Support NeoGAF

[Fools idol]

Anything by Bloober team. Just because it goes against my quality policy.

 

[Guilty_AI]

No. It’s as big a claim as saying “leprechaun’s don’t exist” or “Russell’s teapot isn’t real” or “unicorns don’t exist” or… you get the point.

You said you were asking a casual conversational question, then act as if every statement is bound by the most rigorous strictures of formal deductive logic. Within that context, no, you cannot make the claim that leprechauns do not exist. A sole reliance on deductive logic, though, demands that one ignore the flaws inherent within that system. Tempting though that might be to first-year Philosophy students, you end up looking like a fool for trying to claim that, no, you can’t outright deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This is far from a rigorous mathematical structure. Its a fairly basic and laid back logic system. Every statement meant to be discussed and/or studied requires a few very simple pre-requisites, yet i see the people here ignoring said pre-requisites over and over again and instead bringing biblical contradictions, M-theory, completely arbitrary besides-the-point assumptions or what have you, instead of simply thinking a bit about the statement "God doesn't exist", or heck even "God exists" as both more or less lead to the same place.

Sure, but you’re not evaluating the nature of the universe, you’re evaluating the claim itself. And a claim can be more or less likely to to be true.

“This particular god exists” requires more assumptions than “no particular god exists”.

More or less likely to be correct is a veeeeeery different thing from more or less correct. 2+2 = 40 isn't anymore likely to be correct as 2+2 = 400, as borh are, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong.

Similarly, saying "God doesn't exist" is no more likely to be correct than "God exists", you need to elaborate and break things down further if you want to be closer to an answer. We're at the starting line here.

Apologies for the string of posts, but there’s a whole litany of bullshit to wade through here.

No, 2+2=40 is not the same as 2+2=400, and no mathematician would claim it is. Or do you believe that no mathematician will ever present a numerical answer based on an approximation of pi, e or any other of the vast array of irrational numbers? Is pi = 3.14159265 just as wrong as pi = 74?

You clearly haven't met mathematicians. They work with the exact numbers, the exact value of pi or sqrt(2), because thats how it works in formal mathematics.

All the concepts of approximation you're bringing to the table are very engineering-ish things to do, following loose ideas of the practical use of mathematics, meant to measure slabs of concrete and cables, not to answer logical questions.

 

[SJRB]

I don't play hunting games. Just doesn't feel okay to casually shoot animals for sport.

It sounds ridiculous and of course the first thing anyone always says is "but but but you killed like 50 people in Cyberpunk yesterday", but brother.. I don't care. They had it coming, and the animals don't.

Animals > people.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I didn’t assert god doesn’t exist, and I answered the question. That’s the end of that question’s usefulness, no?

You weren't the one to say it but you did take on the burden of the affirmation when you entered the conversation, as this was the subject matter in the first place. Of course, feel free to back out if you don't feel like going further than that.

 

[Ar¢tos]

You think saying "god doesn't exist" isn't a big claim? Its as big of a claim as saying "god exists", and whoever says them shares equal burden of proof as the other.

To put it another way, compare the affirmation "You can't prove god doesn't exists, therefore it exists" to "You can't prove god exists, therefore it doesn't exist". They're both equally ridiculous and logically flawed.

What's the rush to find out?
We'll all discover when we die, and our lives are relatively short.

Anyway, it seems 99% of people have a very limited black/white view of things.
Why are the options just "exists" or "doesn't exist"?
How about "existed"?
Or "doesn't exist yet"?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Lol hm. I usually see reasonably decent effort and logic still.

If im ever talking to a theist, I usually have the conversation by discussing what we understand about our own psychology. Human beings natural tendencies. And how we deal with emotional convenience, bias, and the concept of no longer existing, and how we deal with that. Are we humanizing the constructs of the universe rather than considering the idea that we are an equal participant to even the smallest dust mite? When you consider even that simple premise, that we are no better than any organism, man based religion falls apart conceptually.

