Remy Hazen

Alpha student, Learning business, entrepreneurship & life skills, Documenting the journey

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Day 1/42
I go to Alpha, an AI school where we focus on learning business, entrepreneurship, and essential life skills through real-world experiences and our own failures.

Right now, we’re in a section called Bootcamp, where we’re learning about different workshops.
This workshop is about how to build and grow an audience of 1,000 true fans — and why that might be all you really need.

My classmates are going to tell you about Alpha’s technology and business model.

While I’ll be focusing on the part you can’t put in a pitch deck: the experiences, relationships, and moments from our school year.

My challenge for the next 42 days:
Build a real audience on X from scratch.
Right now, I have zero followers and no blueprint for what actually works.

I’m not buying followers or using fake growth hacks.
I want to build a real community of people who actually care about what I’m sharing.

The strategy: experiment, post a lot, fail fast, and share the raw data along the way the wins, the flops, and all the actual numbers.

Starting at zero today.
Let’s see what happens.

#@Kevin2Kelly #@Alphaschool

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

@Big_EG7 ai slope

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Day 10/42

Today at Alpha, I took a practice SAT.

What I liked about it wasn’t just getting a score—it gave me a clear picture of where I’m strong, where I’m lacking, and what I need to work on next.

It’s easy to say you want to improve. It’s harder to actually test yourself and face the areas where you’re not there yet.

Now I have a benchmark. Time to improve it.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Having consequences doesn’t mean you suddenly don’t have free will. If that were true, almost no meaningful choice in life would be free, because choices constantly have consequences.

And I think you’re mixing up not believing with God forcing you to reject Him. Christianity doesn’t say God punishes someone simply because they failed some cosmic guessing game. The claim is that God reveals Himself through creation, conscience, and ultimately Christ, while still leaving enough freedom that belief isn’t forced.

Now, if your argument is that someone can genuinely seek truth, have no good reason to believe God exists, and then be eternally punished purely for that intellectual mistake, that’s a much stronger question. But that isn’t the same as proving there’s no free will.

God giving us a choice doesn’t mean He has to make both outcomes identical. If choosing separation from God had exactly the same outcome as choosing God, then the choice itself wouldn’t mean much.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

@CoenConnerAHS ai slope be original

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

No, God created free will, and free will means there is a real choice.

Saying God created the universe doesn’t automatically mean every decision inside it is something He forced us to make. If God created beings capable of choosing good or evil, then our choices are actually ours.

And sin isn’t some random rule God invented just to trap us. It’s choosing what goes against the good things like hatred, cruelty, dishonesty, and selfishness. Forgiveness exists because we freely make those choices and still have the opportunity to turn back.

So I don’t see it as God creating a “twisted game.” I see it as God giving us genuine freedom, even knowing we might misuse it, and still offering us forgiveness when we do.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Christians aren’t supposed to recreate ancient Israel and enforce every Old Testament civil law today. A lot of those laws were specifically for Israel under the Old Covenant.

And calling someone “insane” for seriously following the New Testament seems pretty extreme. Loving your enemies, forgiving people, helping the poor, being humble, controlling your anger, and treating people with compassion aren’t exactly signs of insanity.

If there’s a specific teaching you think is wrong, criticize that teaching. But just calling Old Testament followers criminals and New Testament followers insane doesn’t really prove anything.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Repeating “AI must be globally regulated” eight times doesn’t make the case stronger.

The real questions are: regulated by whom, under what rules, enforced how, and with what safeguards against governments abusing that power?

AI absolutely presents risks worth addressing, but “global regulation” isn’t a solution by itself—it’s a slogan until you explain what the regulation actually looks like.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

God isn’t sitting there looking for reasons to punish us. He gives us a choice, and we still choose sin and evil every day.

God offers forgiveness, mercy, and reconciliation through Christ. He doesn’t force anyone to love Him or accept that forgiveness.

