This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - 123savethewhales
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ... 138
1441
« on: May 02, 2011, 03:04:51 PM »
The real solution is that Battlebots and Robot Wars need to become commercially profitable again. I agree.
That's not exactly a solution though. More like hoping for something uncontrollable and improbable to just happen. I'd be willing to contribute some cash I don't know about others, but I'd rather start accepting donations after I finish something rather than before, as I don't want to feel morally obligated towards anyone.
I thought that's the point.
1442
« on: May 02, 2011, 02:19:30 PM »
Torque Reaction Full Body Drum.
Exclusively available for download in 123AI.
1443
« on: May 02, 2011, 02:15:28 PM »
The problem again, is that "we" literally means just Serge. This is not a collective process, and we are not helping one bit. What incentive does he have in doing all the work while we just sit around complaining?
If all the non-programmers wants this so bad, maybe they can all chip in some money to compensate the programmer for doing all the work/putting up with all the "suggestions". If paying the programmer the going market price is too much money, then we don't really want this for the amount of work it takes.
1444
« on: May 02, 2011, 01:58:33 PM »
Another Jonzu joke?
1445
« on: May 02, 2011, 01:54:30 PM »
I was wondering not so long ago...have there actually been any robots that have used the 250cm DSL disc (IE. "Strike fear into your opponents") to any great effect?
SHW Drums Or Rammer Drums Probably.
Nonsense.
But dual perm + 250cm disc + damaging weapons on it is fun.
SHW TRFBD
1446
« on: May 02, 2011, 01:49:44 PM »
I remember when this thread was good.
[spam]While I was posting here.[/spam]
1447
« on: May 01, 2011, 06:40:02 PM »
Take if from me, the last thing you want to see is a bunch of "new unread posts" that are just the same question that got annoying from day 1.
I think the worst is still that the actual release doesn't have anywhere near as much "new unread posts". Makes you question why you even bother making the whole thing.
1448
« on: May 01, 2011, 05:54:52 PM »
We don't need ideas. We need good, new, feasible ideas, and programmers with enough incentive to go through with it.
The problem with suggestion is that people tend to overestimate their creativity, often times they are just repeating what everyone else already said and are not helping one bit. These repetitive "fans ideas" become annoying and acts as a disincentive to the programmers. Game modders/developers who claim to want their fan's suggestion are usually just afraid of losing fan base. All they really wanted to know is rather people like/dislike the game.
1449
« on: May 01, 2011, 05:16:37 PM »
Someone go make a 3d pony object then port it into RA2.....
I might enter, since I tend to do good on these anything goes BOTM.... Maybe do Nyan Cat?
1450
« on: April 30, 2011, 09:44:02 PM »
NYANYANYANYANYAN 
1451
« on: April 29, 2011, 08:54:39 PM »
3-Your last two statements make no common sense at all and can be proved wrong with just one example...
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein
1452
« on: April 29, 2011, 11:33:51 AM »
Clearly rules exist if an admin modded your post. They are simply not listed.
Not necessarily... if they mod all new user posts, yes, but if not, it is merely a mod's enjoyment.
It only means the rules fluctuates among the admins. It doesn't make a participant free. All forum rules devise from the enjoyment of the mods/admins, under their own concept of what is best. At any time a mod/admin does not enjoy their job, which I am sure there are plenty, they are still choosing the least of two evils and minimizing harm. If a mods/admins modify a post whenever they like, then the only people with no rules are the mods/admins. Clearly a regular participant does not have the power to "post as they like for others to see". It is the same hierarchical system nonetheless, except more oppressive.
1453
« on: April 29, 2011, 03:28:56 AM »
Sounds more regulated then GTM Junkyard.
Clearly rules exist if an admin modded your post. They are simply not listed.
1454
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:52:00 PM »
Well, that's my fault for not saying both yes and no in the first place, but yeah I think this has gone about as far as it's gonna go. The ontological argument isn't the type of thing that will actually convince anyone, but I like it because it's rather difficult to disprove, even though it feels like a total cop-out. Attacking the first premise is really the only way to dispute it, as you figured, but even then, all your saying is that it's wrong because you aren't smart enough to get it.
Also Pinkie Pie is not both at once, she's all at once, but only if she wants to be, which makes her both god and not god AND cupcakes. 
#6 can also be attack, because that's a second given. You can disprove it as not comprehensible through incompleteness. Therefore God under those definitions does not exist as a concept in people's mind, what is imagined is but a weak, lame, incomplete being. This can be done either with logic (your version of omnipotent is limited by your imagination, so your version isn't God) or examples of even greater beings (Schrodinger's Cat or Pinkie Pie). I find #6 a lot easier to attack then #1, because then I get to be on the offensive in telling them how lame their imagined God is.
1455
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:18:54 PM »
Lol I responded, someone else out troll you though. Proving you cannot imagine the greatest being.
Now you just have to top Shrodinger's cat with something even more epic.
1456
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:09:03 PM »
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
Not true. I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it.
So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all".
No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite. It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it. Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God. Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid.
I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time. Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another.
You underestimate me considerably. The only thing I've copied and pasted so far was the original form of the ontological argument. The rest is my own brilliance (and stuff I learned in Philosophy 101).
I only intend to suggest you copy that 1 sentence I quoted "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived" Which means it doesn't prove you can conceive it. Also, just because you can't comprehend infinity does not mean the concept does not exist. As you said, we do math with it. You cannot completely conceive of such a being, but you can still grasp the concept of such a being.
And now we are running in circle with 1. If you cannot completely conceive, then any person who can conceive a more complete being will have a "greater" being then your. Your being is therefore cannot be all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere. And due to the gaps in comprehension, all being we can conceive will end up with limited powers. And the 5 questions I give are clearly loaded. Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes (in fact, ONLY an omnipotent god COULD create a being with free will)
Yes
Otherwise, it wouldn't be God.
There is no contradiction because this being's infinite power transcends your finite logic. (Image removed from quote.) And here I will prove someone else imagined being is more epic then yours. If God at least have the power of the Schrodinger's cat, then he can be BOTH yes and no at the same time so he can meet the requirement of omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient all at once. Which is greater then yours version. Because of this, God is God and a worm at the same time. God is and is not the universe. Schrodinger is the ultimate troll, that probably makes him is and isn't God at the same time.
1457
« on: April 28, 2011, 09:44:12 PM »
That is true, however, I could just say "there exists a concept of being that which no greater being can be conceived". The fact that I can say that the concept exists means that the concept must indeed exist, so the argument is still valid.
Not true. I can copy and paste a bunch of stuff off Wikipedia, it does not mean I can comprehend it. So here, you being able to copy the text, which I assure you did, does not imply your imagine did invoke something "greater then all". No brain can possibly invoke a greater which is infinite, because we are finite. It can put a symbol on it, we can even do math with it, but we cannot comprehend it. Since it is impossible for our imagination to completely conceive of such God. Point 6, another given, is therefore invalid. I have yet to see a single person who can, through imagination, invoke omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient at the same time. Being able to throw those terms around does not mean we can understand their implication, especially when one contradicts another. And those that think they could can try answering a these 5 simply questions. 1. Can God kill himself? 2. Can God imagine? 3. Can God forget? 4. Can God create being with free will? 5. Can God think?
1458
« on: April 28, 2011, 09:25:46 PM »
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this.
1. I am God.
2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong.
Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
Your argument is completely illogical. Your first statement, that you are God, is immediately questionable, which makes your second statement meaningless.
The beauty of the ontological argument is that the first statement is true by definition; the second statement is a self evident truth; the third is a logical conclusion drawn from the first two statements; the fourth is a restatement of the first; the fifth statement is a logical conclusion of the previous statements; 6 is, once again, self-evidently true; while 7 is the conclusion drawn from a proof by contradiction.
If every statement is true, and the argument follows a logical conclusion, then the argument must be true.
The first argument is only true "by definition" And by definition, "I am God", therefore it is self evident that anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong. That's the problem with any "by definition" argument. There are absolutely no reason why "By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined." This is a "given" and has absolutely nothing to do with the logical process. I can even use "by definition, a dog is a cat" and it will be the same thing. If you think this definition, or any definition, is somehow more logical, that is simply an illusion.
1459
« on: April 28, 2011, 04:12:56 PM »
In fact, as per the ontological argument for the existence of God, these are necessary properties of God. It is a conceptual truth that God is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined. Thus, he must be imagined as Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient, AND he must also exist as stated thus.
- By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
- A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
- Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
- But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
- Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
- God exists in the mind as an idea.
- Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.
This is basically the greatest troll argument ever devised.
Might as well go with this. 1. I am God. 2. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be wrong. Conclusion, logic without observation is stupid.
1460
« on: April 28, 2011, 03:19:13 PM »
I hate that argument. I hate it. Why? Because it's dumb. It's built on the assumption that God exists, and then using this assumption to prove itself correct.
So, those attributes that you called "nonsense" are actually critical to the theological question. Does these create paradoxes? Of course it does, but the chicken and egg paradox does not disprove the existence of either chickens or eggs, so paradoxes aren't really valid arguments.
The chicken and egg paradox isn't a paradox. The egg came first. Only if one accepts creationism does it even make sense for the chicken to have come first.
Pretty sure that's beside the point. The point there was: I do not think that presenting a paradox is a valid argument. Do you agree with this?
Clearly you don't understand what a self contradicting paradox is. Chicken "can" lay eggs, other animals can also lay egg, eggs "can" spawn chicken, it can also spawn other animals No where in the logic does it say only chicken lays eggs, or that eggs only spawn chicken. There are no paradox and evolutionary theory fits just fine in this. In the case of God however Only God "must" be omnipotent Only God "must" be omnipresent Only God "must" be omniscient A simplest paradox is, can God destroy himself? Under no condition can he hold both omnipotent and omnipresent when faced with this dilemma. Self contradicting paradox IS nonsense, when "sense" is define as the use of logic. Because it invokes the logically impossible. An very uninteresting question would be "why must the world follow logic"? Which is not worth thinking about as the truth of this will undermined any use of thinking.
Pages: 1 ... 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 ... 138
|
Show Posts