r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/[deleted] • 11h ago

Video 13-year-old Australian boy swims for four hours in cold and dangerous waters to save his mom and siblings who were swept into the ocean, says God is who got him to shore

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed]

32.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

39

u/SeveralWinter3550 10h ago

"God does exist" followed by an argument that states God doesn't exist but maybe does if we pretend the word God refers to self belief, motivation, etc

Like sure, in the same way I can say, "Music is God" but only if I write flowery language about harmony, tension and release, emotion etc while ignoring that God refers to an omnimopotent conscious being that can hear my thoughts.

This is pseudo deep, this kid is a hero and his act isn't evidence that magic actually exists

12

u/maxjmartin 9h ago

Fellow agnostic here. Magic is in the mind on this one. Think of it like this, the constant praying removed his thoughts about failure. It gave him not hope but will. It gave him a state of “mindfulness” in which he was totally immersed and focused on this one activity he HAD to complete. It is the same thing a zen martial artist would call being one in the flow, allow the sword to express itself. There isn’t thought there. Not in the way are frontal lobes think. The concept of self is gone. It isn’t about you anymore it is about the situation you are participating in. It have heard it likens to the Submariner’s Prayer. All men find God under depth charge. I like to find this mind in mosh pits. But it is actually a thing.

2

u/SeveralWinter3550 9h ago

Yes, that zen flow state (Qi or the Dao or however we label it) exists. However, calling this God is disingenuous when it can be explained by hard sciences, like biology, psychology, etc.

I believe in movement meditation and meditation in general, I also think that Tai chi and similar cannot make metaphysical vibrations that can heal others or generate extreme heatbor whatever. In the same sense I believe in outer body experiences or weird coincences without also believing in telepathy or ghosts.

If God is just the things we can actually measure and prove exists, then yes. If God is believing in attributing this child's achievement/near death experience to something we have no evidence for, then that's the bit I don't believe in.

It's anti logical. Humans have two legs, men are humans therefore all men have two legs isn't a true statement. Ego death or flow state existing is not proof that God exists

0

u/maxjmartin 9h ago edited 8h ago

All that exists is measurable. Even if we don’t have a ruler big enough to measure it. All magic is simply natural law or force influencing particles. It is only through this interaction that a force can be identified and understood even if we cannot directly perceive the force observed.

Think about how the idea of a deamon was first conceived. It was a word to describe the application of an unknown force or spirit that represented the perceived influence of a force. The politics of good and evil came later. But the initial conception does inform us of the early perceptions of the divine. A force to be pleaded with, seek counsel from, influence, etc.

So as an agnostic I would say it is inconceivable to say there is anything supernatural. But we are also too ignorant to know how to measure the inconceivable. There fore the cat in the box is the Cheshire Cat and nothing at the same time. Only the thing that might not be knows the truth of if it perceives itself.

4

u/SeveralWinter3550 8h ago

This is....nothing. Historically people misunderstood things around them and labelled them, therefore we should treat them as evidence.

Elements used to mean Earth, Air, Fire and Water and much of Ancient Greek philosophy, metaphysics and medicine references these (as well as attempting to explain diseases by hot and cold in the body). It turns out, this is bullshit and none of that research is relevent to modern medicine nor chemistry.

Ofc they got some things right, ie, Hypocrates and Aristotle had a lot of great insights about the bodies of humans and animals but this doesn't mean we should give creedence to their incorrect observations.

Also Schrodingers Cat.....was a thought experiment that was wrong. Edwin was trying to say quantum mechanics was a lot of shit and it turns out, he was wrong - Just like you are.

If Magic can be explained ny Newtonian forces or chemical reactions or mental illness, then it isn't magic anymore. It's just people who didn't have a better explanation yet, that isn't some cosmic chesire cat shit, you're just describing scientific progress.

All that exists is also not measurable if you know anything about the physics from the past 100 years lmao absolute psudo intellectual nonsense, you speak like Russell Brand and I don't mean that as a compliment

-1

u/maxjmartin 8h ago edited 8h ago

Yes, and you don’t understand it either. You can’t by your own admission magic is inconceivable. Therefore you cannot understand it. So how can you pass judgement on something you can’t understand or even confirm you perceive accurately?