So the issue isn’t “a loving Father tortures His children for making one mistake.” It’s that we continually choose sin, and God still offers us a way back to Him. If someone continually rejects God and that reconciliation, that choice has consequences.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

I understand that you’re angry with God for your own reasons, and I’m not going to pretend suffering is an easy subject. But Christianity teaches that God loves us even through suffering, and that we’re called to respond with forgiveness, patience, and love not https://t.co/tjRbzceFi8 the “space daddy,” “adorable,” and other small insults really don’t affect me. You’re free to disagree with me, but I’d rather discuss the actual argument than trade insults.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

First, a few grammar issues: “Don’t do that, HELL” is a sentence fragment, “the guy that” should be “the guy who,” and the usual expression is “icing on the cake,” not “frosting on a cake.”

Now to your actual argument: God didn’t “give your son leukemia” in the sense you’re claiming. You’re assuming that because God allows suffering in a fallen world, He must personally cause every disease and death. Those are two very different claims.

And if someone dies and enters Heaven, where there is no disease, suffering, or death, how is remaining on Earth in terrible pain automatically the better outcome? From the Christian perspective, death is not the end of that person’s existence. Being with God, completely free from pain, is ultimately better than suffering indefinitely on Earth.

You can still ask why God allows suffering in the first place that’s a legitimate philosophical question. But “God gave him cancer because He wants worship” doesn’t actually establish that argument.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Calling me slow doesn’t strengthen your argument. Your analogy assumes everything you’re supposed to prove: that life is merely a game, the rules are rigged, people are innocent victims with no meaningful choices, and Hell is arbitrary torture for losing.

Christianity teaches the exact opposite humanity freely does real harm, God offers forgiveness rather than demanding moral perfection, and God entered human suffering through Christ to bear its cost Himself. That is not a father with “nothing to lose” it is a Father accepting suffering to rescue His children.

You can reject that account, but rewriting it as “God tortures children for losing His rigged game” attacks a caricature, not the position I’ve defended.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

You keep declaring Christianity contradictory, but most of your argument depends on treating your own assumptions as established facts.

You say that because God created the world and knew what would happen, He must have caused and wanted every evil event. But knowledge, permission, intention, and causation are not the same thing. Knowing what someone will choose does not make the choice for them, and creating someone capable of wrongdoing is not identical to causing their wrongdoing.

Your chessboard and Rube Goldberg analogies assume humans are mindless machinery. That is exactly what you still need to prove. The study you shared predicted simple choices from brain activity before conscious awareness; it did not prove that human beings never make meaningful choices. If our brains are part of us, then a decision beginning in the brain is not evidence that somebody other than us made it.

You also argue that if humanity was created good, nobody could have turned from God. That confuses being good with being incapable of doing otherwise. A programmed creature that can only produce one response is not morally good in the same sense as someone who can understand alternatives and freely choose what is right.

Heaven does not disprove this. Christianity does not teach that God deletes our identities and turns us into copies. It teaches that people who have freely chosen God are healed and perfected. Losing envy, malice, lust, and depression would not make you less yourself, any more than overcoming hatred or addiction would erase your identity.

Your gun analogy also assumes the conclusion you want to prove. It works only if Hell is an arbitrary threat God adds to force innocent people to feel affection: “Love me or I’ll hurt you.” Christianity instead teaches that God judges wrongdoing, offers reconciliation, and permits people to reject Him. Christians debate Hell’s exact nature, but you cannot assume the most simplistic version and then declare every Christian explanation defeated.

And Isaiah 45:7 does not say that God commits moral wickedness. The KJV uses “evil” there for calamity or disaster, contrasted with peace. The passage concerns God bringing judgment, not confessing to an evil character.

The existence of suffering is a serious challenge, especially suffering not directly caused by human choices. But calling God a “monster,” comparing people to machines, and repeating “plot hole” does not establish a logical contradiction. To prove incompatibility, you must demonstrate that a loving God could have no morally sufficient reason to permit temporary suffering, meaningful freedom, judgment, or redemption. You have asserted that conclusion repeatedly, but you have not demonstrated it.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Saying I can’t think critically because I’m religious isn’t an argument it’s just an insult meant to avoid addressing my actual points. Intelligent people can examine the same evidence and reach different conclusions.

And technically, water itself isn’t wet; water makes other things wet. So even your “obvious” example depends on how the word is defined which proves why we should examine claims instead of mocking anyone who questions them.

