Haha, I'm working on the lists!
I've been temporarily sucked into a vortex of Modern Warfare 3 (10!) and Skyrim (9.5!), but those D2 lists are coming!
Uh... don't expect magic here, either. I'm a wiki-noob and I have a dearth of spare time, so while my aims are heavenly the actual mark may be much more terrestrial. For more specifics on the lists, you can always check out my wiki profile.
Edit: Apoc, you're a God. That's a huge amount of data to move! Thanks for that!!!
- kahdrick
- Registered User
-
Member for 12 years, 9 months, and 1 day
Last active Sat, Oct, 6 2012 19:56:58
- 1 Follower
- 105 Total Posts
- 9 Thanks
-
Oct 28, 2011kahdrick posted a message on Diablo 2 Patch 1.13dhome channel is something I've wanted for a loooong time and it works beautifully! All of your characters share the same home channel, too, and it persists across logins. you don't even have to /go home when you first sign in to chat - it just defaults you to your home channel.Posted in: News
I'm not sure how the ignore list works - if it perma-squelches people or not, but it seems like the spambotters are countering by having hordes of bots. Where I used to get 1 every few minutes in a non-restricted game, I now get an endless stream, keeping the game nearly full all the time (good), but so I can't see a damn thing ever (bad). -
Oct 6, 2011kahdrick posted a message on Diablo III in SpaceI'm with Daemaro. The problem isn't that corpses are getting bashed sky-high, it's that they float when they get there. Same goes for them sliding across the ground - the dead bodies simply don't have any sense of weight. What's more, they bounce if they hit a wall - that shouldn't happen either. There should be a wet thud and the body should stay there. The corpses need more weight, and gravity needs to be stronger on the way back down from a hit.Posted in: News
Now, I'm sure that the physics guys are saying things like "we're using 9.8 m/s/s!" but the fact of the matter is that when you're not in a first person view, real gravity just looks slow. You've got to beef it up a little. - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
0
0
Usually I go blizzard sorcy (20 blizz, 20 cold mastery, 20 ice blast, 20 ice bolt, 1 warmth, 1 telekinesis, 1 teleport, couple other points to play with), which has served me well up to and including solo Hell Baal runs. However, for this round, I think I'm going to start with a poison nova necro, which I've never done before, and which I really have no idea how to do. Should make things exciting.
What is everyone else going to be playing?
0
0
Right now I've gone with the Poison/Shadow Master build
20 Tiger's Claw
20 Venom
20 Shadow Master
20 Claw Mastery
All the pre-reqs and 1 point into each finisher.
0
Synergies made D2 awesome!
Actually, they were cool, imo, but what actually made D2 awesome was the mechanics of the cube + runes. The fact that normal items were worth farming in order to socket in order to put runes in... it gave value to just about anything that dropped. The result was that instead of endless farming for the "one" item, there were many items that could do the trick, though some were still more valuable than others.
D3 seems like it will be a blast, but I'm concerned about the lack of rune-type mechanics. Hopefully the crafting system makes up for it... Having that means of making your own useful items tailored to your character is key.
0
That's your state law biting you in the beer.
In california you can sell booze every day of the week from 6 am to midnight. Bars are open until 2 am (but can only sell booze until 1:45 am).
0
Regardless, even this creation theory of hawking's has gravity as the grand creator of the universe - it is not a true spontaneous creation theory, as it does have a cause that led to the effect of the universe's creation. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in M-Theory and Hawking's views of Big Bang gravitational spontaneous generation, but he's not ruling out the possibility of a creator, merely opening a door for the absence of a conscious entity having been one.
Regardless, I hold that a possibly false assumption is all we ever have, and that through conscious knowledge of that possibility, we develop more refined means of putting our beliefs to the test.
The comparison that you make between the chill water of doubt and the warmth of possibly false assumptions sounds more like nihilism than atheism. you're comparing the belief in nothing to the belief in something, while your avowed standpoint is that of someone who, in contrast, has seen nothing to believe in, which is a very different thing.
Edit: Your description of atheist in the above post is excellent however, I want to make sure you know that I saw that!
0
I agree wholeheartedly that we may come to understand anything about the universe. That's what's so exciting about it! However, I differ with you in that I see no reason not to make idle speculation. Concoct a theory, test the theory. Speculate, test the speculation. Tomato, tomato (that expression doesn't work well in text at all).
As for your statement that there's a total absence of evidence, I disagree.
1) We know that the universe operates under a limited set of laws.
2) We know that one of these laws is that there is no action without an equal and opposite reaction.
