- A 26 year old male gamer
- Joined on April 24th 2008, last online 10 hours ago.
- Profile Views: 22,938
- Forum posts: 5,420 times which averages 2 posts per day
Badges: (view all)
Recent Wall PostsView more
So, you need to crate a VR app as part of a certain course of yours? Where do you study?
"Ahem. There's no comprehensive explanation for the existence of the universe. Only religion claims to explain it. It's no evidence but it definitely explain a lot about why people tend to be religious: it's the only explanation we have so far. I'm not saying it's the correct explanation, but you don't really have to look very far to see why people are inclined to be religious. If you think about what we know, first everything was condensed into a very tiny point, and suddenly there was a humongous universe. For all we know, everything was just waiting there forever waiting to explode into a huge universe spontaneously.
And yes, I believe that's the most plausible theory there is right now. I don't think it's a good one, but until there's a better one, this will have to do. But it sounds insane and leaves an interesting question open: where did the original point of matter come from? Don't be so surprised people have a hard time thinking religiously. There's probably other reasons as well for faith, but I think this is the one that's related to reason the most."
Absence of a sufficient explanation of something does not mean "GOD DID IT" that's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Your reasoning is as follows:
1) Assume invisible sock stealing leprechauns exist.
2) Socks go missing.
3) PROOF - invisible sock stealing leprechauns did it!
1) Assume some metaphysical agent exists called god who can create Universes.
2) A Universe exists.
3) PROOF - God did it!
Problem is that this isn't even a valid argument, let alone a sound one. The structure is completely wrong.
The fundamental issue is the presupposition you've made that invisible sock stealing leprechauns exist (or god in your analogy). If I presuppose that such creatures exist, I can logically posit them as a POTENTIAL solution to missing socks, but it doesn't necessitate that they are responsible even if they did exist.
You would do well to enroll in a formal logic course to improve your reasoning skills and avoid logical pitfalls.
It's also funny you're suggesting me to take a course on formal logic, because I've had one low-level course on it. While I haven't had any any more comprehensive courses on it, I do have quite a bit of math and programming experience so I have a pretty strong grasp of logic. You chose the wrong victim, pal.
This should be hilarious. Logic is my occupation, your elementary school level course clearly taught you nothing at all.
It's not even a metaphysically possible explanation due to the fact that, epistemically-speaking, such a being is not proved to be possible.
Might as well posit a flying Unicorn farted the Universe into existence. It's stupid at best.
How is this my "final warning" when I haven't even been asked to stop posting, haven't been given ANY warning, not even a hint?
This is why 19 year old children should not be granted online powers...
Season's greetings! I would like to personally invite you to join this year's PC Secret Santa event, thread link below. Please drop by and help us make this holiday season a bit more merry for everyone. Looking forward to seeing you there!
A fellow duckduckgo user! (Saw you post in that Kinect 2.0 conspiracy thread). Just wanted to say hi, and share my love of a fantastic search engine. (!bangs... so addicting. I can't live without them now).
Recent ActivityView more
This list only shows a selection of games from this user's favourite games.View all games
Recent Forum PostsView more
As long as the trophy description reflects this possibility, I'm fine with it. I'm sure it doesn't though....
No, just no. A lot of people are always going to be happy with what a government does, so the poll thing can't really help that much. In the end, this would just result in limiting voting rights. Now in theory I wouldn't mind restricting voting rights by IQ, but in practice, it could be abused and it would give the stupider people more reason for discontent and thus even societal unrest. Besides,...
Nah, I don't think I can really argue, or perhaps I've just managed to play mostly good games myself. Either way, most old games I've played still hold up pretty well, but obviously not all do. Actually they hold up surprisingly well. But I can definitely see where you're coming from, because some games have aged terribly....
Education: Upper secondary school
University: Yes (currently)
Zodiac sign: Capricorn
Favourite Games: Civilization
Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars
Metal Gear Solid
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
Favourite Music: Amaranthe
Poets of the Fall
Favourite Books: Gao Xingjian: Soul Mountain
Luo Guanzhong: Three Kingdoms