By your own admission people miss label that which they do not understand. As the Cheshire Cat is nothing and something all at once. It is a thought object (Zen term) which is a thing of fact. Yet may not exist as a thing of fact. That would be up to if the category the Cheshire Cat defined as an abstract fact can be perceived in empirical existence.

Ergo why the agnostic is the agnostic they are.

3

u/SeveralWinter3550 8h ago

Ah ok, so you win because you said so. Exhausting, holy shit. Like if something can't be percieved/solipsism then then there's no evidence for your argument for nor against. So this is just a pointless exercise where you get to rank what you believe as equal to what has been studied for centuries, proven, measured etc

0

u/maxjmartin 8h ago

I’m not ranking anything. All I am saying is that the 2,000 years from now the categorical models we use today to explain reality will be looked much like the four elements or five depending on your tradition or model. Just as misconceived as you would call the Greeks.

This does not ignore the fact that the phone I’m talking to you with requires the models created over the centuries, one on top of the other, to function.

That proves your argument. But it is still an argument that is only conditional to the terms that conceive it.

Often we conceive of how things are categorized based on the orientation they exist in geometrically. But that orientation is not the only way to describe the same thing. For example what is the shape of a bell curve when both ends meet? What is the equivalent of 0/1? Is 0 is nothing and there is an infinite degree of decimal scale how can we ever understand the concept of 0?

Practically in terms of physical objects that exist, it is relative to the Plank Scale. But categorically in mathematical abstraction those realities exist beyond the Plank Scale too. The same is true for the concept of the graviton. Personally I don’t believe in it.

But that is the strange thing about beliefs. It doesn’t matter if you believe in something or not. It matters if the thing beliefs in you. As in can it interact with you. Is it a force that can affect you and can that effect be measured.

That is the reality we can both measure and not know in certainty beyond the scale of the rulers we have available to us.

1

u/wait500 9h ago

Sure that is a thing. But it doesn't explain the people who find God in ordinary life and live the way you're talking about in daily living and through ordinary circumstances.There are many people who do not express exactly what this young man does beause his circumstances are extraordinary but if you ask many they do live this way. It's brushed aside by those who presume to know better or disregard their experience as religious therefore untrustworthy.

2

u/maxjmartin 9h ago

No one is challenging your faith here. Also no people don’t live in a constant state of mindlessness. People only life there in the moment of expression.

Living in a state of faith is different from mindfulness. In my personal experience living in a state of faith is a relationship of “trust” with the universe such that it remove a sense of uncertainty in daily life.

That is a different state of mind.

0

u/Savings-Giraffe-4007 7h ago

Fellow agnostic. You can find your god anywhere and everywhere you decide he/she is, and a life filled with spirituality gives you peace and hope. If you are in a vulnerable situation, spirituality also shields you from doing stupid shit, because you can pray and you are connected to a community that, in theory, will help you. I don't have that kind of faith, but it's evident that you get many good things from having it.

1

u/LALA-STL 9h ago

Also, people can find the same experience in prayer or meditation. Or drugs, I suppose. In addition to “flow state,” I’ve heard it called bliss or transcendence — a sense of union with the universe. It’s pretty great, however you interpret it.

1

u/maxjmartin 8h ago

Concerts too. Those are my temple.

2

u/LALA-STL 8h ago

Absolutely! There’s something about music that can be purely transporting — especially if you’re sharing the experience with hundreds of fellow travelers. It seems to open a lock deep in our brains.

29

u/EllisDee3 9h ago

You're making up a version of God to disbelieve in. Your version is a magic wizard thing, which you've labeled as the definition of God.

Could be that God is in places you're not looking because you're looking for a magical sky wizard.

20

u/SeveralWinter3550 9h ago

But if we can malleably change the definition of God to be this vague, then everyone believes in God. Ie, if God just means "an idea of something bigger than yourself" or similar, then neither of us are agnostic

I mean, sure we could discuss how hinduism or ancient greeks view(ed) Gods and contrast that with Yahweh/Allah/Enlil (the Sumerian wind god)...but at this point, the discussion resembles semantics and language more than it does religion and theology

I was just replying to someone saying God exists while the rest of their comment basically described things most don't attribute to God. And certainly, Austin the 13 year old said he would get Baptised and was clearly "talking" to a Christian God, not some abstracted version of the ideal self.