If you’re only explaining your position, that’s fine. But calling everyone who disagrees with you incapable of critical thinking doesn’t make your position correct.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

You haven’t proven your case either. Your whole argument is about free will, yet you say you came to your conclusions completely on your own—as if that somehow proves free will while arguing against it. At least my opinion is based on historical documents and evidence that I can actually point to. You’re making a philosophical argument about what a loving God would or wouldn’t do, but that’s not the same thing as proving that God doesn’t exist or that Christianity’s explanation of Hell is false.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Day 9/42

At Alpha, we don’t just learn school subjects—we learn life skills that will actually help us succeed.

Right now, I’m reading Deep Work by Cal Newport and learning how to focus in a world full of distractions.

One lesson that stood out to me: being busy doesn’t always mean you’re being productive. Real progress comes from removing distractions and giving your full attention to meaningful work.

Focus is a skill, and I’m learning how to build it.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

You’re not refuting the argument you’re using a Motte-and Bailey and adding unsupported assumptions.

The safer claim, the motte, is basically: “God is the source of goodness.” The much larger bailey you attack is: “God arbitrarily made a rule that says you lose everything good if you reject Him.” Those are not the same claim.

If God is the source of life, goodness, and fulfillment, then complete separation from Him cannot also contain the fullness of those things. Asking “Who made that rule?” treats it like an arbitrary punishment instead of a consequence of what God is.

Then you claim God “benefits” from the rule, but you give no evidence that an all-sufficient God needs or gains anything from us.

And your own position creates another problem: you’ve argued that there are no real choices, yet you talk about examining theories and coming to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist. If no genuine choices exist, then nobody truly chooses belief, disbelief, God, or separation from God.

That doesn’t prove God exists, but it does mean you can’t deny meaningful choice when it helps your argument and rely on it when it doesn’t.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

That assumes Heaven is just a pleasant location God happens to occupy. God is the source of every good thing life, love, joy, peace, meaning, and goodness itself. So a “second Heaven where God isn’t present” is basically asking God to create eternal life with all the benefits of being with Him while removing the very source of those https://t.co/9A4kuHngHA’s not that God lacks the power to create another place. It’s that you can’t have complete separation from God and simultaneously have the fullness of everything that comes from https://t.co/afnMYQyWse the question still stands: if someone ultimately says, “I don’t want God,” should God override that choice and give them an eternity built around His goodness anyway? And if you truly choose separation from God, are you willing to accept what that separation actually means?
If he made a second heaven and people got sent there, there would be no choice

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

The analogy only works if Hell is an arbitrary threat God adds to force love: “Love me or I’ll hurt you.” God is the source of life, goodness, and ultimately everything we were made for. Rejecting Him means freely choosing separation from that source.

A better analogy would be: “I won’t force you to stay with me, but I can’t also make leaving me have none of the consequences of leaving.” Freedom without the possibility of choosing something genuinely harmful isn’t much of a freedom at all.

So the consequence isn’t what makes the love free; the ability to reject God is what makes it free. The consequence is what makes that choice meaningful.

And that raises the real question: if you knowingly choose not to love or want God, are you willing to spend eternity separated from Him? If God forced you into His presence anyway, against your will, then He wouldn’t actually be respecting the freedom you’re arguing for.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Knowing what someone will choose isn’t the same as making the choice for them, and imagining a person isn’t the same as giving that person a real life. God didn’t create disposable “simulations” He created people who could genuinely know, love, and choose Him.

Also, “God burns billions for not choosing Him” oversimplifies Christian teaching. Christians disagree about the exact nature of Hell, but the central idea is that God respects our freedom, judges people justly based on what they knew, and desires everyone to be saved. Love cannot be forced, and rejecting God has consequences but that doesn’t mean God enjoys suffering or created people just to condemn them.

[Remy Hazen @RemyHazen]

Because if God simply created everyone already in Heaven with no real ability to reject Him, then love and obedience wouldn’t actually be freely chosen.

Christianity teaches that God wants people to freely choose Him, not be programmed into relationship with Him. That freedom necessarily includes the possibility of saying no.

And “just don’t create the people who will reject Him” raises a different question about foreknowledge, but it still means deciding who gets the chance to exist based on choices they haven’t yet freely made.