Total posts: 3,159
-->
@NotClub
I guess I can be a judge
Created:
-->
@Athias
If you were able to prove your particular god existed without resorting to general ontological arguments, would you? That is what I’m trying to get at.If people were trying to prove something, they would use evidence....or argument.
To prevent any stalls or tangents to our current discussion, I'm merely waiting on your fully constructed proof. Once you're done and submit your argument, I'll supply my elaboration.
I’m currently laying the groundwork with sound logic we can both (hopefully) agree upon to prevent my argument from being reduced into oblivion via semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
Ongoing
Supa - Star v The Forces of Evil, DP1
Wylted - Dark History Mafia, DP1 (technically)
Sign-ups
Speedrace - Marvel Cinematic Universe Heroes
In the Hopper
Cogent
Disc - OSBM mafia part two (9 to 10 players)
Mharman - Survive the Killers Mafia
Warren
Bsh1
PressF4Respect
On Hold
Buddamoose, Virtuoso, Breaking, Lunatic
Created:
-->
@Athias
Let me ask you a dumb rhetorical question:If you were trying to prove something, would you use the most convincing evidence available to prove that thing?"Most convincing" is an irrelevant qualification; the evidence either helps to prove or is of no consequence.
If people were trying to prove something, they would use evidence.
Also I'm still waiting for your explanation on how fairies exist in the real, physical universe.In due time, I'll elaborate in the appropriate thread. First thing's first, how's your progress in constructing your proof?
It’s good. I am currently proving to a stickler that people would use evidence to prove something. Unnecessary, tedious stuff, but it’s going well. Returning the favour, how is your fairy proof going?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Well Walter just posted in it so I guess it’s still alive 🤷♀️
Created:
-->
@NotClub
NotNotClub
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
The reason for me originally saying Wylted wasn’t scum was because as you said, inactive =/= scum. Then I thought about it, and realized that lynching Wylted could act as a springboard to reveal who was truly scum. And then his miller claim came along, and I got skeptical. But mainly it would help me find out who is and isn’t scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
You mean the joke claim I made at the beginning of DP1?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Yeah, unless there was something like an NP1OH WAIT THERE WAS WHOAAAAAA
The votes on DP2 were carried over from DP1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
No, it doesn't. Inactive means he is on the website and is just ignoring the game, so voting for him encouraged him to play, but it does nothing if he's not even reading the messages
Being gone and being inactive are functionally the same thing. Inactives and goners are deadweight for town, at best. Plus, in this case, lynching Wylted would have provided more information about who is and isn't scum, as I will point out below.
How? What info of he literally can't contribute anything?
In DP1, there were two teams: team "lynch" and team "defend". Scum is most likely on either one of these teams. Lynching Wylted would have revealed which team scum was in.
I never said there was a cop investigation, Wylted ASSUMED THERE WAS ONE, that doesn't mean there actually was one, COME ON READ
I wasn't questioning you about whether or not there was an N0 cop investigation. I was questioning Wylted about why he thought there was a cop investigation on him, even though the votes came from DP1 (with no opportunity for a cop investigation before then).
I agree about Press's claim
Again, joke. You understood that my Emperor Pal-poutine claim was a joke at the beginning of DP1, and now you're VTLing me (partially) based on the joke claim? That's odd.
In fact, the only time I remember him arguing this much over tactics was when he was mafia
Please elaborate. You've only seen one (twice, if you count the quick maf) as mafia, and that time you called my performance terrible (as I was inactive most of the time).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
So... in other words... bandwagoningIt's out of exasperation and I trust them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
It would make perfect sense for scum to claim miller after a perceived guilty cop investigationWylted is town because no scum is going to claim miller.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The votes came from DP1. There was no previous DP. Unless there was an N0 (highly unlikely), then there would be no chance for a cop to investigate you. Even if there was an N0, there would be no way for cop to know if you are inactive. The 3 votes came from you being inactive (there might have been some scum bandwagoning, but idk). The main reason I had suspicion on you was because you immediately came back, claimed miller, and said that cop investigations can't be trusted. You thought that cop investigated you, when in fact that is an impossibility. That has some scumminess in it.Pretty sure I already answered this. I had 3 votes on me without much explanation. Cops often do this so people can look back at previous DPs and see what their first action was to get their investigative results post morten. I make the most sense for an investigation if I was the best lynch target from the POE of several different play styles who may have came into possession of the cop role. My being inactive for a whole 5 days shows the inactivity was no affiliation indicative so I want to point out the dp1 band wagon was silly. Anyway I answered why I think a cop had a high likelihood of investigating me, not that it matters, most people who get the miller role claim on their first post anyway, which is precisely what I did, my claim on it's own is silly to overthink. You either believe it or you don't.
