A Philosophical Inquiry Into Evolution
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2024
- Music used:
Elysian Dreams - Joshua Kyan Aalampour
• Elysian Dreams | Joshu...
Instagram: / joshuaaalampour
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/7A3Ef...
TikTok: / joshuaaalampour
My website (sheet music): www.joshuakyan.com/
Hello, I am currently biology undergraduate student at TAMU. Concerning your question, there are multiple flaws, such as:
- Evolution is not natural selection
- Evolution does not have an end goal
- Evolution does not make species "better"
To discuss the first point, there are multiple mechanisms to evolution that influences allele frequencies. These mechanisms include gene flow, gene mutation, genetic drift, non random mating, and natural selection. Each mechanism has impact on what traits are expressed by a population. Some of which are not selected for by external pressures, like genetic drift. In genetic drift, a gene pool is small enough that specific alleles can increase in frequency. An example would the founder effect with Ellis-van Crevald syndrome for the Amish. Of the original 200 Amish founders, one had the disorder. Over the centuries as the Amish stayed isolated from the general population, the allele frequency for the disorder has increased and become more prevalent in Amish populations, even though there is no natural advantage of the disorder. There are ultimately various factors that influence the evolution of a species, some with selective pressures and some without.
To discuss the second point, evolution does not have a end goal in mind, rather its trial and error in it's respective environment. Species alive now are not more complex or superior than species in millions to billions year ago. Different environments and conditions have different selective pressures. Evolution is just a phenomenon that exist and there is no ultimate purpose or end goal.
To discuss the third point, evolution does not make a species more "better." Take the peppered moth case as example, before industrial smug darken local trees in Manchester. The allele frequency for a peppered appearance (white coat with some black) was much higher compared to a solid black appearance in order to provide camflouge among trees, decreasing the odds of being eaten by predators. However, high industrialization darken the colouration of the tree, which switched the favorability of the moth appearance. Black moth thrived, increasing that specific allele frequency, as the peppered appearance decreased due to increased predation as coat could not camflouge. This again reversed once more when Manchester began cleaning its city and reducing its smug. One trait was not superior over the other, but rather, different traits provided increased survivability in order to thrive and reproduce in its given environment, which influences the allele frequencies.
Evolution is the byproduct of large random changes with selective pressures. Evolution is the outcome, not the driver. There is no end goal or selection toward "immortality," it just is. I hoped this helps, and if you have any additional questions feel free to ask. Also, I would to say, thank you for your musical works. They are well composed and beautiful to the ear.
I second this very well written answere. Evolution and natural selection are fully natural and unthinking mechanisms. That is why some random phenomenons and seemingly stupid "designs" can be seen, even in humans. Such flaws in biology are for exemple : the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which plays a vital role in our ability to speak and swallow. It feeds instructions from the brain to the muscles of the voice box, or larynx, below the vocal cords. Theoretically, the trip should be a quick one. But during fetal development, the RLN gets entwined in a tiny lump of tissue in the neck, which descends to become blood vessels near the heart. That drop causes the nerve to loop around the aorta before traveling back up the larynx.
Now, lets not confuse evolution and Abiogenesis. Evolution being the speciation of species due to random mutation in alleles frequencies and natural selection, while abiogenesis is the appearance of the first life forms from inorganic matter.
Now, I'm not a biologist myself, so, I'm not going to go to deep in these domains, and let more knowledgeable people do so.
BUT, on my side, I'm a physicist, so, dear Joshua, if you ever have a question regarding astrophysics or physics in general, as well as some cosmology, I'd gladly answer.
Who asked?
@@user-yp9wp4td4l well, Joshua did
@@user-yp9wp4td4l well, Joshua did
@@user-yp9wp4td4lwell, Joshua did
Keep on making videos like this they’re very interesting and thought provoking
I was raised Christian and, like you, I struggled with my faith. I never really understood why heaven was good and why it was good forever because psychologically if you’re always happy, you’re never happy. I think if there’s any eternal life after death, regardless of religion or type, would eventually turn to nihilism. I could never wrap my head around a possibility of that not happening (though feel free to offer other points of view or ideas in the replies). As to the natural selection question posed, I think it’s as simple as natural selection doesn’t make conscious decisions. Whatever manages to survive, survives, and that’s what goes on to be multiplied. At the core of raw human nature the goal is to survive, and the people best fit for that did survive. Now that civilization is, well, civilized and most people have access to modern medicine, we aren’t really affected by that natural selection unless you’re referring to certain common traits. Natural selection effects us just like time does, it has a deep effect on us whether we know it or not, but the name just represents a giant concept that doesn’t really care about us (in my opinion). This perspective is coming from someone that doesn’t understand the concept of faith, and, therefore, struggles to have one. I am not religious and I do not believe in an eternal afterlife, I think that would be absolute torture, but you don’t have to agree.
