Total posts: 3,159
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
Why not?Good cause I wasn’t gonna claim anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What makes the Septuigant (or the bible as a whole) sound?In the Septuigant l, the name God gives to Moses is literally "The Eternally Existing One"
If God doesn't exist, the most fundamental aspect of what makes God is not present. Namely that God exists. It can only be a god, or straw man god.
The conclusion of your argument (that God exists) is inside the definition, which is itself inside one of the premises. Thus, it is circular.
You are confused because you are using logic in an irrational way.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It isn't actually dependant on the shape of the eyeball. The field of vision depends on the photons that enter the eye. Basically, the question boils down to "Do you believe that light travels at a constant speed?"No. It doesn't, that's why different people need completely different glasses/spectacles prescriptions at times (sometimes the polar opposite to each other).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is only a debate if you are talking about something other than my God when you are talking about God.
You've defined God as The Ultimate Reality, meaning that it is, by definition, real. Is this not your God?
In that instance, I would tell you that I don't believe your god either.
I don't personally believe in any gods.
If you accept that God is what God is, there is no debate.
I don't accept your logic for why God exists. Why? Because it's completely circular.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Wait, hold on...
PressF4Respect- [1/7] Singularity
PressF4Respect- [3/7] Singularity, GreyParrot
Is this a mistake?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why can't we popcorn people for character and/or role?No, we should proceed how we normally proceed in themed games and pressure certain people for character and/or role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
In a discussion/debate about God's existence (especially in a thread titled "Is God real?"), you cannot start with the assumption that God exists, as that is the exact thing we are trying to prove/disprove.It is really a lot more simple than all that.What we acknowledge as God is The Ultimate Reality.Our religion is to be living icons of The Truth.Everything really follows naturally from this.
If someone was able to prove God's existence in a logically sound way, then we can conclude that God exists.
If someone was able to disprove God's existence in a logically sound way, then we can conclude that God does not exist.
If no person can do either, then we cannot conclude anything.
As far as I am aware of, no one has been able to do either.
Therefore, we cannot conclude anything.
That position is known as agnosticism.
It is easy to get confused in the details if you don't take it all in its entirety.
The details are where it counts. If there is a problem in the details of the logic, then like a house of cards with a misplaced card, the entire thing will collapse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
If this:
Nice, I just saw ip man 4, it was awesome.
wasn't a fluff post, then what purpose did it serve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imo, it looked like a statement made under duress. Water is still relatively new, and he was probably bamboozled by the sudden VTLs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What if someone else came in and said Brahma was the Ultimate Reality?I would probably correct them and say that "Brahman" would be more accurate.
My point is that there are many different religions, and many different deities that people believe are "the Ultimate Reality". In light of all this, how do you know that Christianity (let alone Orthodox Christianity) is the correct religion, and that the God of the Bible is "the Ultimate Reality"?
Our faith is not one that was brought about through reason, but revelation.
Reason is the way we make sense of things. Without reason, all you would have is blind faith and dogma.
We have understood God the same way for thousands of years.
Just because many people believed in something for many years doesn't make it factual. For example, people believed for thousands of years that the Sun orbited around the Earth, until Copernicus came along.
There is no problem, because God exists.
"Does God exist?" is the very question we're trying to address. We don't know the answer to this yet.
That is the God we believe, and so we can without doubt say, "Only a fool in their heart says there is no God.".
I think with my brain, not my heart.
There is no debate about the existence of God.
There is. Namely, this one.
This is true. I however, did not say that there is no time. God acts within time, obviously, but at the. same time God exists outside of time. That is why we say we are not pantheists, but panentheists.The creation itself marks the beginning of time. That is why we say God is "pre-eternal". In a temporal sense, there isn't anything before time. Yet, God's existence preceeds time, and time itself is contingent on God.
The problem is, I demonstrated in my previous post that there was time before the creation (otherwise there would be no universe).
God's interaction with the universe is through His Word and Breath, or his Son and Holy Spirit. The Trinity itself has a great deal to do with God's relationship to creation. God acts in creation because God through the incarnation took the form of creation. The incarnation effectively unites the two very different natures of divinity and creation into the single hypostasis of The Son. All power originates with God.
This is basically Aquinas' Unmoved Mover. The problem with that is that one of its premises states that all things that move require a mover. Since God moves, God would require a mover, according to the premise. There are three cases that stem out of this. Either:
- It leads to infinite regress,
- It contradicts its own premise, or
- It commits special pleading
Mankind was made in the image of God. Part of what this means is that we have free will. More specifically, the ability to misuse the divine energy that God graces with us. If God so willed, He could have made us automatons. Instead, God has shared part of His divine nature with us.