I rarely see a game with a miller which also doesn't have a godfather. It's inconsequential anyway. The point is to use innocent results with caution but guilty results outside of my own and possibly even my own should be fully believed.
Wait, so you're saying that you possibly aren't miller?
I haven't speculated on balance. I suck at creating balanced games and I believe supa likely does also. So I have no interest in trying to figure out if a godfather should be included. All I know is that there is a high chance one is included.
Ok.
Why is press trying to question whether my theories are accurate or not instead of questioning whether my behaviors are scummy or not?
Because that's all I literally have. There's nothing to go off of DP1, and the only thing in DP2 so far is your miller claim + your claim that cop investigated you.
Press F did a possible fake claim on DP1 and then it was mentioned that his character he claimed was not I the WIK
Emperor Pal-Poutine was a joke/scumbait, I don't think I need to explain further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
IMHO, that fake claim (if it is a fake claim) was so bad that it could've only come from a complete noob.
This is why I'm trying to ask questions.
Created:
@RM
God to me is Fiora, she is a fascinating sadistic being that is entertained in testing us. She can even randomise certain variables (or maybe the randomness persists in spite of her organisation, not sure which) and this causes her to be able to be surprised and 'judge' or 'view with interest' the reality before her and entities such as us.
Interesting. You certainly do have a way with metaphors.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
oooooooooooo...k
Is there any evidence that Bush is indeed god (according to the definitions set out in #38)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I'll give you a quick rundown of what happened during DP1 (you didn't miss that much tbh):
- Some random voting
- Break
- People noticing you being inactive
- People starting to bandwagon
- 4 votes on you for being inactive
- No Lynch result
Now that you're up to speed, lemme ask you two questions:
Why do you think cop investigated you when the votes came over from DP1 inactivity?
Why do you think there would be miller + godfather in a 9-player game? (I don't know if this has ever happened before on DART, but it seems terribly heavy)
Created:
Posted in:
He's not an inactive, he was literally just gone
Gone = Inactive. Also, if he knew he was going to be gone for 5 days he could've told Supa that he needed a replacement.
No... in this case lynching Wylted DP1 would have provided additional information about the other players.you only vote for inactives to encourage them to be active
Three people voted for him out of nowhere, what else is he supposed to think?
The only way for your logic to work is if there was an N0 Cop Investigation. But at that point, cop would have no idea that Wylted would be inactive for DP1. Also, I don't think there has ever been a DART mafia with an N0 Cop Investigation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@NotClub
Do you mean "I was too lazy" or "It was too lazy"I was too lazy, it's true
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
What other possible reasons would town lynch an inactive for, other than for being inactive?No he doesn't, he said he didn't read the DP dude
He never said he knew that someone investigated him dude, he assumed that was the reason people were voting for him
He's acting as if he has a guilty verdict on him. Also, he said he knew that there was a godfather in the game. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having a miller and godfather in a 9-man game is very unlikely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Not at all. I'm just getting context clues for my townread.are you unhappy with how I'm playing rn?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
He has a clear idea of why he was about to get lynched, for being inactive.Unfounded assumption that a cop investigated him? The dude has no idea why we're voting for him, what else would he think we were about to Lynch him for?
Also, there's no way of knowing whether or not you've actually been investigated (unless cop states it). Wylted, without being pressured by anyone, literally stepped forth and said something along the lines of "IF I APPEAR GUILTY BY COP INVESTIGATION, IT'S BECAUSE I'M MILLER, JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW. ALSO, YOU SHOULDN'T TRUST COP AT ALL."
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
god:1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.(from dictionary.com)
Of course the sun exists. But no one is saying that a medium-sized, yellow, G-type star 149.6 million km away from Earth is a god (according to the definitions above). Many cultures have the idea of a sun god, but saying that the sun exists is no evidence for their particular sun god to exist.
