Thank you very much for this wonderful (perhaps - probably) article. It answered questions I had given up on because I couldn't find the answers. Christians themselves don't know. I don't blame them, I don't know either. Anyway.
I have saved it—translated and underlined things—thoughts.
It is water that has refreshed me for another (long) journey.
I believe I will return to this reading because it solves my problems/questions.
How much to trust emotions, how much to trust logic, how much to trust even when the arguments are against it. It's deeper than that, I won't share any more.
Does my thinking have a limit? Yes, it does. But what kind, and is it deterministic?
Thank you for your fresh water and perhaps even a compass for when I'm not sure if I'm going in the right direction.
1) I don't feel God in prayer the way some people describe: not in church, not in nature, not with the clean (pseudo)certainty that would make the whole problem dissolve.
2) The weak refutation — "that's crazy, stop it" — doesn't work on someone who can do philosophical thinking.
3) I appreciate that you don't give up
Honestly, I feel like a primate that was suddenly placed on this planet. Now he sits on his ass in his room. And he is able to use a lighter to order a cooked zebra, which will be delivered to his room.
I think that faith cannot be understood by reason --> unless we make something an axiom. Because apart from things we can measure (the peak of my scientific knowledge :D), nothing can be proven 100%.
Alternatively, it can be proven that a hypothesis is false, although it should be noted that the possibility of an incorrect conclusion is always possible.
This (in my opinion) is called faith.
If one thinks honestly—and I am sure you do—without axioms, the ability to analyze any concept is very limited. The ability to question all aspects of a given topic is a fundamental principle that I learned during my time in the philosophy club. Ignorance is strength. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. 1984. The more knowledge, the more suffering. Solomon
The experience of being unable to feel emotions is a concept that is difficult for me to understand.
Experiencing emotional swings can be compared to the emotional upheavals depicted in the popular animated series "Phineas and Ferb."
My relationship with God has deepened greatly as I pray short prayers regularly, and when I feel that my prayer has been answered, I feel good.
I do this because otherwise I question and rationalize every miracle. The head is stupid. It doesn't know that hope is the most valuable principle/value.
A thought occurred to me: Did reason serve to help us survive? Just like emotions helped us stay in the tribe. In that case, reason must have a limit. That's not true, it's a tool that has evolved over thousands of years.
I also noticed that when I fill my eyes and ears with God/the Bible and think about Jesus, I believe more * I am stronger.
I am convinced that from a purely logical point of view, this situation is definitely depressing. This idea is completely absurd; it's like imagining how Santa, with his obesity, can slide down the chimney and then climb back up again.
There are various concepts of faith: stupid faith like in Santa (not sure it applies to you, really), faith in someone's testimony (bc he is a trustworthy witness), faith in something not seen (but believed in for other reasons), faith in the sense of taking risks (which still may be rational, given the evidence), etc.
While Oswald Spengler (Man and Technics) does not address the specific cosmological, metaphysical, or historical problems raised in "The Goid" post (such as the origins of the Big Bang, fine-tuning, the historical evidence for Jesus, or the precise mechanics of consciousness and qualia, https://blackbeardphilosopher.substack.com/p/the-goid), he does indirectly address the deep existential and moral concerns underlying the post.
Spengler approaches the problems of **brutality**, **free will**, and the **futility of existence** not through theology or physics, but through a philosophy of biology and human history. Here is how his views intersect with the problems in the post:
**1. The Problem of Evil and "Grotesque Brutality"**
"The Goid" struggles to reconcile the idea of a good God with the "utterly ugly horrific brutality" and "intense grotesque evil" present in the world.
Spengler addresses this brutality directly by confirming that it is the fundamental reality of human existence, though he views it without the need for theological justification. According to Spengler, "Man is a beast of prey". The tactics of human living are those of a "splendid beast of prey, brave, crafty, and cruel," and man lives by "attacking and killing and destroying". Rather than a problem to be solved, Spengler sees this "grim, pitiless, no-quarter battle of the Will-to-Power" as a fundamental fact of nature that actually imparts a "high dignity to Man". He dismisses the "peaceful and virtuous" ideals of morality as cowardice.
**2. Free Will and Rebellion**
In discussing the "Void Hypothesis," the post questions how unified subjects achieve agency and "free will".
Spengler roots the concept of free will in man's technological evolution and his separation from instinctual animal life. When man began making and selecting his own tools, he achieved a "liberation from the compulsion of the genus" and became capable of conscious, arbitrary choice. Because of this, Spengler defines "Free will" as a literal "act of rebellion and nothing less" against Nature. Man steps outside the bounds of Nature to become a creator, which initiates a tragic, fateful rift between him and the universe.
**3. The Horror of the Void and Futility**
"The Goid" contemplates the terrifying nature of the "Void Hypothesis," where infinite time leads to an infinite cycle of reincarnation in a universe full of suffering (a "Samsara without Nirvana" that is "scary like hell").
While Spengler does not entertain the mathematics of infinite physical reincarnation, he strongly agrees that human existence is ultimately impermanent and devoid of a progressive, utopian endpoint. He states that "impermanence, the birth and the passing, is the form of all that is actual" and that every human creation is "fore-doomed to decay". The universe moves slowly on with a "godlike unconcern" toward the battles of men.
**Spengler's Alternative Solution: Heroic Fatalism**
The author of "The Goid" seeks to resolve these terrifying problems through metaphysical and physical theorizing to find out what is true. Spengler, who dismisses scientific theories as mere "myths of the understanding" driven by a will to power, offers a different solution to the existential terror of the Void.
Instead of seeking spiritual exit or intellectual comfort, Spengler advocates for facing the tragedy of existence with the "amor fati of Nietzsche". Believing that "Optimism is cowardice," he argues that men must bravely hold onto their "lost position, without hope, without rescue," finding their greatness and honor not in eternal life or cosmic justice, but in a "short life, full of deeds and glory".
Why is the Jesus myth a real universal ontology for you that can make believable claims about existence, but any of the other competing religions are not?
It seems coincidental to me that Christianity spread the way it did.
Sure, it did go viral because it had all the right emotional hooks at the time and it had imperial backing over the centuries - and today we live in that part of the world that's impacted by it's legacy.
But there are other prophets and stories about deities and prophets that millions of people alive today believe with conviction while feeling connected to it during prayer and meditation.
People are superstitious, they are affected by peer pressure and social conformity... A handful of people made up a few stories, other people built on it, and now it's a legit contender to thoroughly explain existence?
I can't make sense of your opinion there.
I'm not saying Christianity or the Jesus myth is an invalid religion to follow.
But why did you choose it if you don't feel any supernatural connection to it?
Have you tried other religions (like shopping for a coat? 😄)
Christians have much better historical evidence, that's it. (Esp. sane people around the death of Jesus, willing to die for empirical claims.) Almost nobody appreciates how puzzling that is. As I suggest at the end of A. Nothing like it in other religions, afaik.
And yes, it's really hard to explain that away as just invented stories. Go to https://beliefmap.org and search there "new testament". Too many apparently undesigned coincidences btw the texts, while no extant rival versions from those times. I recommend https://www.amazon.com/Testimonies-Truth-Why-Trust-Gospels-ebook/dp/B0CW1FJHH5/ as an intro, by a very fine Bayesian philosopher. I met her and her husband once. Also corresponded with them for years, raising various objections.
I am still suspicious and must take an even deeper look, as I say above, but common objections are utterly uninformed.
I have looked into and tried other worldviews, yes.
When you say "empirical" do you mean "can be read about in independent books" or do you mean fossil records and astronomical events that can be calculated?
Also, could you give 2 or 3 examples of those? I'm curious!
All in all it's certainly a fact that there is a "real" religion in the present day, and it's origin story is deeply tied to it's initial followers and one mythological man. That's a true fact.
Given the real and true existence of this religion today we can also assume that it's early followers were real as well. It's kind of irrefutable. The founders of the religion must have existed.
But because the founders of a religion really existed doesn't mean their myths or teachings are real or true - even if the myths and teachings have value.
It's also impressive how dominant this particular religion has become.
And how compelled these founders and later the missionaries have been when it comes to the spread of this religion...
Monks literally went to the end of the known world to "save people from eternal damnation" whilst enslaving the very people they were trying to save. Treating the natives horribly and bringing death and suffering upon them.
It is incredible that this happened. All fueled by the superstition into something supernatural... Some version of a myth that the founders have started to tell back in the 1st century.
(I'm new here—even with the help of my AI, I couldn't figure out how to continue the thread—I'm responding to these thoughts https://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/11/what_evidentialism_is_not.html)
Thank you very much for this wonderful (perhaps - probably) article. It answered questions I had given up on because I couldn't find the answers. Christians themselves don't know. I don't blame them, I don't know either. Anyway.
I have saved it—translated and underlined things—thoughts.
It is water that has refreshed me for another (long) journey.
I believe I will return to this reading because it solves my problems/questions.
How much to trust emotions, how much to trust logic, how much to trust even when the arguments are against it. It's deeper than that, I won't share any more.
Does my thinking have a limit? Yes, it does. But what kind, and is it deterministic?
Thank you for your fresh water and perhaps even a compass for when I'm not sure if I'm going in the right direction.
Powerful moments:
1) I don't feel God in prayer the way some people describe: not in church, not in nature, not with the clean (pseudo)certainty that would make the whole problem dissolve.
2) The weak refutation — "that's crazy, stop it" — doesn't work on someone who can do philosophical thinking.
3) I appreciate that you don't give up
Honestly, I feel like a primate that was suddenly placed on this planet. Now he sits on his ass in his room. And he is able to use a lighter to order a cooked zebra, which will be delivered to his room.
I think that faith cannot be understood by reason --> unless we make something an axiom. Because apart from things we can measure (the peak of my scientific knowledge :D), nothing can be proven 100%.
Alternatively, it can be proven that a hypothesis is false, although it should be noted that the possibility of an incorrect conclusion is always possible.
This (in my opinion) is called faith.
If one thinks honestly—and I am sure you do—without axioms, the ability to analyze any concept is very limited. The ability to question all aspects of a given topic is a fundamental principle that I learned during my time in the philosophy club. Ignorance is strength. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. 1984. The more knowledge, the more suffering. Solomon
The experience of being unable to feel emotions is a concept that is difficult for me to understand.
Experiencing emotional swings can be compared to the emotional upheavals depicted in the popular animated series "Phineas and Ferb."
My relationship with God has deepened greatly as I pray short prayers regularly, and when I feel that my prayer has been answered, I feel good.
I do this because otherwise I question and rationalize every miracle. The head is stupid. It doesn't know that hope is the most valuable principle/value.
A thought occurred to me: Did reason serve to help us survive? Just like emotions helped us stay in the tribe. In that case, reason must have a limit. That's not true, it's a tool that has evolved over thousands of years.
I also noticed that when I fill my eyes and ears with God/the Bible and think about Jesus, I believe more * I am stronger.
I am convinced that from a purely logical point of view, this situation is definitely depressing. This idea is completely absurd; it's like imagining how Santa, with his obesity, can slide down the chimney and then climb back up again.
Many thanks. Appreciated.
There are various concepts of faith: stupid faith like in Santa (not sure it applies to you, really), faith in someone's testimony (bc he is a trustworthy witness), faith in something not seen (but believed in for other reasons), faith in the sense of taking risks (which still may be rational, given the evidence), etc.
Compare:
https://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/11/what_evidentialism_is_not.html
Regardless, the dilemma (the positions A vs B) needs to be resolved, or acommodated into one's life unresolved.
NotebookLM comment:
While Oswald Spengler (Man and Technics) does not address the specific cosmological, metaphysical, or historical problems raised in "The Goid" post (such as the origins of the Big Bang, fine-tuning, the historical evidence for Jesus, or the precise mechanics of consciousness and qualia, https://blackbeardphilosopher.substack.com/p/the-goid), he does indirectly address the deep existential and moral concerns underlying the post.
Spengler approaches the problems of **brutality**, **free will**, and the **futility of existence** not through theology or physics, but through a philosophy of biology and human history. Here is how his views intersect with the problems in the post:
**1. The Problem of Evil and "Grotesque Brutality"**
"The Goid" struggles to reconcile the idea of a good God with the "utterly ugly horrific brutality" and "intense grotesque evil" present in the world.
Spengler addresses this brutality directly by confirming that it is the fundamental reality of human existence, though he views it without the need for theological justification. According to Spengler, "Man is a beast of prey". The tactics of human living are those of a "splendid beast of prey, brave, crafty, and cruel," and man lives by "attacking and killing and destroying". Rather than a problem to be solved, Spengler sees this "grim, pitiless, no-quarter battle of the Will-to-Power" as a fundamental fact of nature that actually imparts a "high dignity to Man". He dismisses the "peaceful and virtuous" ideals of morality as cowardice.
**2. Free Will and Rebellion**
In discussing the "Void Hypothesis," the post questions how unified subjects achieve agency and "free will".
Spengler roots the concept of free will in man's technological evolution and his separation from instinctual animal life. When man began making and selecting his own tools, he achieved a "liberation from the compulsion of the genus" and became capable of conscious, arbitrary choice. Because of this, Spengler defines "Free will" as a literal "act of rebellion and nothing less" against Nature. Man steps outside the bounds of Nature to become a creator, which initiates a tragic, fateful rift between him and the universe.
**3. The Horror of the Void and Futility**
"The Goid" contemplates the terrifying nature of the "Void Hypothesis," where infinite time leads to an infinite cycle of reincarnation in a universe full of suffering (a "Samsara without Nirvana" that is "scary like hell").
While Spengler does not entertain the mathematics of infinite physical reincarnation, he strongly agrees that human existence is ultimately impermanent and devoid of a progressive, utopian endpoint. He states that "impermanence, the birth and the passing, is the form of all that is actual" and that every human creation is "fore-doomed to decay". The universe moves slowly on with a "godlike unconcern" toward the battles of men.
**Spengler's Alternative Solution: Heroic Fatalism**
The author of "The Goid" seeks to resolve these terrifying problems through metaphysical and physical theorizing to find out what is true. Spengler, who dismisses scientific theories as mere "myths of the understanding" driven by a will to power, offers a different solution to the existential terror of the Void.
Instead of seeking spiritual exit or intellectual comfort, Spengler advocates for facing the tragedy of existence with the "amor fati of Nietzsche". Believing that "Optimism is cowardice," he argues that men must bravely hold onto their "lost position, without hope, without rescue," finding their greatness and honor not in eternal life or cosmic justice, but in a "short life, full of deeds and glory".
Friend sends:
https://galahaderidanus.substack.com/p/abraxas-and-the-outer-gods
Why is the Jesus myth a real universal ontology for you that can make believable claims about existence, but any of the other competing religions are not?
It seems coincidental to me that Christianity spread the way it did.
Sure, it did go viral because it had all the right emotional hooks at the time and it had imperial backing over the centuries - and today we live in that part of the world that's impacted by it's legacy.
But there are other prophets and stories about deities and prophets that millions of people alive today believe with conviction while feeling connected to it during prayer and meditation.
People are superstitious, they are affected by peer pressure and social conformity... A handful of people made up a few stories, other people built on it, and now it's a legit contender to thoroughly explain existence?
I can't make sense of your opinion there.
I'm not saying Christianity or the Jesus myth is an invalid religion to follow.
But why did you choose it if you don't feel any supernatural connection to it?
Have you tried other religions (like shopping for a coat? 😄)
Christians have much better historical evidence, that's it. (Esp. sane people around the death of Jesus, willing to die for empirical claims.) Almost nobody appreciates how puzzling that is. As I suggest at the end of A. Nothing like it in other religions, afaik.
And yes, it's really hard to explain that away as just invented stories. Go to https://beliefmap.org and search there "new testament". Too many apparently undesigned coincidences btw the texts, while no extant rival versions from those times. I recommend https://www.amazon.com/Testimonies-Truth-Why-Trust-Gospels-ebook/dp/B0CW1FJHH5/ as an intro, by a very fine Bayesian philosopher. I met her and her husband once. Also corresponded with them for years, raising various objections.
I am still suspicious and must take an even deeper look, as I say above, but common objections are utterly uninformed.
I have looked into and tried other worldviews, yes.
I am agnostic as of now.
When you say "empirical" do you mean "can be read about in independent books" or do you mean fossil records and astronomical events that can be calculated?
Also, could you give 2 or 3 examples of those? I'm curious!
Neither.
I mean that in the context: "I met resurrected Jesus yesterday," and the like. Claims about what you experienced.
Feed (1) https://appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/mcgrew-timothy-and-lydia-the-argument-from-miracles-a-cumulative-case-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-of-nazareth1.pdf and (2) https://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-resurrection-independence-and.html and (3) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/ into NotebookLM AI, and interrogate it.
I see I see... Thanks for the instructions.
All in all it's certainly a fact that there is a "real" religion in the present day, and it's origin story is deeply tied to it's initial followers and one mythological man. That's a true fact.
Given the real and true existence of this religion today we can also assume that it's early followers were real as well. It's kind of irrefutable. The founders of the religion must have existed.
But because the founders of a religion really existed doesn't mean their myths or teachings are real or true - even if the myths and teachings have value.
It's also impressive how dominant this particular religion has become.
And how compelled these founders and later the missionaries have been when it comes to the spread of this religion...
Monks literally went to the end of the known world to "save people from eternal damnation" whilst enslaving the very people they were trying to save. Treating the natives horribly and bringing death and suffering upon them.
It is incredible that this happened. All fueled by the superstition into something supernatural... Some version of a myth that the founders have started to tell back in the 1st century.
Sure, the argument in those 3 texts I recommended is altogether different.
---
Btw, the gist of my article is view B, not A.
Also, Mike Huemer just published this (now paywalled); I probably provoked him to do it.
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/reincarnation-and-suicide