<!--quoteo(post=1692244:date=Nov 3 2008, 10:58 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 3 2008, 10:58 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692244"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I do agree with SwiftSpear that deviating from reality makes good fiction. That's why it's called fiction.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say anything about deviating from reality.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1692314:date=Nov 4 2008, 07:06 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2008, 07:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not logically absurd to refuse to take a strong side on an open ended topic. It's actually kind of worse to do the opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1692314:date=Nov 4 2008, 03:06 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2008, 03:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not logically absurd to refuse to take a strong side on an open ended topic. It's actually kind of worse to do the opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Calling the argument over the existence or nonexistence of a being that by definition <i>has unprovable existence</i> "open ended" is a bit ridiculous. The argument isn't open ended, it's irrelevant. God neither "exists" nor "doesn't exist", god is irrelevant. I'm not really sure how to explain this correctly. It's like this: I could claim that all of existence just started at the time of this post and all your memories of things before this post were created along with you and because of the perfect nature of this "creation" it is unprovable. We will call this the "My posts are awesome" theory or MPA for short. Now consider an argument about the MPA theory. We cannot actually debate over the truth of this theory because by the definition I created it cannot be proved or disproved, so the argument will be pointless. So what does this mean then? Is the MPA theory true? Is it false? The answer is neither. The MPA theory is irrelevant; it's merely a meaningless logical loophole. The existence of a god being is the same deal. All arguments dealing with god or that require god as evidence are not right nor wrong, they are irrelevant. That doesn't mean you can't argue over individual parts of theories such as creationism, obviously we can refute claims such as humans and dinosaurs living at the same time but when it comes down to the very core of the idea there is no purpose in arguing.
<!--quoteo(post=1692315:date=Nov 4 2008, 08:08 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2008, 08:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692315"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't say anything about deviating from reality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes you did.
<!--quoteo(post=1692200:date=Nov 3 2008, 07:10 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 3 2008, 07:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If for no other reason, I just like the possibility of a universe more dynamic, dramatic, and interesting than one in which everything we see is always exactly the way the evidence makes it appear at first glance. It also seeds a lot more potential for good fictional backdrops in epic story lines and what not... Which is something I like to keep under my thumb for a rainy day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1692314:date=Nov 4 2008, 01:06 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 4 2008, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692314"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not logically absurd to refuse to take a strong side on an open ended topic. It's actually kind of worse to do the opposite.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I heard that, you know the Earth is actually flat?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1692338:date=Nov 4 2008, 07:46 AM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Nov 4 2008, 07:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692338"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Calling the argument over the existence or nonexistence of a being that by definition <i>has unprovable existence</i> "open ended" is a bit ridiculous. The argument isn't open ended, it's irrelevant. God neither "exists" nor "doesn't exist", god is irrelevant. I'm not really sure how to explain this correctly. It's like this: I could claim that all of existence just started at the time of this post and all your memories of things before this post were created along with you and because of the perfect nature of this "creation" it is unprovable. We will call this the "My posts are awesome" theory or MPA for short. Now consider an argument about the MPA theory. We cannot actually debate over the truth of this theory because by the definition I created it cannot be proved or disproved, so the argument will be pointless. So what does this mean then? Is the MPA theory true? Is it false? The answer is neither. The MPA theory is irrelevant; it's merely a meaningless logical loophole. The existence of a god being is the same deal. All arguments dealing with god or that require god as evidence are not right nor wrong, they are irrelevant. That doesn't mean you can't argue over individual parts of theories such as creationism, obviously we can refute claims such as humans and dinosaurs living at the same time but when it comes down to the very core of the idea there is no purpose in arguing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me try to put it a little better if I may.
If God could influence the world in any way, science would eventually discover him. If he cannot, then I don't give two ######s whether he exists or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1692363:date=Nov 4 2008, 12:31 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Nov 4 2008, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692363"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If God could influence the world in any way, science would eventually discover him.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
LikuI, am the Somberlain.Join Date: 2003-01-10Member: 12128Members
<!--quoteo(post=1692357:date=Nov 4 2008, 09:53 AM:name=Nicksaerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nicksaerian @ Nov 4 2008, 09:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692357"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Early is clearly round, sir.... but the heavens revolve around the Earth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's ridiculous, I've only seen clouds go left and right. Thus the earth has to be flat, DON'T BUY INTO THE PROPAGANDA THEY CALL TEXTBOOKS.
<!--quoteo(post=1692346:date=Nov 4 2008, 08:34 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 4 2008, 08:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692346"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes you did.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fiction doesn't immediately imply that something is false or non-realistic. Many scifi writers actively try to guess as accurately as possible what the future will be like. Many of them in the past have had remarkable insights into what the world currently looks like. For something to work fictionally, it definitely does not have to have been proved to not be true.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692429:date=Nov 5 2008, 12:28 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 5 2008, 12:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692429"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Fiction doesn't immediately imply that something is false or non-realistic. Many scifi writers actively try to guess as accurately as possible what the future will be like. Many of them in the past have had remarkable insights into what the world currently looks like. For something to work fictionally, it definitely does not have to have been proved to not be true.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're still arguing from the "I think it'd be cool so I'm entertaining the possibility" angle. Science, and reality, doesn't work that way.