This is a very interesting point to bring up. The humanization of the universe, a form of projection you could say.

Once we elaborate the affirmation "God does/doesn't exists" along the questions of whether you can prove either, or how you can prove either, it can make a strong case against the "it does" camp. But we need to get there first.

 

[the_master]

Some games justifying certain current wars.

Always worries me that people confuse religion with morals. Those are 2 different things.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I mean firstly, proving a negative is roundabout logic, on account of things that don't exist don't leave evidence of their non-existence.

You say there are no evidences of a possible god?

The other problem is ontology: most descriptions of God are so vague it's hard to really prove or disprove anything. When people do make specific claims, you can easily tackle them: the claim that "god is infinitely just and infinitely merciful" for example is contradictory. An infinitely 'just' God always metes out justice, an infinitely merciful God always forgives without punishment. Mercy is by definition the suspension of justice.

Well, thats easy to solve. Lets just use the concept of "god" as the (or a) intelligent creator/designer of the universe as we know it. I think most people in this discussion would be fine with that idea right?

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Drivel

Nothing you said comes close to either making a point, nor addressing mine. You can enjoy dodging other people’s arguments if you like.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What's the rush to find out?
We'll all discover when we die, and our lives are relatively short.

Will we?

How about "existed"?
Or "doesn't exist yet"?

Ooohhhhh, spicy. I like you.

 

[Davevil]

None...i'm not a reeetard

 

[Valt7786]

I'll play anything, even some of the more "egregious" titles previously mentioned, because im fully capable of seperating reality from a video game.
If they put kids in GTA would i shoot them? Probably. Just to see the ingame effects/reactions. Would i get some perverted sense of joy from it? No. Would I do the same in real life? No, of course not and if I did by accident I'd probably shoot myself from the guilt.

Anyone that cant make that seperation and uses the excuse that "GTA/Mortal Kombat/whatever game made me hammer my friends skull in" already had a plethora of mental issues and would have done that regardless of having interacted with a video game.

 

[BlackTron]

My religion only allows me to play games with beautiful thic thighed/boobed women

 

[Guilty_AI]

Nothing you said comes close to either making a point, nor addressing mine. You can enjoy dodging other people’s arguments if you like.

Oh but it does. The affirmation is "God does/doesn't exist". Its easy to just dismiss it as impossible claims, or use arbitrary reasons based on personal biases to say one is more likely than the other. But did you, for even a single moment, thought about how we could prove, or disprove, those claims?

For a better perspective, think about the claims "There is/isn't intelligent life besides humans out there in the universe". Much like the god claim, its not something that can be proven or disproven with what we know, however it contains something the previous claim doesn't (yet), something that makes it feel like a more valid thing to question about. Clear definitions and conditions. We can more or less agree on what intelligent life is, and to prove it we just need to find it, or find traces of it, in manners we're fairly familiar with.

What about god? Firstly, how do we define god? Not that difficult really, instead of getting lost in the hundreds of definitions of god pertaining to every single religion out there, i think most here can settle for "An intelligent creator/designer of the universe as we know it".

Then, the second point. What are the conditions to prove or disprove it? That is not as easy as the first, however its perfectly possible to think of some.

So? Suggestions?

 

[DeVeAn]

OK, prove it then.



Nothing was "created from scratch". Everything is a product of evolution. Things evolve or get destroyed according to the environment and physics around them. It's a long game of trial and error. Things that exist can't just disappear because "the system isn't thought out". They have to work and evolve in some way. And if the physics were any different, many things would work and look differently but they would still exist/work in some other way and you would still probably say the same thing if you were there.

Not to mention how a creator doesn't really explain anything. You still have to wonder, if "a man" created everything then who created this man? Where does this wisdom, knowledge and intelligence comes from? You use a creator to explain how a bunch of rocks and gas came to be but you also replace them with an even more complex entity that you never think about how that came to be. And, ofc, no proof to your claims either.



No it's the other way around. It's you who desperately need him to exist because he gives you a false sense of security and eternal justice, not to mention the promise of eternal life of some sort. See people don't like the concept of not existing in some form. It's both because of our huge ego and/or grave fear of death. So we created the concept of afterlife and "the soul" with some creator who always watches over us and protect us. You believe god exists because it makes you feel more secure about your mortality, you need him to exist otherwise death is final and existence seems futile.

And i get it, i would also love for him to exist because i also like existence and experiencing things. I would love to see what happens in 500 years from now, whatever. But i can't just fool myself and believe in fairy tales just because i don't like the idea that soon this will all be over and i will go back to the state of not existing, just like before i was born. Truth isn't something that works for our convenience, sometimes it's harsh.



Exactly. Our own bodies are a prime example of a product of evolution, with many remnants of trial and error, not to mention many duds as well.



But you seem you do. God. That's the answer to everything for you. You seem to have figured it out. There's no other answer or mystery because "God works in mysterious ways" or "he is beyond our understanding" or "our feeble minds should not challenge God and his perfect creation" and other stuff like that. You already given up on trying to find answers about the physical world.

200 years ago you would see a lighting on the sky and you would explain it with "god is angry" or something. Theists always have things figured out until science proves them wrong. It has always been this way.

I definitely think God exists. Just the world we live in is evidence of the creator. Trying to “prove” he does, personally I don’t think I could convince most people. Reading the Bible might help to believe it. In the end it’s purely up to the individual free will and all.

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

Moral reasons? I guess if I knew the game was literally done by slave labor or that people were murdered to produce the game. Other than that the only reason to not play a game should be it's quality.

 

[Bartski]

loving those unintentional coming-out threads

 

[BlackTron]

Mario curbstomps innocent animals while tripping balls on shrooms and chases a girl who clearly wants to be left alone.

And they sell this game to kids! Why won't anyone think of the children?

Listen here, Super Mario is a national Hero who helped shaped American society, I won't hear a word of it

 

[Guilty_AI]

Listen here, Super Mario is a national Hero who helped shaped American society, I won't hear a word of it

An italian national american hero made by a japanese is probably the most american thing ever.

 

[nkarafo]

We'll all discover when we die, and our lives are relatively short.

Here's the problem though. If god exists, we will indeed discover that. If he doesn't, nobody will be able to tell if they were right or wrong.

 

[Roberts]

Not really. As something of a liberal I would most likely play stuff that doesn’t really gel with my social or political ideology if the gameplay is good. I would even check out something like Atlas Shrugged-the Game purely for lols.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Here's the problem though. If god exists, we will indeed discover that. If he doesn't, nobody will be able to tell if they were right or wrong.

God's existence is actual irrelevant, since it existing or not doesn't really answer any questions.

 

[Bojji]

Interesting. Can you provide evidence god doesn't exist?

Can you provide evidence god does exists?

“I feel him right here in my heart!” doesn’t count

No one can, I doubt humanity will ever know. I doubt there is intelligent omnipotent creature in the sky watching us masturbate.

So we all agree the big bang was what started the universe before time, space and matter. And the big bang came to be due to a spark. Who created said spark I wonder

I thought about that a lot, but problem is:

- create big bang
- wait...
- wait...
- ~10 billion years later on some random planet in some random solar system in some random galaxy cellular life begins
- wait...
- 4 billion years later humans appear (after many life extinctions events on the planet)
- for 200k years humans belive in spirits
- 3800 years ago first humans starts to belive in GOD (same god for judaism, christianty and muslims)
- they belive that god created the world in 7 days few thousands years ago not some fucking 14 BILLION.

MAYBE god exists, but if he/she/(whatever) exists its not the same caring/punishing god from holy textbooks, this god doesn't give a fuck about us.

 

[Guilty_AI]

No one can, I doubt humanity will ever know. I doubt there is intelligent omnipotent creature in the sky watching us masturbate.

Perhaps we won't, but don't you think there are ways to get us closer to an answer?

 

[Bojji]

Perhaps we won't, but don't you think there are ways to get us closer to an answer?

You mean scientifically? I doubt that, we will never know for sure HOW EXACTLY universe began, what was before etc.

People can read holy bible and similar texts but even majority of priests know that most of what was written there is false, based on the knowledge humans had 2 thousands years ago.

Some people can belive in things that aren't proven by science and some can't, I personally stopped caring about my catholic upbringing when I was 12, I started to see how not compatible with current human knowledge (discovered using science) everything they teach is.

 

[Batiman]

No one can, I doubt humanity will ever know. I doubt there is intelligent omnipotent creature in the sky watching us masturbate.



I thought about that a lot, but problem is:

- create big bang
- wait...
- wait...
- ~10 billion years later on some random planet in some random solar system in some random galaxy cellular life begins
- wait...
- 4 billion years later humans appear (after many life extinctions events on the planet)
- for 200k years humans belive in spirits
- 3800 years ago first humans starts to belive in GOD (same god for judaism, christianty and muslims)
- they belive that god created the world in 7 days few thousands years ago not some fucking 14 BILLION.

MAYBE god exists, but if he/she/(whatever) exists its not the same caring/punishing god from holy textbooks, this god doesn't give a fuck about us.

Even if god exists as explained in texts I would never worship a power like him. Why would I worship someone/something that condemns people for not believing when he has never given simple evidence for us to believe in the first place.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You mean scientifically? I doubt that, we will never know for sure HOW EXACTLY universe began, what was before etc.

People can read holy bible and similar texts but even majority of priests know that most of what was written there is false, based on the knowledge humans had 2 thousands years ago.

Some people can belive in things that aren't proven by science and some can't, I personally stopped caring about my catholic upbringing when I was 12, I started to see how not compatible with current human knowledge (discovered using science) everything they teach is.

Forget "science", you can get closer to an answer by merely asking some logical questions.
What is a (or the) god?
How can we prove, or disprove, it exists?
Where and how can we find traces that could aid those proofs or disproofs?

 

[Batiman]

Forget "science", you can get closer to an answer by merely asking some logical questions.
What is a (or the) god?
How can we prove, or disprove, it exists?
Where and how can we find traces that could aid those proofs or disproofs?

If he does exist why not make the answer simple for everyone? Is he not all powerful?

 

[Bojji]

Even if god exists as explained in texts I would never worship a power like him. Why would I worship someone/something that condemns people for not believing when he has never given simple evidence for us to believe in the first place.

Exactly.

What is a (or the) god?

Good question that we don't know the answer to. Creator of the universe (and just that, doing nothing else)? Daddy in the sky punishing jews for doubting him on the desert? Maybe someone personally overlooking lives and thoughts of all people on the planet?

How can we prove, or disprove, it exists?

Only proof of existence of god are verbal testimonies of some people, there is nothing else.

Where and how can we find traces that could aid those proofs or disproofs?

I don't know...

 

[Guilty_AI]

If he does exist why not make the answer simple for everyone? Is he not all powerful?

That would imply that he cares about us knowing about him. Does he?

 

[Puscifer]

Y'all remember this?

Some Don't Like BioShock's Forced Baptism. Enough To Ask For A Refund.

Before you can step into Columbia—before you can find out about Elizabeth and Comstock, before you know about "tears" and the Vox Populi, BioShock Infinite requires the player to do one thing: accept a baptism. There is no way around the religious sacrament which uses water as a means of ritual...

kotaku.com

 

[Guilty_AI]

Good question that we don't know the answer to. Creator of the universe (and just that, doing nothing else)? Daddy in the sky punishing jews for doubting him on the desert? Maybe someone personally overlooking lives and thoughts of all people on the planet?

Creator of the universe is a pretty good start. Of course there could be other definitions, but i believe the beginnings of the universe are what most people raised among western cultural values usually care about when asking this.

So yes, "An intellingent creator/designer of the universe" is good enough for us as of right now.

Only proof of existence of god are verbal testimonies of some people, there is nothing else.

I didn't ask for proofs, thats the third question. What i'm asking are the coditions that'll determine whether we can say he exists or not.

"Seeing him" is a condition indeed, but not a really good one to use. Can't you think of some other condition using the previously estabilished definition of god?

 

[drganon]

I've never refused to play a game for moral reasons.

 

[Koenigssee]

Gacha games.
Don't wanna be a part of the problem.

Koei Tecmo games. Got beef with them (a subsidiary to be specific) irl.

 

[Humdinger]

I avoid games that gratuitously focus on violence, like Postal. It's not that I'm "morally offended," it's just that I find those games stupid -- not worth my time.

I also avoid games whose main focus seems to be appealing to horny adolescent males. It's not that I'm morally offended; I'm just too old for that shit.

I don't enjoy GTA, but it's not because I'm morally offended by the violence. The violence in GTA is cartoonish; it's hard to take seriously. I dislike it for other reasons.

I can't think of a game that I have avoided because I've been morally offended. Morally bored, yes, but not offended.

 

[LordCBH]

Imagine being so repressed you can’t even play fictional content.

 

[The Red Fool]

I've actually played (and even somewhat enjoyed) this game but I will never purchase Resident Evil 4 Remake, even if it goes on sale for $1. I don't want to contribute to the sales numbers. I've been against the idea of remaking RE4 since it was announced and I still stand by that. RE4 is possibly my favorite game of all time and the thought if it being replaced by this newer (and inferior) version saddens me to no end. Yes, the original is on Steam and Switch, but I want it to truly live on forever by releasing on every new system from here on out. Yes, it's a joke and a meme that this game and Skyrim are on everything, but the game is so fantastic and iconic that it absolutely deserves that honor. Now that there's a remake, more than likely that (alongside RE2R and RE3R) will probably get released on future systems while the original will languish with the other original games (namely the PS1 trilogy and Code Veronica) on hardware that will eventually cease to function (not to mention the digital storefronts on said hardware will eventually close).

I understand and accept that RE4R is already massively successful and beloved. I know my actions and opinions probably won't change that (I'm not necessarily trying to). I don't even hate the game (I actually enjoyed it more than RE6). However, I personally can't sit with the thought of giving Capcom money for this. Since I own the game but didn't pay for it, I actually donated the money I would have spent on this game ($70 for deluxe version) to the Resident Evil 4 HD Project. They have done an incredible job at upgrading the visuals to HD without ruining the game's distinctive art style. Check them out (and even donate) if you can.

 

[Batiman]

That would imply that he cares about us knowing about him. Does he?

Well it’s kind of required in most religions

 

[Guilty_AI]

Well it’s kind of required in most religions

Does religion precede the hypothesis of god?

 

[DryvBy]

Apparently, some of the women featured in this game turned out to be underage.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Are you talking about “The Interview”? Because referring to that incident as “supporting terrorism” is, imo, a hell of a stretch.

Or was there something else?

I have no idea what "The Interview" is.

 

[Fuz]

I have no idea what "The Interview" is.

 

[22:22:22]

Asscreed. I won't participate in false history.

Lol 15 reactions.

65% Likes and 35% Lols.

Although my post was seriously meant and the first thing that came to mind when trying to link a videogame with .... Well let's not go there.

With that said I'm suprised at the thumbs, brain and strength reactions.

Good sign.

Then again I realize this is a videogame and our current consensus regarding the made up narrative of history would ofcourse be used. Doesn't bother me. Neither do the lols.

Funnily enough the main reason I don't play Asscreed is because it's looks and plays like by the numbers poop imho.

I've morals to uphold.

 

[Scotty W]

Imagine being so repressed you can’t even play fictional content.

What a stupid post

 

[The Infectious Paradox]

Apparently, some of the women featured in this game turned out to be underage.

When the police find out this Easter egg

 

[BbMajor7th]

You say there are no evidences of a possible god?


Well, thats easy to solve. Lets just use the concept of "god" as the (or a) intelligent creator/designer of the universe as we know it. I think most people in this discussion would be fine with that idea right?

What form does he take? Is he a part of our reality or outside our reality? Is he benevolent and intercessory or more hands off, after the model of Spinoza? Ity these kinds of questions that make it easier to answer. If you don't nail down the description then the goal posts can forever move.

For example, if I tell you there's an super intelligent teapot somewhere in the universe, that controls all reality, it'd be real hard to prove me wrong. If I said it lives in a basement in Delaware, you could immediately start looking; if I gave you an exact address you could absolutely prove me right or wrong.

The more specific a claim, the more easy it is to falsify - this is why you won't get dragged into caught and ask to prove you've never murdered anybody ever. You might be asked to show that you didn't murder a specific person at a specific time - and even in those cases, the evidence will likely be positive proof you were elsewhere (an alibi, etc), not negative proof that you never did.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I really look forward to seeing answers from gaffers.
For me, the reason is mainly my Faith - some may be surprised, but I am a devoted Catholic, traditional Catholic, not like Joseph Biden.

1. That is why I never could really play GTAV, since it is just brutal and promotes crime. Period.
2. I bought CP77 day one on GOG, played like 1 hour, until I realized there is an occult stuff there, in regard to Tarot. Dumped game and never booted again. Shame since it looked attractive!

The latter is for superstitious reasons not "moral," which I think is an important distinction. I remember a friend of mine in middle school not being allowed to play Paganitzu because the nonsense name contained the word "Pagan" even if the game was perfectly tame. This sort of thing isn't about a sense of conviction toward right and wrong, but about imaginary bogeymen haunting you.


I have occasionally wrestled with whether or not to support games that are made by people who I know are shitty, but at the end of the day it comes down to the work itself. Like Doug Tennappel is a known shithead but The Neverhood and Earthworm Jim don't reflect that so in th minutes end I try not to worry about it.

To be honest I am an avid consumer of Steven Segal and Kevin Sorbo B-movies so I have made my peace with supporting awful people and problematic works.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What form does he take? Is he a part of our reality or outside our reality? Is he benevolent and intercessory or more hands off, after the model of Spinoza? Ity these kinds of questions that make it easier to answer. If you don't nail down the description then the goal posts can forever move.

For example, if I tell you there's an super intelligent teapot somewhere in the universe, that controls all reality, it'd be real hard to prove me wrong. If I said it lives in a basement in Delaware, you could immediately start looking; if I gave you an exact address you could absolutely prove me right or wrong.

The more specific a claim, the more easy it is to falsify - this is why you won't get dragged into caught and ask to prove you've never murdered anybody ever. You might be asked to show that you didn't murder a specific person at a specific time - and even in those cases, the evidence will likely be positive proof you were elsewhere (an alibi, etc), not negative proof that you never did.

You can worry about more specific definitions of god later. After all arguing if god is benevolent or not, takes the form of a bearded old man or a teapot, doesn't really proves or disproves the hypothesis itself.

For now, lets just think of god as what i said. "An intelligent creator/designer of the universe as we know it"

 

[German Hops]

 

[BbMajor7th]

You can worry about more specific definitions of god later. After all arguing if god is benevolent or not, takes the form of a bearded old man or a teapot, doesn't really proves or disproves the hypothesis itself.

For now, lets just think of god as what i said. "An intelligent creator/designer of the universe as we know it".

Sure - and asked if that statement was true, I'd say it was irresolvable: there's nothing to suggest it's specifically true, no way to absolutely falsify it. Such a general description allows for an almost infinite number of possibilities (from sentient teapot to beardy white dude), any of which might plausibly exist or have once existed.

It doesn't suggest there's any good reason to believe it is a true, just that, given the infinite number of possible answers, it wouldn't be completely rational to argue it was definitely false.

Again, burden of proof has shifted. In general, if you have a particular hypothesis, it falls on you to prove it out. If you can't then no-one else is obliged to buy what you're selling. As the only saying goes: what is asserted without evidence can safely be dismissed without evidence.