If God is omniscient, then it is impossible to have free will, since He already knows what you are going to do.
What is evil? It is nothing. On the last day, when the light of Truth fills all of creation, and all will be revealed, illusion will cease to be, and evil right along with it. Everything will be revealed as is. That is why we say that the fires of hell and the light of heaven are the same thing. To those who identify with what defiles them, it will be hell as they are shown who the really are. To those who abide in The Eternal Way, The Light of Truth will be their heaven.Some claim that hell is seperation of God. It is more accurate to say that hell is rejection of God. Whether one rejects God or not, there is no escaping God, who is everywhere present and fills all things. It is even written, "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."
Firstly, this assumes that there is a heaven and hell.
Secondly, how would, for example, babies being born with birth defects, of no fault of their own, be an illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Problem is, the only thing we had on Water was "hasn't claimed yet".Quick hammer is not bad or good. Decisions don't need to be delayed. Particularly if they are well thought out and somebody has good reasons for them. Honestly I would rather scum be quick hammered than slow hammered. The faster we knock them out, the faster we win.
Statistically speaking, Water is more likely town than scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
It's your ability, and it's up to you how you want to use it.Wait, was I just not ever supposed to shoot this game?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I did activity prompt him.Flying below the radar? He literally chose not to post, and you didn't activity prompt him or replace him. His bomb was pretty retarded too, 1 for 1 trade with town is rarely worth it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Are they still scum if he flips scum?
We don't have nearly enough evidence to conclude that he is scum.
Your post concerns me because it makes me think you think he is town but are still putting water at L1it Makes no sense that press put water at L1 and then practically declared he was innocent and anyone that hammers him is scum.
Do you know what a quickhammer is?
I essentially prevented a quickhammer from happening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Thanks for the game.
No problem!
giving greyparrot MVP is fucking ridiculous, and demonstrates your inexperience as both a mod and a mafia player.
I guess it boils down to opinion, but in my view, everyone else was either pulled into tunneling at some point, or relatively inactive. Either way, you gotta give him credit for flying below the radar and avoiding suspicion throughout the entirety of the game.
Created:
Posted in:
Analysis:
WaterPhoenix: You were comparatively less active than some of the other people in DP1 and DP2. However, your two blunders overshadow this entirely. The first one came when you decided to vig someone NP2, when there were only 4 people left and scum chose to target someone else. You got lucky that Virtuoso chose the same target, for if he chose anyone else, then the Mafia would have automatically won. The second blunder came when you decided to tell the two other players that you did this. Though truthful, saying that you targeted the same person that the mafia targeted the previous night (especially as a town killing role) looks extremely scummy in the other players’ eyes. Despite the slip ups, for your first time playing as vigilante, it wasn’t that bad. You holstered NP1, whereas other new players probably would have shot (most likely hitting town).
Drafterman: You put in a lot of effort to read the town and potential mafia, which is commendable, as was you pointing out the possibility of manufactured scumreading between Virtuoso and GreyParrot (which turned out to be the case). You had the right motives, but unfortunately, your scumreads ended up being mislynches. You clashed with SupaDudz and Speedrace and brought the entire town to converge towards this clash. You were sucked into the vortex of tunnel vision, and that proved to be your undoing (via iceballs).
Lunatic: Similar to Drafterman, you had good motives and intentions. However, you were instantly drawn to SupaDudz, and unrelentingly rallied for his lynch. Like Drafterman, you were sucked into tunneling SupaDudz, and refused to look elsewhere.
SupaDudz: You were suspicious of Drafterman’s actions, and I see where you were coming from. However, you mistook Drafter’s intentions, and ended up in the same place that Drafter and Lunatic were, in the tunnel.
Speedrace: You were the “voice of reason” between the two sides, not jumping to conclusions, and taking your time to sort things out. However, you eventually got pulled into conflicts with Drafter as well, which greatly diminished this. You had a good start, but your clash with Drafter made you seem like scum in some players’ (like WaterPhoenix’s) eyes.
Irontoaster: You were comparatively inactive during the game. However, you didn’t make any major slip ups while playing (like getting caught up in tunneling with Virtuoso over OMGUS). You claimed to have a town-confirmable role, which did look like a bomb or PGO trying to lure scum into lynching you (it’s a solid strategy which I myself have used before). It ultimately backfired when you were blown up by GreyParrot, but in your defense, you probably did not expect a Mafia Suicide Bomber (a relatively rare role) in the game. Overall solid gameplay, though lacking in activity.
