(January 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 6:53 pm)Stimbo Wrote: As far as interacting with it, yes.

So then you agree, that a creator of a "universe" can exist apart from the creation yet still interact with it...

No, because a computer server is not equivalent to a universe. We know that the universe exists outside the server. We do not know if anything exists outside the universe. You are making a false equivalence.

(January 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 5:40 pm)Huggy74
[quote='Stimbo Wrote: Then we should be able to detect those interactions at the very least.

We do, just not by scientists.

I posted evidence of those interactions on multiple occasions, and interestingly enough it gets quiet as a mouse up in here...

Could that be because our standards of convincing evidence is a tad higher than yours? Just saying.

How about posting a few of your best ones, just to see how they stand up to scrutiny?
[/quote]

I intend to make an OP doing just that.

(January 17, 2017 at 6:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 6:30 pm)Mathilda Wrote: World of Warcraft runs on servers using the same laws of physics as the people who wrote the code.

Yet the rules that apply to warcrafts "world", don't apply to the people that created it, correct?

Your whole argument relies on equivocation of what is meant by rules, reality, worlds etc.

I hate to break it to you but World of Warcraft is not real. It's a game. Specifically, it's a computer program. It exists as a collection of hardware and software working deterministically using very simple operations on a vast number of electrical and magnetic states. There is nothing in principle different between WoW than Excel yet you don't call Excel a reality.

World of Warcraft exists within the laws of nature. What you are referring to as rules and a 'world' is nothing more than a series of calculations relying on matter and energy.

(January 17, 2017 at 6:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 6:25 pm)Asmodee Wrote: That is absolutely not true.  In fact, most Christians don't even believe that.  I can't tell you how many times a Christian has told me that God couldn't prove himself because then we would have to believe and faith wouldn't be necessary.  In fact, that came up in a conversation I had rather recently here:

So you're going to argue with a damn dictionary/thesaurus?

Balaco is a fucking dictionary???  I knew there was something off with him, but I had no idea he was a damned book!
Did I give any definitions?  Did I quote any dictionary or any thesaurus?  Or did I give a real-life example to show that common usage is not as you say?
But yeah, I can argue with a dictionary for you.  Mind if I borrow yours?  I'll use your dictionary.com link to look up both words.
Belief:
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.
Faith:
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:

Let's see here.  Belief....one, two, three, four...  Faith...one, two, three, four, five? Six??  SEVEN???  Four isn't seven!  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "no difference" means.  Should I look up the words "no" and "difference" for you next?  Because I see quite a difference here.  Maybe I'm stupid.  I'm sure that's probably it.  But it just doesn't look to me like there is "no difference" between one word with 4 definitions and another with 7.

(January 17, 2017 at 6:25 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 5:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Belief and faith are synonymous, there is no difference...

That is absolutely not true.  In fact, most Christians don't even believe that.  I can't tell you how many times a Christian has told me that God couldn't prove himself because then we would have to believe and faith wouldn't be necessary.  In fact, that came up in a conversation I had rather recently here:

(November 23, 2016 at 7:14 pm)Balaco Wrote: I was taught that God doesn't give us undeniable proof of his existence as a test of faith...those with righteous minds would find him. Joker and any other Catholics, what are your thoughts on this?

So once again you're talking out your ass with absolute certainty about that which is literally impossible to know with any certainty.

Well, see, he read it in an old book written by primitive fucktards so of course he accepts every word it says.

(January 17, 2017 at 7:11 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 6:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Yet the rules that apply to warcrafts "world", don't apply to the people that created it, correct?

Your whole argument relies on equivocation of what is meant by rules, reality, worlds etc.

I hate to break it to you but World of Warcraft is not real. It's a game. Specifically, it's a computer program. It exists as a collection of hardware and software working deterministically using very simple operations on a vast number of electrical and magnetic states. There is nothing in principle different between WoW than Excel yet you don't call Excel a reality.

World of Warcraft exists within the laws of nature. What you are referring to as rules and a 'world' is nothing more than a series of calculations relying on matter and energy.

WoW is real in so much that it has value and people can interact with it.

If the creators of wow were able to imbue the any of the characters with free moral agency and self awareness, then that character would perceive that world as it's reality even though it's nothing more than computer code.

We perceive our world as "reality" even though 99.9 percent of it is empty space. As the saying goes, if you remove all that empty space, you would be able to compress all of humanity into the size of a sugar cube...

---

(January 17, 2017 at 7:22 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 6:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: So you're going to argue with a damn dictionary/thesaurus?

Balaco is a fucking dictionary???  I knew there was something off with him, but I had no idea he was a damned book!

You responded to me AND Balco in the same post, I'm only referring to your response to me.

(January 17, 2017 at 7:22 pm)Asmodee Wrote: Did I give any definitions?  Did I quote any dictionary or any thesaurus?  Or did I give a real-life example to show that common usage is not as you say?
But yeah, I can argue with a dictionary for you.  Mind if I borrow yours?  I'll use your dictionary.com link to look up both words.
Belief:
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction:
a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:
a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust:
a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:
the Christian belief.
Faith:
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion:
the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:
to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief:
the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.
the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:

Let's see here.  Belief....one, two, three, four...  Faith...one, two, three, four, five? Six??  SEVEN???  Four isn't seven!  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "no difference" means.  Should I look up the words "no" and "difference" for you next?  Because I see quite a difference here.  Maybe I'm stupid.  I'm sure that's probably it.  But it just doesn't look to me like there is "no difference" between one word with 4 definitions and another with 7.

Wait... so your method of determining if a word is synonymous is whether or not it has the same number of references?

So, god is like a computer programmer? That's very deistic.

If the program has no way to detect the programmers existence, then speculation about a possible programmer is pointless. We cannot know anything about the programmer, including if it exists.

And WoW exists in our reality, not in a separate one outside of it. If the npcs became self aware, there would be ways to directly interact with the programmers and vice versa. This analogy holds no water at all.

(January 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 12:37 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Here's a little better analogy than the crap you just spewed...

Let's say some guys wife is getting boned on the side. He can rule out huge numbers of people his wife might be fucking without ever figuring out who it really is. After all, King Henry the 8th isn't available for any afternoon delight. Neither is Winston Churchill or Ronald Reagan swinging by to poke her pussy. He can scratch Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and President Obama from the list since they've never had the opportunity to dance the horizontal mambo with her. In fact, he can rule out quite literally billions of people with absolute certainty (or something so close as to make no difference) without even trying...

It is possible to know what the answer isn't even if you don't know what the answer is.

Besides, you give me four of something and I can certainly tell you I don't have ten of them (or 20, or 100, or 2048, or 243,985,243) without ever figuring 2+2=4.

That's the most convoluted drivel I've ever seen.

Let's cut that crap and put it bluntly.

Is it your position that you know with 100 percent certainty that a creator doesn't exist?

(emphasis is mine)

Put those goalposts back you fucking troglodyte. My knowledge (or lack there of) about any alleged creator is absolutely irrelevant to to the argument that you made and I refuted. You simply can't handle the fact that your pathetic argument got refuted sooooo fucking easily so you have to try to make it about something else. No matter how much you want to deflect, knowing the answer is not a prerequisite for knowing what the wrong answers are.

Why even start taking about the laws of nature? Why not the laws of reality? Because then it's harder to play silly word games.

What even is "nature"? If it isn't simply everything that exists, then "supernatural" is just a subset of things that exist. That set may or may not be empty. Why are we partitioning things that exist like this?

We already accept that rules of reality apply differently to different things. Some laws have "no effect" on certain things, such as magnetism having no effect on anything with no charge. We don't call such things "super magnetic".

If something is outside our reality, then we have no access to it, for now at least. We only see its effects. And one external cause looks the same as any other from our end, as does no external cause at all.

Anyhow. Whatever these magic things are meant to be, it's up to the person making the claim to demonstrate they are real. So far, they have failed. There are only arguments from ignorance.

(January 17, 2017 at 10:39 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(January 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That's the most convoluted drivel I've ever seen.

Let's cut that crap and put it bluntly.

Is it your position that you know with 100 percent certainty that a creator doesn't exist?

(emphasis is mine)

Put those goalposts back you fucking troglodyte. My knowledge (or lack there of) about any alleged creator is absolutely irrelevant to to the argument that you made and I refuted. You simply can't handle the fact that your pathetic argument got refuted sooooo fucking easily so you have to try to make it about something else. No matter how much you want to deflect, knowing the answer is not a prerequisite for knowing what the wrong answers are.

Look you fool, my argument was if your position is 'I don't know how the universe began' then you can't state that there wasn't a creator, you disagreed  you freaking muppet.

(January 17, 2017 at 12:37 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: It is possible to know what the answer isn't even if you don't know what the answer is.

So again, Is it your position that you know  a creator doesn't exist?

This time answer the question.

---

(January 17, 2017 at 9:54 pm)Aroura Wrote: So, god is like a computer programmer? That's very deistic.

If the program has no way to detect the programmers existence, then speculation about a possible programmer is pointless. We cannot know anything about the programmer, including if it exists.

And WoW exists in our reality, not in a separate one outside of it. If the npcs became self aware, there would be ways to directly interact with the programmers and vice versa. This analogy holds no water at all.

you state that as if no one has had interaction with the spiritual realm, your experiences aren't everyone's experience.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12