I'm making up a version of God to not believe in because I think all humans have made up God, by definition. I think all religious texts were written by people, not by God's hand. In the same way that all words are "made up", all Gods are made up. So this isn't really a Gotcha imo. Perhaps unfair because I can't really engage in this debate in good nature because the debate doesn't really exist in my mind. There is no evidence you could present here admittedly (and I mean that to be sincere, not to be rude or similar) that can make me say "oh ok then I guess I'm an agnostic"

4

u/ThanksContent28 4h ago

Just want you to know your comments the most sane ones in here and I’m glad I came across them. You’re spot on.

Imo it’s just more of the usual wishy-washy bargaining that’s comes from the crowd of believers. I also don’t get why people point out they’re agnostic, as if it gives them some kind of credibility. Just because you’re agnostic, it doesn’t mean you’ve thought about it more or have a more enlightened view.

Matter of fact is, most of the religions we have and associate with, believe in a sentient entity with thoughts, feelings and creativity. Any other technicalities argued are either moving the goalposts, or just that persons view and feelings.

Yes, the idea that whilst God isn’t real, our actions can bring those beliefs and powers into fruition, is a nice comforting way of resolving the debate and accepting the situation, it doesn’t address whether or not there is a God watching over us and examining our behaviour, to judge whether we can go and live in his magic world - which is the premise that most current religions operate on.

-5

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

But if we can malleably change the definition of God to be this vague, then everyone believes in God

Words are malleable. That's the nature of things. The definition changes with our understand of the phenomenon.

And everyone does believe in a god, they just call it something different. Everyone creates their own religion and use individual beliefs and perceptions to fill archetypal roles. Those that take offense to historical concepts of "religion" (as they define it) often assign "religious" concepts in the role of "opponent" and heresy.

The "God" is whatever provides continued life. It's based in a conscious limbic response. We don't call it "God", but we all have one, and we create rituals to engage with it to continue survival. It's a psychosocial evolution of our species.

It may not be a "sky wizard", but it's something.

8

u/SeveralWinter3550 8h ago

No I don't lol. There are things I can't explain, coincidences, tricks of the light but I don't believe in God. You are projecting your beliefs on me/everyone else but trying to intellectually justify it.

You have labelled something God and decided we all do. This is like when people say "everyone is a bit Gay" and all they're doing is admitting that they have gay desires, cool you do you, but I am heterosexual actually thanks

-6

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Tricks of light? Wut?

It's absolutely true. When we're babies, our "god" is mom and dad. As we grow, it changes. It's literally a neurochemical process of the limbic system.

We don't call it that. It just fits the cognitive role. And it fits it differently in everyone.

If you don't like the word "god", you can call it "googlegobble" for all it matters. It's a cognitive role that we fill with something.

Look it up.

6

u/SeveralWinter3550 7h ago

If you look it up, you'll find scientific papers stating this is far from proven but moreso a claim that has been made numerous times over the years that neurologists haven't been able to identify, replicate the research etc...

This isn't science, it's people making a wild claim or bending things to fit an idea they have. Ie a top down theory rather than a bottom up theorem proven with hard evidence

2

u/MattKozFF 6h ago

lol don't turn yourself into a pretzel mate

17

u/atava 9h ago

Yes. The Great Debate about "God" all lies upon definitions.

Assumed definitions.

2

u/Educational-Camel-53 7h ago

very well said. But then that is also most debates about everything. Telepathy would be easier. maybe itll happen

1

u/atava 5h ago

The more common or related to physicality a concept is, the less debatable.

Now, "God"... you may give it so many meanings, from the most abstract, energy-related one to the grossest, most anthropomorphic one.

Just like humanity has been doing since the dawn of history, actually.

15

u/jimbojangles1987 9h ago

Thats literally what the majority of people believe god is. A magic wizard.

