Fallacy) is that appealing to base rates leaves you vulnerable to “reference class tennis” where both sides can appeal to different reference classes, and the “only winning move is not to play”.
Yet in the case of our aspiring entrepreneur, I think the base rate argument of “extremely few people can become the richest person in the world” is very robust. If the entrepreneur tried to counter with “But I can come up with all sorts of other reference classes in which I come out more favourably! Reference class tennis! Engage with my object-level arguments!”, it would not be reasonable to throw up your hands and say “Well, I can’t come up with good counterarguments, so I guess you probably do have a 20% chance of becoming the richest person in the world then”.
I contend that “many people have predicted the end of the world and they’ve all been wrong” is another highly robust reference class. Yes, you can protest about “anthropic effects” or reasons why “this time is different”. And maybe the reasons why “this time is different” are indeed a lot better than usual. Still, I contend that you should start from a prior of overwhelming skepticism and only make small updates based on arguments you read. You should not go “I read these essays with convincing arguments about how we’re all going to die, I guess I just believe that now”.
What Should We Make Of Surveys Of AI Experts?
Surveys done of AI experts, as well as opinions of well-regarded experts like Geoffrey Hinton and Stewart Russell, have shown significant concerns about AI risk (example).I think this is good evidence for taking AI risk seriously. One important thing it does is raise AI risk out of the reference class of garden-variety doomsday predictions/crazy-sounding theories that have no expert backing.
However, I think it’s still only moderately good evidence.
Firstly, I think we should not consider it as an “expert consensus” nearly as strong as say, the expert consensus on climate change. There is nothing like an IPCC for AI, for example. This is not a mature, academically rigorous field. I don’t think we should update too strongly from AI experts spending a few minutes filling in a survey. (See for instance this comment about the survey, showing how non-robust the answers given are, indicating the responders aren’t thinking super hard about the questions).
Secondly, I believe forecasting AI risk is a multi-disciplinary skill. Consider for instance asking physicists to predict the chances of human extinction due to nuclear war in the 1930s. They would have an advantage in predicting nuclear capabilities, but after nuclear weapons were developed, the reasons we haven’t had a nuclear war yet have much more to do with international relations than nuclear physics.
And maybe AGI is so radically different from the AI that exists today that perhaps asking AI researchers now about AI risk might have been like asking 19th-century musket manufacturers about the risk from a hypothetical future “super weapon”.
I think an instructive analogy were the failed neo-Malthusian predictions of the 1960s and 1970s, such as The Population Bomb or The Limits to Growth. Although I’m unable to find clear evidence of this, my impression is that these beliefs were quite mainstream among the most “obvious” expert class of biologists (The Population Bomb author Paul Ehlrich had a PhD in biology), and the primary critics tended to be in other fields like economics (most notably Julian Simon). Biologists had insights, but they also had blind spots. Any “expert survey” that only interviewed biologists would have missed crucial insights from other disciplines.
What Are The Potential Consequences Of Overconfidence?
People have overconfident beliefs all the time. Some people erroneously thought Hillary Clinton was ~99% likely to win the 2016 Presidential election. Does it matter that much if they’re overconfident about AI?Well, suppose you were overconfident about Clinton. You probably didn’t do anything differently in your life, and the only real cost of your overconfidence was being unusually surprised on election day 2016. Even one of the people who was that confident in Clinton didn’t suffer any worse consequences than eating a bug on national television.
But take someone who is ~90% confident that AI will radically transform or destroy society (“singularity or extinction by 2040") and seriously acts like it.
Given that, it seems apparently reasonable to be much more short-term focused. You might choose to stop saving for retirement. You might forgo education on the basis that it will be obsolete soon. These are actions that some people have previously taken, are considering taking or are actually taking because of expectations of AI progress.
At a societal level, high confidence in short-term transformative AI implies that almost all non-AI related long-term planning that humanity does is probably a waste. The most notable example would be climate change. If AI either kills us or radically speeds up scientific and economic growth by the middle of the century, then it seems pretty stupid to be worrying about climate change. Indeed, we’re probably underconsuming fossil fuels that could be used to improve the lives of people right now.
At its worst, there is the possibility of AI-risk-motivated terrorism. Here’s a twitter thread from Emil Torres talking about this, noticeably this tweet in particular about minutes from an AI safety workshop “sending bombs” to OpenAI and DeepMind.
To be fair, I think it’s highly likely the people writing that were trolling. Still - if you’re a cold-blooded utilitarian bullet-biter with short timelines and high p(doom), I could easily see you rationalising such actions.
I want to be super careful about this - I don’t want to come across as claiming that terrorism is a particularly likely consequence of “AI dooming”, nor do I want to risk raising the probability of it by discussing it too much and planting the seed of it in someone’s head. But a community that takes small risks seriously should be cognizant of the possibility. This is a concern that I think anyone with a large audience and relatively extreme views (about AI or anything) should take into account.
Conclusion
This post has been kicking around in draft form since around the release of GPT-4 a year ago. At that time, there were a lot of breathless takes on Twitter about how AGI was just around the corner, Yudkowsky was appearing on a lot of podcasts saying we were all going to die, and I started to feel like lots of people had gone a bit far off on the deep end.Since then I feel there’s a little bit of a vibe shift away from the most extreme scenarios (as exhibited in the Manifold extinction markets), as well as me personally probably overestimating how many people ever believed in them. I’ve found it hard to try to properly articulate the message: “You’re probably directionally correct relative to society as a whole, but some unspecified number of you have probably gone too far”.
Nonetheless, my main takeaways are:
- Eliezer Yudkowsky (these days) is probably causing harm, and people with moderate concerns about AI should distance themselves from him. Espousing views that we are all likely to die from AI should not be tolerated as a merely strong opinion, but as something that can cause meaningful harm to people who believe it. I feel this might actually be happening to some degree (I think it’s notable that e.g. the 80,000 Hours podcast has never interviewed him, despite interviewing plenty of other AI-risk-concerned people). But I would like to see more of a “Sister Souljah moment” where e.g. a prominent EA thought leader explicitly disavows him.
- Yudkowsky being the worst offender doesn't let everyone else off the hook. For instance, I think Scott Alexander is much better at taking modesty seriously, yet I don't think he takes it seriously enough.
- We should be generally suspicious of arguments for crazy-sounding things. I have not only become more suspicious of arguments about AI, but also other arguments relatively popular in rationalist or EA circles, but not so much outside it (think certain types of utilitarian arguments that imply that e.g. maybe insect welfare or the long-term future outweighs everything else). I appreciate that they might say something worth considering, and perhaps weak-form versions of them could be reasonable. But the heuristic of “You probably haven’t found the single most important thing ever” is something I think should be given more weight.