GreyParrot: Overall good gameplay. You started off with a very risky ghosting strategy, which if it had been sniffed out, would have taken the game down a very different path. Very fortunately for you, town was too distracted by the Drafter-Supa affair, and you managed to get away with it. In DP2, you managed to convince people that you were town by aligning with Drafter’s position (further solidified by the manufactured conflict with Virtuoso), thereby mitigating the risk of you being called out for ghosting and redirecting all of the suspicions towards Speedrace, which further put pressure off you. Your decision to blow up irontoaster was a disadvantageous 1-for-1 trade, but your gameplay was overall solid.
Virtuoso: Though you weren’t as active as GreyParrot (mainly in DP2), you nonetheless did almost as well. Your sparring with GreyParrot was nice, and it did certainly improve your towncred, though not as much as Greyparrot. Your DP3 play was the best imo, and you appeared to have the upper hand against Drafterman before WaterPhoenix made the blunder. Overall solid gameplay, but somewhat lacking activity in DP1 and DP2.
MVP: GreyParrot (Virtuoso wasn’t far behind)
Summary:
Activity levels were… meh, but overall, it was a good game. Some players have suggested that I crack down harder on inactivity (whether it be intentional or not). I might implement an X-post/DP requirement in the future, though it would ultimately depend on what the players would want. Overall, with the exception of a few notable slip ups, everyone played pretty well. I’m quite impressed with how the game turned out, especially with only 8 players instead of the usual 11-13. Good game, everyone!
WaterPhoenix: You were comparatively less active than some of the other people in DP1 and DP2. However, your two blunders overshadow this entirely. The first one came when you decided to vig someone NP2, when there were only 4 people left and scum chose to target someone else. You got lucky that Virtuoso chose the same target, for if he chose anyone else, then the Mafia would have automatically won. The second blunder came when you decided to tell the two other players that you did this. Though truthful, saying that you targeted the same person that the mafia targeted the previous night (especially as a town killing role) looks extremely scummy in the other players’ eyes. Despite the slip ups, for your first time playing as vigilante, it wasn’t that bad. You holstered NP1, whereas other new players probably would have shot (most likely hitting town).
Activity levels were… meh, but overall, it was a good game. Some players have suggested that I crack down harder on inactivity (whether it be intentional or not). I might implement an X-post/DP requirement in the future, though it would ultimately depend on what the players would want. Overall, with the exception of a few notable slip ups, everyone played pretty well. I’m quite impressed with how the game turned out, especially with only 8 players instead of the usual 11-13. Good game, everyone!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
I WISH YOU A MERYY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEEEEEEEEAR!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Christians in the middle east use the word "Allah" for God. Certainly, we both believe The Ultimate Reality is God. Then I would want to have a respectful conversation that hopefully shows some common ground without neglecting the differences. I would of course explain why I do not accept Mohammed as a prophet.
What if someone else came in and said Brahma was the Ultimate Reality?
There is no problem. There is no argument that stands against God. Atheism towards God(rather than gods) is fundamentally a position of ignorance.
There is a problem. The conclusion you're trying to reach is that God is real. If you do this by defining God as "The Ultimate Reality", you're essentially defining God to exist. Like with Anselm's "Maximally Great Being", this boils down to:
P1: God exists.C1: Therefore, God exists.
This logic begs the question, and is therefore entirely circular.
God's omniscience is established by the fact that The Ultimate Reality would by necessity hold every bit of information that exists. We can say both past and present because time is contingent on The Ultimate Reality, which is pre-eternal, and thus, outside time. The beginning and end of things are just as visible to God as the present. From God's vantage point, you can say that the present is all of time presented in its entirety.
Actions are temporal. The act of God creating something (like space and time) is an action. If time didn't exist, then actions wouldn't be able to happen.
Just like how videos are a series of frames, you can think of reality as a series of "snapshots" at each instant. Actions would be the changes made between one instant of time (the "before" state) and the next (the "after" state). If you didn't have time, you would literally have a single snapshot, and nothing would happen. If there is change in anything, then there is time.
The creation of the universe is certainly an action. There is definitely a change between the "before" state and the "after". Before, no universe. After, universe. Therefore, there would be time before the universe was created. Otherwise, the universe would never have been created, as it would have stayed in that "before" state (with no universe).
God's omnipotence is established by the fact that everything that moves is doing so by the power that God granted it. If something moves, it does so by the power of God.
Does God move? If so, then what granted him the power to do so?
God's omnibenevolence is established through the understanding that Truth is the highest good, and being that God is Truth in the truest sense of the word, God is what defines good. Every action of God is innately good.