I definitely think eternal life in Heaven after death would eventually result in nihilism, if not for the fact that we would be with God, in His Presence, for that eternity. On Earth, we have an imperfect mind, with imperfect thought patterns and lots of flaws, and one of them is short attention spans. So, we get bored eventually and strive to change our life every once in awhile. However, when we get to Heaven (most likely after going through purgatory) our minds are cleansed of sin, as well as perfected. This means that we no longer have wandering or intrusive thoughts, we don’t get bored, and we don’t yearn to do anything other than glorify God forever. This probably sounds crazy, that we can be completely satisfied with simply praising God for the rest of eternity, but when you think about it, that’s ultimately our whole role as God’s creations. We were made out of God’s love, and we all are ordered towards Heaven, to be with Him in perfect love, which consists of glorifying Him. We could not possibly get bored of doing the one thing we were made to do, when we do it perfectly with perfect minds. God wishes us to freely choose Him on Earth, and it’s so difficult to because of original sin and concupiscence, but it is possible, and once we are purged from that concupiscence in purgatory, we have a sin-free, perfect life in Heaven with our Creator :). I truly hope you find that Faith that’s been evading you, because it does take a bit of it to fully believe this. But it is so worth it. I would recommend reading some saints’ stories about their visions of Heaven. They’re profound. They also have terrifying visions of Hell, which is interesting. God bless ❤️
Imo theres probably a "New Game" button that you could just press after you get bored or you can set it on a timer for a few years to make it inevitable
You know, I used to actually have this outlook and can now say in full confidence that Jesus Christ saved my life. Now before I go on some religious tangent that automatically shuts down any semblance of logical and coherent discussion, there is something to be said. That question used to keep me from God- “why would I want eternal life? Wouldn’t it be terrible?” Or on the opposite end- “why wouldn’t I want to cut to the chase?” But my answer would be this. Why does God have to fall within the boundaries of reality? If he created this world and existence, then why is it that he could do away with the natural processes of the human brain? Will heaven even contain a natural brain? Or would it not just be the experience of the complete love of God filling you completely? There’s no other way to explain this feeling than to experience the Holy Spirit. Everyone I speak to in the church (who is ACTUALLY a Christian) speaks to this. Nothing can surpass the complete love of God, and it would not be bound by mans physiology.
Energy seen and not seen
In a touch...
Also silence the same
Following each other
Compose a piece
That is life...
There is no God
But us
Gives the song
That is love
Thanks for your evolution :)
Though many can argue that living for eternity would be dull, I don't believe we can say for sure as no one has lived nearly long enough to make that claim for themself. (This is assuming aging stops at a certain point & the sun exploding wouldn't be relevant).
I think it could actually be quite awesome. For one, you avoid death. You also get to meet & learn from more people than possible in a normal lifetime. You have all the time to travel, accomplish dreams &/or find new dreams. Living through the centuries grants you the opportunity to witness technological & cultural advancements. There's always more to discover. A character named Hob Gadling explores this concept further in The Sandman series by Neil Gaiman.
the life in general is so confuse
Yeah
"Natural selection" is not some "force", but a name assigned to an emergent process, just like orbits are not actual lines in the sky, but an imaginary description of observed phenomena.
Faster cheetas eat more gazelles, and faster gazelles don't get eaten. Thus, natural selection is simply a matter of survival and reproduction of more well-adjusted organisms, who have an advantage in the competition for resources by the merit of being not dead. It has no will, no goal, and it cannot have any, since it is has no agency at all
Creia no que te traga alegrias e satisfações, mesmo que passe apenas de ilusão, pois o tempo passa em um sopro....❤
Indeed, immortality can be overwhelming, and I agree that I would not enjoy an endless life, but it would be nice if I could choose the day I die with an immortal life.
As an atheist, I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic. Perhaps, the concept of heaven/hell only states that it grants immortal life in eternal happiness/pain because it is a human-made concept, and because it was a popular desire back then to wish for an immortal life, since belief in an afterlife can provide reassurance in the face of mortality and offer a sense of purpose and meaning in life as well. It was also often believed that gods or supernatural beings are immortal, so it's easy to assess the fact that immortality was considered to be superior.
Natural selection does not have preferences. Living things with certain traits that enhance survival and reproduction tend to become more common over time because individuals with those traits are more likely to pass them on to the next generation, not because of any inherent value placed on preserving life itself. There might have been a past where some species rarely reproduced, and therefore went extinct. Nature uses a trial and error method to dictate how to evolve, so if a creature with wings survived better than those without, then it would be likely that only the creature with wings was left in the end.
I also want to point out that belief in God is influenced by various factors such as cultural, social, psychological, and historical contexts. I'd like to propose that it all stemmed from the lack of reason and rationality to explain why things occur-such as how lightning was believed to be God's wrath. Humans have a tendency to name and interpret things in a certain way, even if it isn't true or logical. It's comfortable to 'understand' things and interpret them in your own way. This tendency is also why fears arise toward the unknown. Therefore, religions developed, providing justification for unexplainable phenomena or the lack of scientific evidence.
JESUS loves you, beloved atheist.
@@naoedouard4422 It's your choice to hold religious beliefs, but I'd appreciate it if you don't impose them on others, especially when they identify as atheists.
Mostly concerned with your last paragraph:
Yes, belief in God is influenced by many factors. It doesn’t mean one or any of those factors actually should be an influence.
Saying that belief in God stems from a lack of rationality and reason (in order to explain things) is to say that humans are more rational or logical today. What I believe you are trying to suggest is that belief spawns from a lack of knowledge, not reason. We have built up our collective knowledge over time from the same reason and rationality we had 2000 years ago. Reason hasn’t changed. Only our body of knowledge at our disposal has.
That is important because it forces the realization of two things;
-humans as individuals are not inherently better now than they were 2000 years ago (only minimally have we actually biologically improved if at all).
-belief in God can’t be dismissed as spawned from a lack of reason or logic. It could be suggested as a lack of knowledge.
And where a lack of Knowledge is concerned:
-what we call knowledge, as a body of information, is a measurement; you were measuring it in implying there was once less of it. And you are suggesting that the knowledge we have now is substantially better than that which we had before. And while it is objectively more than that which we had 2000 years ago, you can not say that it is substantially more. In order to suggest that our knowledge now has substantial value, you must know the limit of knowledge itself. And for all we know, there is no limit to what there is to know. Numbers certainly seem to suggest that.
And so to say that religion was born from a lack of knowledge is to say that you do not lack knowledge. And I can tell you with full confidence that you very much so do lack knowledge.
Following the perspective that Religion was a human development to explain things we didn’t know, I might point out that there will always be things we don’t know, and that in that sense there would always be a place for religion. Of course, I am not of the opinion that Religion exists to relax man’s insecurities. Although, it has been used that way. And it does do a good job of it.
Somehow, you have fooled yourself into thinking it is better to not find answers for life’s big questions. And that, to me, seems like true fear of the unknown. Just simply dismissing it. Ignoring it.
It’s so interesting to me to hear why people have certain beliefs, what drives them. And I also find it interesting when it even challenges my own series of faith. Your firmness in atheism comes from your desire for logic, even the reason as to why religion itself might exist. This is where you and I greatly differ, and this is where I must say that I in no means want to disrespect you, but to talk as civilized as I can be about your ideas. Science is defined as adding clarity to the illogical by examining, analyzing, and determining it in order to make it LOGICAL. Therefore, anything proclaimed as mystic is, not only defied, but is also rationalized. Science and theology can both come to the consensus that everything exists for it has a reason to exist, yet theology believes there is an outcome to existing, immortality, while science contradicts and says there is only reason. Perhaps I would have been, naturally, atheistic if I hadn’t analyzed the following query: why do humans, why does everything including plants and animals, exist if they are not rewarded anything but death? Science can only say that things must work together to live, but what exactly are they to achieve by this? In order to live, we must drink, eat, child-rear, etc. so that our species may continue on. Yet what would be the point of doing all of this if it is purposeless? Humans need motivation to do this, and the concept of existentialism supports this by saying humans make their own purpose in order to exist. Yet, both science and existentialism neglect the major idea: that every biological organism is working sufficiently hard to ensure they live… live for what? This intuition is illogical and I know one day that science will attempt to rationalize it when it becomes popular, yet it will always be evident that there has to be something spiritual that manipulates all beings and things to exist so that they may have an outcome. And this is why heaven and hell is more specifically prominent in understanding the truth of spirituality. For if we all went to heaven in the end, we wouldn’t need to exist, for there would be nothing to learn from in order to get to heaven, we all would ultimately, no matter what, go to heaven. In fact, in Genesis, this is how it was supposed to be. Everything was immortal, living orderly by God, as he commanded it to be. But when the apple was eaten, there was defiance, and suddenly hell existed, and suddenly mortality was condemned to every being on earth. So it is through existing, that our life on earth is dedicated, ultimately, to knowing God and believing in Him, henceforth creating purpose in living, so that we may go to heaven, and not hell. For if we went to hell all our life on earth would essentially be meaningless, but in heaven it wouldn’t. The limitations of believing as an atheist is that you cannot believe other things if it is illogical. That you cannot believe that you can be happy as an immortal for there is no purpose, and nothing to rationalize what purpose is in heaven. That is precisely what hell is. It is purposeless, that is why it is damnation; death. But heaven has purpose, and we HAVE to rely on intuition rather than logic to believe that we will be happy there. That is why I say atheism limits so much, because those who follow in pursuit of atheism will not believe nor do things if it is not logical, and I believe that mysteries can be incredibly frustrating for atheists to solve. Theology, more specifically Christianity in this case, are more inclined to have more freedom, as they can collectively agree that it is okay to believe the illogical exists, and through intuition we can still trust it, that we don’t even need logic to believe.
I can go much more in-depth, but I have work to do haha, so I will leave it at here. I have written a dialogue arguing for the existence of a Christian God, and I am not quite done finalizing it, yet, but perhaps one day I might show it to you.
Oh, yes, and one thing I would like to add is that you say religion attempts to rationalize ideas in an incoherent and illogical perspective. But, in the same way, science does this, too but WITH logic. I suppose the question is: why would I choose Christianity over atheism when both attempt to rationalize the imponderabilia of all things? I will put it most simply: science says that all things must be logical, but all things are not logical, and Christianity says that all things are not going to be logical, for there is something that exists out of time, matter, and space. For proof: atoms. You can go as small as you can to u sweat and why something moves or works, and you get to atoms, but how can atoms move on itself? Well, then there are sub-particles, and from sub-particles come quarks, and so in so forth. It’s infinite! Yet, eventually, there is a mysterious force that causes all things to live and move, and it controls everything, not just humans, but animals and plants, too. Let’s say it the Bible was never written, yet humans would STILL be able to understand that there is a mysterious force under all things. Yet because the Bible exists, and because it acknowledges the human thought process ever so immaculately that it becomes, eventually, illogical, there is proof that it has spoken more about rationalizing the human mind and existence than science has, and that it is true. Think of this: atoms are the building block of all things, God says He is everything. There is a relation between this. The more science attempts to deny the existence of God, it only proves it, instead.
This is a really interesting question. What makes a thing valuable? It a finite or infinite thing more valuable? Is it its uniqueness or its finitude which gives it value?
Say that you had a spoon. (Silly analogy) what would be more valuable? A spoon that broke down after four years, or a spoon that never broke down? In my mind the spoon that never broke down would be more valuable. Is this because it is infinite in the face of infinity? Now say that there was a really special spoon made out of precious materials. Nothing like it, but the spoon would self destruct in forty years. What sooon would be more valuable? The spoon that had infinite use, or the spoon that was more precious?
Over the span of infinity, more people would find value in the infinite spoon, but the other one is more unique and finite.
On another note, the point earlier on how something being unique and finite is why their valuable does seem abysmal in the face of evolution and a finite life.
I feel like from that worldview, the better things got for humanity, the more meaningless it would be , the shorter your life, the more meaningful. This doesn’t make it any more or less true, it’s just kind sad.
This is coming from a Christian who believes in evolution. Also thank you for making really interesting and complex classical music and philosophy!
As a person somwhat intereste din philosophy, I think you should believe whatever makes you happy, regardless of science or truth or religion. To be quite frank, its not like its going to be the end of the world if you believe something thay isnt true; humans have been doing thag for thousands of years, and as far as I can tell they(humanity) seem to be farely well off. Sure, what you believe may not be true or correct, but if it's something valuable to believe in, then, by all means, believe it. Also, if youre actually interested in these topics, I would reccomend reading much more HEAVILY into some philosophy.