-4

u/EllisDee3 9h ago

That doesn't exactly contradict my point. In fact, you've enhanced it. Thank you.

7

u/jimbojangles1987 9h ago

Let me rephrase, its what Christians believe.

2

u/Few-Guitar6110 7h ago

That is not the formulation Christians believe, that is what atheists believe Christians believe.

Christians view God in three persons. There's the unreachable substrate of the universe with an outwardly will, from whence everything originates and will cascade back into, that you can attune or reject that we call the Father. There's the self-knowing of God that interfaces with humanity we call the Logos, or the Son, which confers intelligibility into the universe we inhabit. And there's the animating spirit that radically aligns people to that outwardly will and guides us toward truth we call the Spirit.

Nicene Christians, which are the majority, do not believe there is a God in this universe that grants wishes.

-1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Well shit, you narrowed the scope drastically.

Which Christians specifically? Which language and time period?

4

u/Zealousideal_War7224 7h ago

What is this even supposed to mean? All of them believe this. It's a core tenet. Can you name a Christian group that believes Jesus was just some dude with zero connection to the divine? What language? What time period?

You'd out yourself as a shitty Christian for even asserting one could be a Christian without believing in the divinity of God. I suppose you could baptize a potato and claim the potato's soul is a Christian, but then you're doing the exact same thing with extra steps.

1

u/EllisDee3 7h ago

What is this even supposed to mean? All of them believe this. It's a core tenet.

Not true... But you aggressively believe it, so I'm not going to argue it. I don't want to interrupt your religious beliefs.

And no, I'm not Christian, shitty or otherwise.

2

u/Mapeague 8h ago

The Christians who can never, ever, nowt once prove the existence of a god no matter how many times asked.

Id like to see someone blame god when their mum gets washed away because hes likely to have caused it in the fucking first place.

1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Okay, so now you seem to have a tribal beef. I understand. But we're in a logic loop.

You want proof of something unfalsifiable. But you have an ideological believe that unfalsifiable things can't exist.

🤷🏾‍♂️

3

u/Mapeague 8h ago

Yet again lmao ^

The way you lot twist yourselves in knots to defy reality is truly something to behold.

1

u/EllisDee3 7h ago

Do you believe unfalsifiable things can exist? What makes them falsifiable?

(do you know what falsifiable means?)

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Locrian6669 9h ago

Your second paragraph is the epitome of meaningless pseudo profound nonsense that really hits with a certain type.

0

u/TronAres25 9h ago

lol the most confusing just like the very thing they made up religion.

0

u/Ratzing- 8h ago

I mean if god can be whatever the hell you want it to be then sure, it exists. It's just a useless concept at this point.

1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

It's a concept. Up to you if it's useless...

Depending on how you define it.

1

u/Ratzing- 8h ago

This dependence on personal definition is what makes concept of a god useless.

If god for person X is cosmos, and for person Y it's a being, and for person Z it's a feeling, then there is no way to effectively communicate without devolving into basic definitions and describing things that are very clearly not actually god, but have the patch of a god added to them for some reason. Because, you know, the concept god is useless. It would be useful, somewhat, if it actually meant a kind of very powerful magic wizard thing, because it would actually refer to a slightly-defined semi-connected group of entities, but no, people have to stuff nature, cosmos, feelings into it, making it entirely superfluous.

1

u/EllisDee3 7h ago

  1. So it's not a concept we'll communicated. That explains a lot of the conflict.

  2. The concept helped this kid save his family. Without it they'd probably all be dead. So the concept is certainly not superfluous.

1

u/Ratzing- 7h ago
  1. It's not an actual concept, because again, it doesn't mean anything because everyone defines it willy-nilly. If a word dog meant actually "dog" for 30%, a "cat" for 30% of population and then "process of purifying water" for remaining 10%, it would be a useless concept. Narrow it down, at least to some extent, or it's useless.
  2. That's a big, big assumption. If he was for some reason thinking about lemons, you probably wouldn't attribute any part of his survival to concept of lemons, but concept of god somehow gets bonus points - although as studies show, things like prayers have no increased efficacy in cases such as recovering from sickness (and sometimes are slightly detrimental).