Created:
-->
@NotClub
Ok. So, like, regular debates then, just with a select panel of judges.
There should be a comment made at the beginning of each round tagging the predetermined judges (selected from the list of participants) + you for their attention.
This would get rid of the PM portion completely.
But yeah, I'll try to be in, although I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it.
/maybe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
@Speedrace
I assume one vote is from a cop who investigated me due to my absence. Don't tell me who, though. This means that we can't trust any innocent results either until the godfather is dead
It's not just inactivity.
Wylted also claimed miller, which would be extremely convenient in the case of the cop coming out with a guilty verdict.
There's also Wylted's unfounded assumption that cop investigated him, which could be a potential scumslip.
Also, Wylted is usually a lot more proactive as town, and wouldn't say stuff like "we can't trust cop".
This seems suspicious, but I'll look into it deeper.
UNVOTE
for now
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Why are you trying so hard to defend Wylted, an inactive player?
Created:
-->
@NotClub
PM debates would allow for a considerable degree of dishonesty. Plus, how would anyone be able to judge the content within the debate?
Created:
Posted in:
Seems like a last-ditch attempt to avoid getting lynched by fake-claiming Miller, and sewing chaos among town.I'm a Miller and have not read anything yet. I assume one vote is from a cop who investigated me due to my absence. Don't tell me who, though. This means that we can't trust any innocent results either until the godfather is dead
VTL Wylted
Created:
-->
@Athias
Also I'm still waiting for your explanation on how fairies exist in the real, physical universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Why not just make "important site information" its own topic?
Created:
-->
@Athias
If there's evidence for a particular God's existence, then people arguing for the existence of that particular god would be using it to prove their own god's existence
Let me ask you a dumb rhetorical question:
If you were trying to prove something, would you use the most convincing evidence available to prove that thing?
Yes or no.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Please give me one compelling (not shitty), concrete (not circumstantial), and solid (no fallacies or errors) piece of evidence to prove the existence of this “one true god”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
dats not nice 2 Club :(
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The policy prohibiting personal attacks applies site-wide--in debates, forums, private messages, and everywhere else on the site. If you are having a dispute with another site member, the appropriate response is to inform moderation. It is not appropriate to respond with invective or misconduct. (from CoC)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Answer me this question: Do fairies exist in the real, physical universe we inhabit?Yes.
Please elaborate.
Created:
-->
@Athias
But first, tell me if you agree with my syllogistic argument:
P1: There are people who wish to prove the existence of their specific god (this is evident).
P2: If there was compelling evidence for their specific god, then they would use it (inferred logic).
P3: There is currently no one using said evidence (this is the premise I will prove).
C1: Therefore, there is no evidence for a specific god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Mods aren’t allowed to disclose the rationales for temp bans, for some reason.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"there's evidence for a particular God's existence" if and only if "people arguing for the existence of that particular god would [use] it to prove their own god's existence."
That is literally the premise I have been using all along. I’m still working on the full proof.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
This thread is meant as a continuation of the previous one, and should be taken within the context of it. This thread was actually supposed to be a debate (where all of this stuff would be taken care of in advance), but it’s a thread instead because my opponent specifically stated that he did not want a debate.
Created:
-->
@Athias
If p (there's evidence for a particular God's existence,) then q.Not q.Therefore not p (there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.)
If there's evidence for a particular God's existence, then people arguing for the existence of that particular god would be using it to prove their own god's existence.
People aren't using evidence to prove their own god (theistic evidence), instead they only use evidence to prove the existence of a god figure in general (deistic evidence).
Therefore, there's no evidence for a particular God's existence.
That's my argument. I've already repeated myself several times. The only thing I need to prove is the bolded portion (which was the original assertion that 3RUTAL made in the previous thread), which I am in the process of doing right now. This is what I'm trying to tell you. Understand?
Created:
-->
@Athias
Using the modus tollens argument I made in the previous thread,
If there is a theistic argument, then theists would use it.If no theists are using theistic arguments, then there is no theistic evidence.Theists are resorting to deistic arguments in the absence of theistic ones.Therefore, there is no theistic argument.
I can reduce the original assertion to this:
No theist has ever made a theistic argument.
Created: