Support NeoGAF

[TerribleAtThisGame]

You should play it because it doesn't glorify violence at all. The key predicament of the main character is that he's being forced to kill by the director of a snuff film, otherwise his family will die. The people he kills happen to be the lowest of society: rapists, gangbangers, murderers, pedophiles and neo-nazis. I don't think there should be much of a moral quandary with dispatching people like that who are out to get you first.

The game is also much better classified as a horror game. The entire experience is unnerving and will make you feel incredibly dirty, which is of course the point, but it also should be said that the player having such a reaction to it means they're probably a fairly well adjusted person. It's not really intended to be an enjoyable experience in much the same way that an effective horror film shouldn't really be.

It's actually really good at being a Escape From New York game. Even the OST is total John Carpenter before that was ever a cool retro thing.

It's a filthy game, very Horror like you said.

 

[TerribleAtThisGame]

I don't play military shooters. I was in the Airforce and modern military rarara shit really turns me off.

Hyprocritical because I play all sorts of gory and violent shit but oh well, that's my personal no-no.

 

[Majormaxxx]

Tlou 2

 

[Guilty_AI]

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.

But why is it irresolvable? Have you tried thinking about what would be necessary to prove or disprove it?

 

[Fredrik]

Wow that’s a fairly odd stance to have keraj37
What games can you actually play? There is killing in like 95% of all games now.

As for your question. No moral boycots but I had some issues playing Assassin’s Creed Valhalla when you were supposed to burn down a village in a quest and screaming civilians were fleeing. Felt... wrong. I like to play as a hero, not a villain.

Generally I don’t play games that are going too far with brutality and gore, I know it’s just polygons but I just don’t enjoy looking at it, I deactivate gore every time if there is such an option. Wouldn’t want to see a rape either even if it’s just polygons, there are lines I don’t cross.

 

[BbMajor7th]

But why is it irresolvable? Have you tried thinking about what would be necessary to prove or disprove it?

I have. As I said above, the claim needs to more specific - specific claims are more verifiable/falsifiable because they are more testable. They're also more meaningful in debate.

For example: 'magic teapots exist' is much harder to falsify than, 'there's a teapot in my bedroom that can grant wishes'. By specifying the location and the magical nature of the object, I make it easier to find out what's true.

More on topic, Young-Earth Creationist claims that the universe was created in six days about 6500 years ago can easily be falsified by a whole range of scientific disciplines. The notion that some sentient supernatural force had some nonspecific role in creating the universe, by unspecified means in an unspecified time or place, puts no particular detail on the table to actually question.

It's like being asked to investigate a suspicious death without being told who died, when, by what or means or where, and the other party saying "well, if you can't rule out foul play, it was definitely a murder." It might be, but unless I can actually see some details I can't say either way.

 

[Dolomite]

Separating entertainment from religious conviction is healthy. Being able to recognize that the game I'm playing is a game, and won't actually stir up feelings of say... wanting to go on a helicopter rampage or murder gang members is easy because such feelings aren't innately present is important

 

[Beechos]

Many Gafers here

I guess this person doesn't know how big twitter is.

 

[EruditeHobo]

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.

Well conversations evolve... we were going back and forth, and we've moved past the initial post you responded to haven't we?
I didn't say I could demonstrate the non-existence of a god... however one would do that.
Seems like you don't really want to answer my question despite me answering yours... unless I missed it somewhere.

 

[Fredrik]

Lmao. I'm an atheist (or agnostic/whatever, dont care) and i find hilarious how little thought modern atheists put into these questions.

Such a simple thing to ask "can you prove god doesn't exist" with a fairly simple answer and explanation (and no, its not you can't therefore god), yet no one so far has been able to give a minimaly reasonable answer.

I cant help but think people just become atheists/agnostics these days cause its trendy.

Serious question from an older guy, what’s even the point of being an atheist?
To me it’s like some weird political statement with no payoff where the essense of it means that you shove good and evil and heaven and hell under the rug and you’re essentially missing the power of key ingredients in all the awesome metal in the world and tons of movies and books and demon slaying games like Diablo and Doom.

Why not just be casual about it? Won’t know for sure until it’s too late to do anything about it anyway.

If God and heaven exist.
- Cool, afterlife! Hope the angels are hot or that I don’t have to bounce on a demon lap all day.
If it’s all fake.
- Bummer, would’ve wanted to meet my parents again but at least they didn’t watch me doing bad things.

 

[EruditeHobo]

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

Does "he" impact reality? Is "he" able to be detected by humans?

Serious question from an older guy, what’s even the point of being an atheist?

It has nothing to do with politics, necessarily or inherently.

If you care about whether what you believe is reflective of reality, you should care about the nature of your beliefs. Every single one of your beliefs. Religious thinking is demonstrated to be non-logical. So, atheism is generally-speaking a term which applies to people who have decided that their beliefs need to be based in reality and supported by evidence. It's literally the default position. That's all.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't understand culture or literature. Do you think not believing in vampires means you can't enjoy Bram Stoker's Dracula?

 

[BbMajor7th]

Serious question from an older guy, what’s even the point of being an atheist?
To me it’s like some weird political statement with no payoff where the essense of it means that you shove good and evil and heaven and hell under the rug and you’re essentially missing the power of key ingredients in all the awesome metal in the world and tons of movies and books and demon slaying games like Diablo and Doom.

Why not just be casual about it? Won’t know for sure until it’s too late to do anything about it anyway.

If God and heaven exist.
- Cool, afterlife! Hope the angels are hot or that I don’t have to bounce on a demon lap all day.
If it’s all fake.
- Bummer, would’ve wanted to meet my parents again but at least they didn’t watch me doing bad things.

There's no real point to it - it's just what you believe. Doesn't exclude you from enjoying a broader culture as it intersects with religion or even admiring or enjoying religion itself. It's completely apolitical - it's just what you believe about the nature of the universe and, really, when you think about it, it's kind of the default.

Say there are 100,000 religions in the world (it's probably more): a Christian rejects 999,999 of them - the atheist just goes one further. The Christian believes 99.9999% of all religious claims are untrue, the atheist agrees, he just thinks the other 0.00001% are also untrue.

 

[VeganElduderino]

I only play games that Satan is my Lord , drink blood and have orgies all day.

 

[ConcealedBlaze]

Pretty much only sexual content with minors would make me avoid a game.

I’m a bleeding heart leftist but I’m okay with enjoying problematic things. I just reflect on why I think they’re problematic. To me acknowledging and thinking about why it’s an issue matters more than some moral grandstanding where I actively avoid consuming the media.

One of my absolute favorite games is God Hand which to my mind kinda oversteps with how camp Mr. Gold and Silver are. Doesn’t mean I don’t love the hell out of the game. Or (more egregiously) Lo Wang in the original Shadow Warrior makes me cringe like nothing else but it’s a great retro-shooter.

Stuff intentionally “problematic” like the Postal series or Hatred on the other hand can’t really be analyzed the same way in my opinion. Transgressive, boundary-pushing art has always been and will always be part of human endeavors. Hence I like Postal because it does it well (in a South Park kinda way) and dislike Hatred because it’s trying way too hard to be edgy and the gameplay sucks. Gotta analyze those on whether the transgression is worth the squeeze. But I still played both (though I didn’t make it that far in Hatred).

 

[TrueGrime]

As a retired Marine, there are some games that hit close to home and drudge up some pretty shitty memories, but at the same time, those kinds of games can be therapeutic in a way if I can play them with friends. I dunno, it's hard to explain.

 

[Fredrik]

It has nothing to do with politics, necessarily or inherently.

If you care about whether what you believe is reflective of reality, you should care about the nature of your beliefs. Every single one of your beliefs. Religious thinking is demonstrated to be non-logical. So, atheism is generally-speaking a term which applies to people who have decided that their beliefs need to be based in reality and supported by evidence. It's literally the default position. That's all.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you don't understand culture or literature. Do you think not believing in vampires means you can't enjoy Bram Stoker's Dracula?

You may understand it but can you truly enjoy it? I don’t believe you can. In metal, I definitely think it’ll all be lackluster if you don’t even have a tiny ”what if” floating about in your head so you can somewhat relate to the thoughts when somebody is screaming about losing their faith or concerns about death and going to hell or slaying angels or the uprise of hell or any of that. What’s the point if you can’t understand the pain and misery and concern and rage etc? Isn’t it just like someone singing about the lore in Halo or Zelda or some other imaginary saga? A song about the rise of Ganon would have the same meaning lol

 

[EruditeHobo]

You may understand it but can you truly enjoy it? I don’t believe you can.

That's stupid. I can show how really easily -- you know reanimating the dead isn't possible, right? You know voodoo is bullshit, right?
So... can you "truly enjoy" a zombie movie?