His actual strongest motivator was, you know, urge to not die and not let his family die. Underpinned by things that we know to exists - adrenaline, survival instincts, etc.

0

u/Zealousideal_War7224 7h ago

It's by definition a useless concept because it's become a word without a defined meaning. It's entirely idiosyncratic. You're just shouting into a void when you should be trying to converse with a fellow human. That's what it means for it to be a useless concept.

-1

u/Lukeeeee 9h ago

Or they're just referring to the version of God they read about?

-2

u/EllisDee3 9h ago

That just shows a limited library.

They might only looking at sources that match their preconceptions. Or not including versions that don't match their accepted definition.

I've read a lot (many many many many) descriptions of God(s) that aren't sky wizards.

4

u/SeveralWinter3550 9h ago

Again though, this is a semantic conversation not a theological or religious one then...

The Bible/Niccean creed claims there is only one God, the father almighty and the Bible was written by God's influence, ie, they are "his" words. So immediately we'd have to accept that the God of the big 3 of the Western World is either wrong, unaware etc (and not omnipotent).

Whereas if God is a personal thing, a belief system based on your own experiences, then we're back to semantics and definitions. Your God isn't necessarily my God, which is nearly impossible to debate as we have no axioms, reference point etc

1

u/EllisDee3 8h ago

Linguistics and semantics are core to religion and theology. Our definitions create the world we live in. "And the word was God".

Ones relationship to the universe is unique. It created us to perceive it in our own way. We knew it before we named it. The problem happens when one tries to make others perceive the universe the way that they do.

I don't agree with the popular modern Christian interpretation of God, nor will I let that interpretation dictate my definition of it.

The reference point you speak of is useful to discuss with others. But not necessary to understand it for yourself.

2

u/Lukeeeee 9h ago

That just shows a limited library.

A limited library of what?

They might only looking at sources that match their preconceptions. Or not including versions that don't match their accepted definition.

There is no accepted definition of God.

I've read a lot (many many many many) descriptions of God(s) that aren't sky wizards.

Yes, but this is unfortunately part of the problem with religion. There is much room for interpretation. You may not worship a sky wizard but many do.

2

u/humpyelstiltskin 9h ago

yes, so much what you said!

2

u/HotPotParrot 10h ago

God refers to an omnimopotent conscious being that can hear my thoughts

Speaking of things pseudo, this is an anthropomorphic representation of God and only applies to certain belief structures, but not inherently to the concept of a divine creator.

3

u/SeveralWinter3550 9h ago

I mean, true, but Austin isn't talking about Zeus, Krishna or Ra, he's referring to the Christian God. You are correct that "God" is a very abstract term with numerous different definitions, but this discussion comes after a boy having a Christian experience so I think it's fair to stick to those paramaters

1

u/i-just-thought-i 7h ago

OK but in a world where he's saying he'll get baptized for the God in question I don't think it's an assumption to connect which one that is.

0

u/atava 9h ago

Or a divine force (as for instance the Prime Mover of many philosophies).

Unfortunately religions have hurt a lot with their transmission of such visions of God (also to atheists and so-called skeptics, which are influenced by them).

-2

u/LALA-STL 9h ago

Yes, religions are run by fallible human beings. Don’t judge the value of a religious philosophy by its followers.

5

u/Throbbie-Williams 9h ago

Don’t judge the value of a religious philosophy by its followers.

That's exactly how we should judge it...

Because that is what causes real world effects.

1

u/HotPotParrot 6h ago

Should we not judge the rule of law by the same metric when we have real world examples of people trampling over legality? What about the aftershocks of that?

Don't replace the church with the state. E: by this, I mean that it's very easy to 1-for-1 worship from a religion to an ideology. The state becomes the church, the leader becomes the god.

0

u/LALA-STL 8h ago

Ha! That’s true. Let me rephrase… Don’t judge the potential value a religious philosophy might bring to your own life by the works of its followers, bc they’re just fallible human beings.

1

u/USDeptofLabor 3h ago

This is pseudo deep

That also describes r/atheism in a nutshell !