Fiction allows for something to be false or non-realistic, though. And something that IS false or non-realistic is fiction. Therefore, when I engage in speculation that is false or non-realistic, it's fiction.
What is false or fiction at the present may not be false or fiction in the future. Because it has not been discovered or proven yet, does not mean it will forever be left unproven or undiscovered. I believe that's what he meant. I could be wrong XD
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1692509:date=Nov 5 2008, 04:08 PM:name=Nicksaerian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nicksaerian @ Nov 5 2008, 04:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692509"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is false or fiction at the present may not be false or fiction in the future. Because it has not been discovered or proven yet, does not mean it will forever be left unproven or undiscovered. I believe that's what he meant. I could be wrong XD<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point is, though, that anything is *technically* possible. The creator of the universe could be Spyro the friendly dragon, who reveals himself to us through some half-decent Playstation games. You can't prove me wrong, and it's a technical possibility that in the future I'll be proven right, but that doesn't mean the possibility deserves serious speculation.
Yes and I agree. There are ideas out there which warrant no consideration what-so-ever. When we get into the gray areas where it could swing one way or the other, such as a higher power for example, I also agree that arguing over it doesn't solve anything. I would have to use the cliche "sit back and enjoy the ride" to loosely narrate my position.
On a related note: <a href="http://www.venganza.org/" target="_blank">http://www.venganza.org/</a>
I'm going to go ahead and say it now before someone else does it in a far snarkier manner: Yes, we've known of the Church of the FSM for quite a while.
Comments
I didn't say anything about deviating from reality.
Which open ended topic are you talking about?
Calling the argument over the existence or nonexistence of a being that by definition <i>has unprovable existence</i> "open ended" is a bit ridiculous. The argument isn't open ended, it's irrelevant. God neither "exists" nor "doesn't exist", god is irrelevant. I'm not really sure how to explain this correctly.
It's like this: I could claim that all of existence just started at the time of this post and all your memories of things before this post were created along with you and because of the perfect nature of this "creation" it is unprovable. We will call this the "My posts are awesome" theory or MPA for short. Now consider an argument about the MPA theory. We cannot actually debate over the truth of this theory because by the definition I created it cannot be proved or disproved, so the argument will be pointless. So what does this mean then? Is the MPA theory true? Is it false? The answer is neither. The MPA theory is irrelevant; it's merely a meaningless logical loophole. The existence of a god being is the same deal. All arguments dealing with god or that require god as evidence are not right nor wrong, they are irrelevant.
That doesn't mean you can't argue over individual parts of theories such as creationism, obviously we can refute claims such as humans and dinosaurs living at the same time but when it comes down to the very core of the idea there is no purpose in arguing.
Yes you did.
<!--quoteo(post=1692200:date=Nov 3 2008, 07:10 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Nov 3 2008, 07:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1692200"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If for no other reason, I just like the possibility of a universe more dynamic, dramatic, and interesting than one in which everything we see is always exactly the way the evidence makes it appear at first glance. It also seeds a lot more potential for good fictional backdrops in epic story lines and what not... Which is something I like to keep under my thumb for a rainy day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I heard that, you know the Earth is actually flat?
It's like this: I could claim that all of existence just started at the time of this post and all your memories of things before this post were created along with you and because of the perfect nature of this "creation" it is unprovable. We will call this the "My posts are awesome" theory or MPA for short. Now consider an argument about the MPA theory. We cannot actually debate over the truth of this theory because by the definition I created it cannot be proved or disproved, so the argument will be pointless. So what does this mean then? Is the MPA theory true? Is it false? The answer is neither. The MPA theory is irrelevant; it's merely a meaningless logical loophole. The existence of a god being is the same deal. All arguments dealing with god or that require god as evidence are not right nor wrong, they are irrelevant.
That doesn't mean you can't argue over individual parts of theories such as creationism, obviously we can refute claims such as humans and dinosaurs living at the same time but when it comes down to the very core of the idea there is no purpose in arguing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me try to put it a little better if I may.
If God could influence the world in any way, science would eventually discover him. If he cannot, then I don't give two ######s whether he exists or not.
Win.
That's ridiculous, I've only seen clouds go left and right. Thus the earth has to be flat, DON'T BUY INTO THE PROPAGANDA THEY CALL TEXTBOOKS.
Fiction doesn't immediately imply that something is false or non-realistic. Many scifi writers actively try to guess as accurately as possible what the future will be like. Many of them in the past have had remarkable insights into what the world currently looks like. For something to work fictionally, it definitely does not have to have been proved to not be true.
You're still arguing from the "I think it'd be cool so I'm entertaining the possibility" angle. Science, and reality, doesn't work that way.
The point is, though, that anything is *technically* possible. The creator of the universe could be Spyro the friendly dragon, who reveals himself to us through some half-decent Playstation games. You can't prove me wrong, and it's a technical possibility that in the future I'll be proven right, but that doesn't mean the possibility deserves serious speculation.
On a related note:
<a href="http://www.venganza.org/" target="_blank">http://www.venganza.org/</a>
Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?