If God is the Ultimate Reality, and if all of the evils are included within this Ultimate Reality, then God can't be omnibenevolent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The problem is, you've essentially defined God as reality itself.I believe the natural inclination of the human is to believe there is Ultimate Reality. God is written on the hesrts of all.
What that means is that if you experience reality, then you believe in God.
There's literally no way to argue against that (other than the fact that it begs the question, as stated earlier).
You win... I guess?
The problem is, how is this "reality" associated with the attributes that are assigned to the being that Christians and Jews call God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And even if we accept this "Ultimate Reality", how do we know that it is the god of the bible?
An imam could just as easily come in here and say:
"Yes, there is an ultimate reality, and it is Allah."
How would you respond to the imam?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, I would say that our experience of reality is our relationship with God. The reality we experience is a type and shadow of reality as it truly is.God is The Ultimate Reality. Our experience is a reality, but it is not ultimately real. All realities derive their existence from The Ultimate Reality, which is what gives existence to all things.
So you define God as the reality of realities, aka its defined as being real. Correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
And do you believe our field of vision behaves the same way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you agree that light expands radially outwards from its source in a spherical way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If that were the case, a square would appear as a rectangle from far away, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
EDIT TO THE FIRST POST
Actions
DP1: Supa - lynched
NP1: Lunatic - Night Killed
DP2: GreyParrot - Blows up irontoaster
irontoaster - dies
NP2: WaterPhoenix - Vig shoots Speedrace
Virtuoso - Night Kills Speedrace
Speedrace - dies
DP3: WaterPhoenix - lynched
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I kind of literally said it's not because they're thinner.
Didn't you say that "this is not just because those are thinner"?
So does the original size of the object affect the way it is perceived as the object moves further and further away?
You see the same thing with anything that has a significant 'vertical:horizontal' ratio of any kind. It's most obvious with 'tall' things rather than stout things, but all things disappear bottom-up if you watch carefully enough.
So if I had a square, the bottom would still be squished quicker than the top as it moves further and further away?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How is the existence of god a fact?I am simply asserting what is fact, that is not a logical argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You can believe whatever you want. I have no problems with that.
However, if you're trying to use it convince someone (like Alec) to become Christian, then it would become a logical argument.
In that case, it would be begging the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because I find that at a distance, someone's torso would be a lot easier to see than their head
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So, god is real because god is real?
That line of reasoning suffers the same problems as Anselm's Ontological argument: it begs the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So as the person walked further and further away, all you would be able to see is their head?No, what I am saying is that when things get further away, it is the bottom that squashes, they don't equally shrink all-around. If you would yourself look into the distance as you walk at things far away, you'll notice people's legs and feet become much harder to see than their torso, this is not just because those are thinner, but because the actual blurriness and squashing is occuring lower down, it's how refraction of light works (especially when that light is coming from up top).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In order to create the effect that an object is sinking into the ground, the line of sight from our eyes to the bottom of the object would have to go below the ground (x-axis). The scaling factor (1/X^2) doesn't do that.
If what you're saying is correct, then things would not disappear below the horizon, they would only get closer and closer to it until at the point of infinity, all the points of the ship would appear to be at the same place as the horizon. It would never dip below the horizon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I did. In the video, it said that the effect was caused by the "Law of Perspective". There is (off the top of my head) at least one major problem with that (I haven't done additional research yet, so I could be wrong).
The scaling factor (that is, how much the image of an object gets smaller as you move further away) is 1/X^2. That is, for every 1m you move away, the object will appear 1/X^2 smaller than the actual size.
If you look at the graph of y = 1/x^2, you will see that it never actually touches the x-axis. What the video is saying is that not only can a certain light ray touch the x-axis (the ground), but that it can somehow cross it. That was the biggest error I could think of off the top of my head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thanks! I tried to spice up an otherwise mundane game, and I'm glad you liked it!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
<br>Then that would be an incorrect statement, because that only refers to a portion of the whole not the whole (I'm not alone in my evaluations sir). The other portions do not agree, however I appreciate the opinion.
The only thing that I'm saying is that we do not have collective consensus on this issue, and probably will not have consensus for a long time.
So why exactly are you not considering my argument? there is no real rebuttal here. If you think I'm wrong so be it but perhaps consider it anyways, or break down my position and debate it.
I'm not disregarding your argument, nor do I think that it is completely wrong. I'm just saying that we do not currently have enough information to come to a conclusion.
If awareness is not behind all things, then how do all things know what to produce? without awareness, where do processes come from?
I'll have to do some research into this before I can answer this question.
Created: