DiabloFans

Don't get me wrong. No homophobia. I just wan't the the beta.


Edit. Post #666 it's a sign. Heard me DiabloFans, it IS a sign.

Quote from proletaria

But, we should not take the next mistaken step of assuming that this is a blank-check to infer whatever we want about a god that we have no reason to suppose exists at all.

I don't think it's a blank-check. My point is science must have an testable object, if you can't test it, you can't apply scientific method to it. So science can't discuss god at all. But logic is not susceptible to such constrains because it works with premises, that can be valid or not valid, and, true or false. "God as the origin" is one premise, is valid (as a premise) because you can't deny it, but you can't say it's true nor false.
For that we must use other premises, already confirmed as valid and true, to deduce and not infer a possible god. Premises such as in chemistry (Lavoisier's mass conservation), thermodynamics ones (again conservation of energy within a system) and Newton's laws.

All this leaves no room for a system without energy to become, by itself, what we have now. The big-bang needs a prior state, and this one needs its own prior state.... this will go back ad infinitum and you can't have "something" from "nothing". The paradox is: unless you find an "uncreated origin" you won't be able to scientifically justify any other point as the origin.

Quote from proletaria

As for science -never- being able to assert thing about the big-bang, prior to it, or what might happen in the "end," I think that is expressing certainty about something we have no room to be certain about. We do not know what we will understand in a hundred years or a thousand years.

We can't be certain about new experiments, measuring and counting methods, but logic will still be same.

Quote from proletaria

I am unwilling to accept that people must infer something outside our box of understanding because that makes no logical sense. If you are going to tell me that the understanding of our universe we have gained in the last couple thousand years is without value or just as good as the baseless god concept, I invite you to explain to me why that is.

It's not valueless, but since illuminism science got materialistic, it's not bad don't get me wrong in here, was the only way to evolve society, but god and soul are taboo and scientists are willingly avoiding to theorise about them even if it´s still a (as non denied) possibility, which is totally contrary to its own rule of always research.

BTW I'm not religious, I just think there's still a reasonable doubt and we can't jus blindly pick one side, any side.

Quote from proletaria

I insist that there is no evidence for the beliefs that you use to justify your belief in god.

What kind evidence would you consider?
1 - Only material evidence? Even if its about a non-material being/whatever. Sry bro nobody can do that.
2 - Peopple's testimony in favor or against? This should never be accepted without proof. Cmon, this is weak even in our dailly basis, we have lies, hallucinations (induced or by ill) and misinterpretations of all kinds. Whitout evidence it is nothing (back to 1). Can't do this.

Conclusion: with what we have today, science wise, there´s absolutelly no chance to prove, in your terms, something like a "god".

But if you use the so called "racionality" you'll see that science can't explain a lot of things, and I'm not talking about lack of tecnology, that can be solved with time. I'm talking about real logic problems like:
1 - when was the beggining? Big Bang. OK. But what was the cause to the energy be so compact in the first place. And before that, what we had? Things can't be created from nothing, energy just change its atributes, it doesn't just apear. In the end you would have to admit that something had to came from nowhere. What you do?
2 - Where´s the end and whats happens there? Universe is in expansion, so there´s must be a limit line (even if its a growning one) that separates "universe" from "nothingness". What happens over there? Science can't explain Infinite and Nothingness (don´t confund it with space vacuum)

This is getting too much philosophical for my taste, but your own accepted logic fails when you go outside the safety box. And what remains, a vague idea beyond matter that some marketing guy milleniuns ago called god

Well I don´t think one can prove the existance of god. John Lennon said "god is concept". And logic says that the part can´t comprehend the whole, so the phrase "prove it exists" would be invalid even if God really does.

All we can do for now is accpet that both science and religion are way to biased some times. Science is supposed to change its beliefs when new discoveries are made, confirming or denying theories and adpting to what is known at the time - they have a real hard time doing so. And religions needs to see that all books were written by men, using their knowlodge and vocabulary and based on their culture, so many concepts beyond "be good", "love", can in fact be allegories, and don't forget that religion is also a domination tool (medieval europe)

But science is getting into something not so materialistic:
1 - Studies on nonlocal consciousness - You are not your brain! Maybe YOU don´t die when your body cease to function.
2 - Akashic Field or something like it - Conection between everything desregards of distance or any known connection, still researching with particles .
3 - Subatomical strutctures - hindu guys are saying that like forever.
4 - Influence of prays and good thoughts on ill peopple that doesn't even know they are being targeted by these factors - to avoid any kind of placebo or psicological effect to cause self restore.

And the good old situations you can´t explain with conventional science:
1 - Edgar Cayce (and others)reads on health, exactly location to find oil (depths and quantity included) - He was right on 50k reads and was not generical ones like "oh you should eat vegetabeles to get better"
2 - Children speaking languages that nobody ever spoken next to them, or knowing precise facts of a person on another country they never met.
3 - Peopple that died for short periods of time (no brain function) and rememberd what happened at the room or saw everything from a top perspective (telling medical mistakes, conversation and a stuff they could not see from the bed perspective)
4 - Mediunic paints and writings, tested and approved by arts and caligraphy experts, done by peopple with no paint/writing skills at all.

Atheists are, in general, as litteral and short sighted as any religious fanatics. They just lean to the opposite side.

Lucid dreams are great. One step closer to having some out of body experiences (astral projection). When you get to this level you will know the truth.

Books are cool, have a few of them, but I wanna a movie. Not a stupid one with lots of characters, lots of fights but no story. Give me a decent trilogy about Sanctuary with some epic music.

Quote from pernunz

For example, all ranked coloured runes can drop, but so can all ranked uncoloured runes can drop. The uncoloured runes, when put in a skill, get locked to that skill, + a bonus.

I like this idea. It makes sense that a random lvl 7 rune should be more powerfull than a regular lvl 7 rune. Theres a high chance of ending up with a useless lvl 7 rune.

I foresee a lot of trades with unattuned runes, just like we had/have unid torches for trade. It may cost your soul or just a few Pgems. Sucked to be poor in D2

I had a "project" like this. I was planning to watch all Godzilla movies ever made. I watched 4 in a roll then I wait too long to get the others 24 movies. Result = I got bored with this plan, I´m still watching but is not the same. the hype is gone.
I´d suggest you to do this as fast as you can, before you find another thing to do.

Great. No more levels like Maggot Lair or Arcane when you couldn´t walk if there was more than 2 players. That sucked big.