3) We know that there is a conservation of matter in the universe. That is to say, nothing comes from nowhere, and everything comes from somewhere.
4) We know that the universe began with what is commonly known as the "Big Bang Theory" - that all matter in the universe simultaneously erupted from a single point and that the results of that eruption is directly responsible for everything we can observe today.
This information would then lead us to believe that the universe came from somewhere. That before the Big Bang, there was something. I can't say what it is or was, but our understanding of science is fairly clear that the universe did not spontaneously manifest out of nowhere. There has to be a reason that the Big Bang occurred. The existence of an entity, outside of the laws of physics, with the ability to manipulate (or at least create) the realm of physics, is one possible explanation.
Personally, I find that to be a simpler explanation than the Big Crush theory (that the universe repeatedly expands and collapses in on itself and has existed literally forever with no actual origin) - especially in light of recent findings that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which makes any such Big Crush unlikely.
I also find a God theory to be more satisfactory than a "spontaneous generation" theory of the universe, which would violate the 2nd and 3rd points which I raised above.
I will grant, however, that what we actually know about the instant of universal creation is virtually nothing. We know about the time very near to the instant of creation, but not the actual instant. The results of our scientific attempts to see that point will likely surprise us all.
In the light of the incredible advances in technology required to learn concrete data about this moment, the amount of time and treasure that it takes to make these studies, and the scope of human history and curiosity about where we came from, we can hardly discount the value of religious explanations.
God exists because we can't prove otherwise.
God does not exist because we can't prove he does.
But the evidence before us, the scientific likelihood that something created the universe, is quite compelling.
Edit: I'd like to now refer to the instant that the universe was created as Schrödinger's God Box.
0
That's fair, but it begs the question: Why did you start this thread? The desire for proof of an author indicates that you do view it as relevant to the scouring of these books for knowledge.
I am inclined to agree that knowing if there is an author and who that author is would be pertinent, as it could grant a great perspective from which the books were written. I offer this: The religious views of the middle ages that the Earth was the center of the universe provided scientists a perspective from which to approach the problem of the motion of the starts, sun, and planets in the sky. Without this initial perspective - as incorrect as it may have been - would the scientists of the day have figured out that we revolve around the sun?
The existence of the theological explanation of the universe provides framework. Science provides evidence. At some points, they agree (Jesus was a real living person), and at some points they don't (Noah built a boat that held two of every creature in the world on it), and in other places, they simply cannot yet find enough evidence to tangibly say whether or not they agree or disagree (where did the universe come from?).
I'm of the opinion that answering the question of the origins of the universe will be a great leap towards determining if any God exists, but it may not in fact lead us any closer to the answer. In the absence of hard evidence against it, I choose to believe - operate under the assumption - that some sort of higher power did create our universe. I can't prove it to you, but I do believe that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw from the limited evidence at hand.
0
You're making a gross assumption that belief in God is inherently at odds with science and the laws of physics. In fact, Einstein said:
This is science. We're unraveling the mysteries of the universal library. Perhaps it is God's library. Perhaps it is no one's library. But there is a library.
Maybe our study of it will reveal where it came from, how it was formed, and why it exists. It seems likely that all of these questions will be answered through science. That does not mean that none of them have been answered through religion. We won't know for certain until our studies are sufficiently advanced to know the contents of every single book in the library.
But I have just given three common beliefs of God which are very different in size, scope, and provability. Heck, I even proved one for you! To be fair, the God-meme theory is not common among religious people, but it is provable.
I disagree. Science relies on hypothesis. Namely, I think that X will happen when I do Y. Or, I think that Q exists, and we can find out by doing P. And so forth. Sometimes the results are surprising or contrary to the original hypothesis, but there is always a conjecture that is clearly framed before any inquiry is begun. Here, it appears that you are expecting a single answer to a very vague "prove that God exists." The conjecture of each person offering their proof is different and needs to be understood that way. We have many different hypotheses in this thread, and many different examinations of them. I assume you're attempting to composite them together, but I personally stipulate that we don't actually have enough information to declare any of our experiments to be "conclusive." The lack of evidence, however, is not proof that evidence does not exist somewhere. As Edison said, "I have not failed. I have only found 999 ways that do not work." Very true, but differing views, in light of a lack of overwhelming evidence, are not necessarily proof of one another's incorrectness.
Let me offer this as well: The laws of nature dictate cause and effect in all things. There is no action which does not have a result, and no results that do not have actions which initiated them. Thus, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume that the universe came from somewhere and that some action initiated its creation.
0
Man, I miss one day of this thread and it soars to 30+ pages! Holy cow.
Okay, this right here is the fundamental problem with the thread. You don't have any concept of what you want people to prove to you. I could ask you to prove to me that a snarflblart exists, and while you may imagine something as a "snarflblart" the fact of the matter is that the word means nothing to me whatsoever. The result is that there isn't a common ground to begin explanation of proof. First we have to establish a line of communication whereby we can understand what one another means when we say "God."
So try to imagine what a hypothetical God would be. What does it look like, or does it look like anything? Everything? What does it do? Is it a real entity or a construct of our collective psyche? And so forth. I *think* you want us to prove that a physical entity, self-aware and capable of independent thought, with the power to change the universe in ways that defy the laws of physics, exists. But that may not be what God is to all of us.
For example, if I believe that God is a manifestation of the human psyche that serves a function in society of drawing us together and granting us a sense of purpose, the simple proof would be that I believe such a thing exists. God as meme is a self-fulfilling proof.
If I believe that God is a supernatural being that exists beyond the scope of the universe and transcends both the physical and spiritual realms (assuming I believe in a spiritual realm), then the very nature of God would make it unprovable because anything outside the scope of our own physical limitations would be impossible to describe, just as a 1-dimensional object cannot describe a 3-dimensional object with any sort of accuracy. A line cannot define a cube, and man cannot define a God of this nature.
If I believe that God is a physical entity that created the universe in such a way as to exist wholly within and as a part of it, and that the universe's fundamental laws are the exact same laws within which God must function (either because these laws always applied to God and the creation of the universe therefore fell within them, or because - through the act of creating the universe - God willingly subjected Himself to them), then God should be provable through science, and the study of science would literally be the study of proving God.
So knowing what you're asking to have proven to you is paramount to whether you can have a successful conversation about "proof." I should mention that all three of the examples given are things that people actually believe, and one result is that you're going to get (as you can see from this thread) many different and conflicting points of evidence and proof. It's important not to take two different people's explanations of God which conflict with one another as evidence that either party is incorrect, just as it's important that everyone discussing this topic does not take your desire for proof of God as an attack on their own belief in one.
You're wrong, actually. All of science is an act of faith. You yourself have said that theories are just that. They are what we currently believe to be true with regards the the laws of the Universe. They key difference, I think, between science and religion is that when science proves a theory to be false, science subsequently adjusts its beliefs to fall in line with the newly discovered facts. But science, even 99.99999999% certain science, still functions on a basis of belief.
Faith, too, does not stop people from working. You're imagining a farmer saying "I have faith that god will make it rain" and then sitting around doing nothing as he starves to death. But that farmer could just have easily said "I have faith in the ability god gave me to build an irrigation ditch" and then he could have successful crops. It's still faith. He could even say "I have faith in my ability to build an irrigation ditch" and not even think about god, but that is still faith.
Again, I disagree. Beliefs are evidential of some things. Sure, a belief is the boogeyman doesn't make the boogeyman a real, tangible, physical object. But a belief in mathematics does make algebra possible. You can't reach out and touch the number i, or even -1; you can't point to something and say, "see that? That thing right there is the square root of negative one apples. And that thing next to it, that's exactly one less than zero apples." But the existence of those concepts - the belief that they are logical and sound, makes many mathematic problems possible to solve and that does have a tangible effect on the universe we live in.
Dismissing both faith and belief out of hand as irrelevant to the discussion does an injustice to the debate as a whole.
0
I look forward to it and I agree. It's sleepy-time!
1
Many kudos to you for approaching the topic in kind! I'm quite pleased to find both the level of discourse and the character of the participants to be mature, respectful, and open. D3 fans rock!
Here I was ready to jump on you for the assumption that being chosen to believe led your your choosing to believe, and then - lo and behold - you presented what I think is probably the most profound sentence of your entire post. That everyone is chosen to believe, but not everyone choses to do so.
However, I'm going to throw out two arguments (which are at odds with one another, but in the interest purely of exploring the choice of choosing, I present them both)
1) The old testament clearly states that the Hebrew tribe was chosen by God to be his people. The new testament will later say that this was God choosing to use them as the primary source for spreading His Good Word, and was not a choice that limited forever The Chosen to only be Jews and their descendants, but even in that case it means that no one else is truly chosen to believe until they have been told the Good Word. This would mean that, in fact, not all people are chosen to believe, because not all people have been told the Good Word of God.