God is the source of life and knowing Him is the meaning of life. So if eternal life is eternity with God and God gives meaning means that you live with meaning for eternity.
You should read Hegel . I am from Algeria and I am a pianist and philosopher amateur . I read Shaopenhaur ,Kant ,Nieztch ...ect . why don't we have place for art in my country tell me ?! If you answer I'll developpe . I hope I'll one day get an official invitation from you .
I think this is an interesting idea. Where I would push back is that I don't think what is scarce is what is valuable. i think that is a human made relationship built from capitalism and marketing. Nature is a difficult topic to discuss philisophically because Nature can mean plants, animals, people, ecosystems, the earth, or can be interpreted literally as the nature of all things. There are many interesting ways to look at nature and it's trajectory if you assume nature's intentions living through us and everything we do and create. We may be back-engineering the greatest form of intelligence as we build AI and we build a consciousness that is able to simulate universes as complex as the one we inhabit. You can also look at it like there is no purpose things just are the way they are as the manifestation of infinite complexity and interconnection. Cool video, thanks.
Hmmm, you caught my attention. I will try to answer and share my perspective.
1. “Why does natural selection act in the way that it does?” Or in a general sense of why choose life and preservation? I don’t think natural selection “chooses” in a way that an agent chooses. Rather, nature enforces environments, mindlessly, to all things in the environment. Those that don’t meet the requirements to live in such the environment they’re in are likely to cease to live. Those that don’t want to live, or lack the means to live are already doing so. This also means I don’t believe in the hierarchy of natural selection. There’s no agent to do so, and we could just as easily say that “why does natural selection have a hierarchy of death and endangerment?” Rather, the hierarchy is fictitious to conceptualize the world.
2. I don’t think scarcity of a thing makes things valuable, objectively speaking. I will say that there’s many philosophical inquires of value that could be explored. Counterexamples would include near endless supply of objects with value. Could be diamonds, water, air, food, but I would choose an example based on prior experience. So maybe you could find a counterexample yourself.
You could frame value with size, consequences, actions, god, price, etc. In my case, I’m nihilistic on value.
Huge fan of your compositions. I would want to express this along with some perspective.
Hello I'm just a normal guy.
Evolution is more like, summary of many things;
Natural Selection
Mutation (changes that give you more advantages or kill you randomly)
Adaptations
Natural selection is just a basic concept for any being. If you survive from the conditions you're in, you will reproduce, and your kind will stay alive and adapt more to the area while others are killed by conditions. Polar bears are white because brown ones starved because of how visible they were in Arctic.
Mutations place in evolution is, lets say a monkey borns with 4 arms (just to explain simply, they are more like bigger organs or a body part that didn't grow), if it helps surviving in the forest while normal apes being hunted easily, that monkey will reproduce and in few generations, most monkeys will have 4 arms.
Adaptations happen when conditions aren't strong enough to kill the animal, but force it to change some features. Us humans started to eat meat, so our appendix shrinked, our chin got smaller and brain size is skyrocketed. Thats why we have huge problems about wisdom teeth because we don't have any room on our chin.
These are the most basic stuff about evolution from a guy on RUclips comments who loves your work. Have a great day !
Your argument of life being precious because it will end is the logic of humans. We are finite beings, and I know eventually I will not be finite and will be in a place of eternity. Even knowing this there are some things I don't understand. That is because I am human. I have only lived this human life, and there is a limit to our human comprehension. When I die and look back at my human self, I will then understand how limited I was. That is from the outside looking back. Until then, I will only understand with human understanding. I also think it's funny you think heaven and eternity will be depressing. This world you enjoy so much is made by the same GOD. If He wants to create an enjoyable place for you, then it will be enjoyable. He made us to enjoy the wonders of this world, and He can do it again in an eternal fashion.
I believe the biggest issue here is that we as humans are clearly romanticizing life in a way because it is finite. The end of something can mean something beautiful and in that way give meaning and value to a thing. But think about this, do you think a wild animal would stop to take the time to think about such things? No, because their only concern is for survival as it is in their biological programming. So why do human lives and therefore evolution and survival of the fittest have to have a meaning? Why not just take it for what it is? The biological need for an organism to survive. Nothing more. Even if we lived 1000 years we would still have the same biological programming at our core. Just it would take longer for generations to die out. I don't think their is a reason for why evolution works the way it does other than to promote survival and the spreading of a specific species or subset of people.
I like that you have an open mind and I think how you think that gives meaning is a good way to look at the world.
I would like to say, however, even if you come up with a counterargument to your original evolution argument, that it is presuming that it has an intrinsic motive, because you have still missed one important thing about evolution and what it is. Evolution itself is not intelligent, it has no mind or will. Evolution and natural selection come together through work. Evolution is the (random) mutations of a species over time and generations, and natural selection is, simply put, "what survives, survives and what doesn't, doesn't", which just means that the members of the species that survive reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation, and those, those who don't make it don't get to do it. This is why evolution usually produces organisms oriented towards longevity and survival, but not always.
Maybe I'm just saying that Evolution itself has no intelligence, it doesn't choose what happens, everything that goes into evolution and natural selection is practically random.
Otherwise, I'm also not trying to tell you not to believe in a devinity, I fully support anyone who wants to believe or does, I see belief as a positive, but this is how we scientifically believe how evolution works, and there are a lot of evidens to this.
Anyway I wish you the best of luck on your journey.
OH MY GOODNESS!!! I love to talk about this subject!! I am a devout Servant of God and I have written most considerably about existentialism and nihilism. I use much more simplistic terms, but it greatly corresponds with your own queries of scientific approach. Take the understanding that both science and theology believe all things exist for there is a REASON to exist, then analyze how theology actually believes there is an outcome to existing, in other words afterlife, in which science contradicts this and says there is no immortality. But how, therefore, can people exist when there is no reward? How can everything, plants, animals, humans, work so cohesively together to ensure we live, undergoing turmoil to remain confident that we will live, when death is the ultimate conclusion of all? Existentialism argues that the motivation to living comes from our ability to make our own purpose, but this is only an INDIVIDUAL purpose, not a universal purpose. For what does it matter that I shall enjoy living because living allows me to endure my passions when I will die in the end? What was the point of being created when everything will die in the end? Through nihilism, it is aimless, but still, everything works so terribly hard to live, and so terribly hard to ensure others live, too. There must be a general, greater purpose than the one we are presented with. We are not among this earth to simply exist, but to live and to learn so that when the afterlife comes we are granted the best of it. Here is the thing: DEATH is what is truly meaningless, not life, for it is death where all of our hard work in life has caused it all to go to waste, to be of no meaning. But life is meaningFUL, and more specifically ETERNAL life, for it implies that the work we have done on earth has not gone to waste, that we get to live in serenity and in peace. Here is another thing to note: science believes that there is a logical reason obtained only by the human mind as to why something occurs and exists, when they neglect one particularly important thing: that there was absolutely no reason for the big bang to occur at all. You might say the big bang occurred as ti make planets, and planets to make a habitat for plants, and plants to feed animals and etc., but if all things will die in the end of things, then it will all be meaningless, for it would be death. But if there is an outcome, and afterlife, which only God testifies there is, then therefore there is meaning, for it is life BEYOND death, which is meaningless. The big bang also can never be precisely explained logically and rationally as to how it happened, there IS no logic behind it, even though logic practically defines science. As for God, God exists out of space, matter, and time, and is therefore deemed as illogical, and so it is much more reasonable to say that God is the Truth rather than the theory of the big bang . Therefore if God exists, then His Word exists, and if His Word exists, then all that He proclaims about immortality is true, and it is evident as I have already explained previously. God is characterized as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The way, that if we may follow through His Way, we may find Truth, what is real, against all logic of humans. And if we find His Truth, we find Life, not this finite life on earth, but this eternal life, LIFE: with meaning and purpose.
I have written a fictional dialogue between two men. One questions, while the other answers, and it goes much more in depth. I encourage you to read Ecclesiastes from in the Bible and Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. Perhaps you will learn a lot.
You should read The Bhagavad Gita 🙌🏼😇 it’ll answer your questions
I think you should stick to pushing keys piano boi
This comment is so rude. Even if someone isn't good at doing something, these kind of comments may affect the person's self confidence and there are more polite ways to correct someone's wrongdoings like trying to explain what the flaws are in their thoughts and leading them to the right way.
@@rhenia8951 Completely agree with you.
Learn islam
Definitely not! Horrible ideology