2) God presents Himself as fact. No where in the bible does God every ask, tell, or command people to believe in Him. In fact, He is wholly presented as an entity the existence of which cannot be denied. Belief, then, is distilled down to merely knowledge of the existence of God. If you show someone an apple, and then ask if they believe in apples, would be a pretty silly thing to do. Likewise, once someone has been shown God, they can no more chose not to believe in Him than they can chose not to believe in apples. In this argument, it is impossible to choose not to believe once you have been chosen to do so (the assumption being that, in order to know you have been chosen to believe, God has presented himself to you such that you would understand the nature of your choosing).
While these two arguments are at odds with one another to some degree, the both lead to a similar conclusion: Some people are chosen to believe, but not everyone is. This leaves then, in God's plan, space for nonbelievers through no conscious act of the non-believing party. A very simple way to say this would be: It's okay with God if you don't believe in God. Corollary to this, I think most non-believers are perfectly fine with the existence of believers.
Thus, whether or not God exists, everyone should be perfectly happy and secure that God isn't going to get upset with either party, either because He does exist, but is okay with non-believers, or He doesn't exist, and isn't around to care either way.
I'm with you to a degree, but is there any reason you can think of why God would "move through" those boundaries rather than simultaneously existing in all places and times with no need to move at all? I've always imagined that - should a supernatural being of unlimited power exist - God would always be everywhere (and everywhen).
My understanding of the Garden of Eden would be that - prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all acts were performed in innocence and ignorance - neither good nor evil, and that - even after eating of the fruit, any act performed in innocence or ignorance would remain neither good nor evil. What changed in people was the knowledge of intent. We can - since eating the fruit - be good, or be evil. It was a blessing and a curse. The ability to act with moral intent is what we gained from that Tree. Similarly, one could view the punishment of being tossed out of the Garden as an interpretation of the result of knowing that moral acts existed: Adam and Eve simply could not abide a place where all acts were acts of naiveté, nor could such a place abide them.
I don't believe that the Paradise was a place of pure good. Clearly, there was a snake there whose actions were not "good." Rather, I believe that the Paradise was a place where creatures were unable to act with any desire to harm or benefit. It was a place of pure curiosity. I believe that the snake was curious as to what would happen if someone ate from the tree, but I do not believe that a snake such as that would be allowed in the Garden at all if the Garden was a place of pure Good.
Amen brother.
0
+1 for this also, this is a very concise explanation of current scientific theories.
Adding on to it: The thing we don't know right now is why this specific set of laws governing our physical universe is the set of laws that governs the universe. Very near to the initial instant of the Big Bang (and by this I mean a fraction of a fraction of a nanosecond), the laws of physics sort of congealed into the first sub atomic particles of a size that we can measure today, and from that moment onward, all physical interactions in the universe (in so far as we can tell) have been dictated by the same sets of laws and limitations. However, it was just as likely, from what we can tell, that a different set of physical laws would have taken hold, and an entirely different universe would have formed. In fact, this may have happened as well, and may have happened many, many more times, which is what leads to the "Multiverse" theories. If that happened, then we live in a "Bubble Universe" type of multiverse, where there are several universes each with different sets of physical constraints (these are the Type 2 Multiverses in the wikipedia link below).
The more popular theories today, however, tend to do with Type 3 Multiverses (personally I enjoy the concept of a modified Type 3, namely one in which divergent universes can still interact (and indeed may be constantly interacting but the experience of them is distilled by our perceptions of them... We view time linearly; we may view universes as a simple point in a much larger canvas, unaware of - and unable to measure - any motion between the universes). Type 4 is certainly a broad stroke... basically it says that if you can describe something with math, then it is real. This would indicate that, if there is a God, He can be described with a mathematical formula. How brash!
Anyway, here's the wikipedia article on Multiverses; I find it pertinent to the discussion of God's possible existence to know what universe(s) said God may or may not be ruling over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
0
Agreed, so I'm asking you to tell me what your definition is. When you say "Prove to me that God exists" what is the thing you're asking me to prove? What is your definition of "God." I think it's safe to say that any and all belief systems have shared practices of determining what a God is and what isn't a God. Ergo, we need to start with knowing what your belief system (since you claim atheism, and not nihilism) would frame as a God before we start to put anything into that framework.
I'll stipulate here that a major trait of beliefs is that people tend to cling to them regardless of evidence, be it real or imagined. Very, very few people truly put their beliefs to the test with an honest and open mind that is willing to accept that the test might show their beliefs to be false. As such, I'm viewing this whole discussion as more of an exercise than a truly ground-breaking God vs. Nogod discussion. Finer minds than mine have debated this point for generations and no unassailable arguments have come from it, on either side.