The thing that makes the guy screaming about losing faith/slaying angels powerful, it's not whether or not god/angels are real... it's enough that he thinks it's real, or is convincing that it's real to him.

 

[ConcealedBlaze]

You may understand it but can you truly enjoy it? I don’t believe you can. In metal, I definitely think it’ll all be lackluster if you don’t even have a tiny ”what if” floating about in your head so you can somewhat relate to the thoughts when somebody is screaming about losing their faith or concerns about death and going to hell or slaying angels or the uprise of hell or any of that. What’s the point if you can’t understand the pain and misery and concern and rage etc? Isn’t it just like someone singing about the lore in Halo or Zelda or some other imaginary saga? A song about the rise of Ganon would have the same meaning lol

You can appreciate and enjoy art and fantasy without believing a specific intelligence created life. My beliefs don’t impact my ability to understand and empathize with other people’s experiences/beliefs or even fictional experiences.

 

[Tiamat2san]

Video games aren’t life.
Proof: i can’t do a sonic boom.

 

[MrStauf]

Farcry 6
Rescue the Tranny .. FUCK OFF

 

[Fredrik]

There's no real point to it - it's just what you believe. Doesn't exclude you from enjoying a broader culture as it intersects with religion or even admiring or enjoying religion itself. It's completely apolitical - it's just what you believe about the nature of the universe and, really, when you think about it, it's kind of the default.

Say there are 100,000 religions in the world (it's probably more): a Christian rejects 999,999 of them - the atheist just goes one further. The Christian believes 99.9999% of all religious claims are untrue, the atheist agrees, he just thinks the other 0.00001% are also untrue.

I don’t know I just struggle to see how it wouldn’t make so many things in life less interesting if everything would have to be scientifically proven to even play around in my head. I live in an extremely secular country but our history is still deeply rooted in religion and I can’t even relate to the idea of cutting the bonds to all that in my head even though I haven’t been in a church in like 30 years except for funderals. Big metal fan too. And from that perspectiv, no religion, no metal Would just be a bunch of sorry asses singing about drug addiction and politics. Meh.
Anyhow, appreciate the input! And sorry if I sound too grumpy

 

[Guilty_AI]

I have. As I said above, the claim needs to more specific - specific claims are more verifiable/falsifiable because they are more testable. They're also more meaningful in debate.

For example: 'magic teapots exist' is much harder to falsify than, 'there's a teapot in my bedroom that can grant wishes'. By specifying the location and the magical nature of the object, I make it easier to find out what's true.

More on topic, Young-Earth Creationist claims that the universe was created in six days about 6500 years ago can easily be falsified by a whole range of scientific disciplines. The notion that some sentient supernatural force had some nonspecific role in creating the universe, by unspecified means in an unspecified time or place, puts no particular detail on the table to actually question.

It's like being asked to investigate a suspicious death without being told who died, when, by what or means or where, and the other party saying "well, if you can't rule out foul play, it was definitely a murder." It might be, but unless I can actually see some details I can't say either way.

Problem is you're trying to add new elements that aren't really important to the concept. Are you trying to disprove the idea of an intelligent creator? Or are you trying to disprove a specific religion?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Well conversations evolve... we were going back and forth, and we've moved past the initial post you responded to haven't we?
I didn't say I could demonstrate the non-existence of a god... however one would do that.
Seems like you don't really want to answer my question despite me answering yours... unless I missed it somewhere.

Unfortunately many people are still struggling with the initial question (rip inbox), and i'm only human. For now, i'll focus on that one, instead of opening up a second philosophical branch.

 

[ConcealedBlaze]

Problem is you're trying to add new elements that aren't really important to the concept. Are you trying to disprove the idea of an intelligent creator? Or are you trying to disprove a specific religion?

The problem is you’re the one asserting a specific claim. Intelligent creator. The alternative: we don’t understand why life exists. That’s the base line. Going beyond that requires specific evidence because you’re the one making the claim. Saying there’s no evidence of an intelligent creator doesn’t require support because no evidence has been submitted that an intelligent creator was involved in the development of life.

 

[Danjin44]

I don’t know, I never refuse to play a game for “moral” reason. I either in to the game or I’m not.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If God and heaven exist.
- Cool, afterlife! Hope the angels are hot or that I don’t have to bounce on a demon lap all day.
If it’s all fake.
- Bummer, would’ve wanted to meet my parents again but at least they didn’t watch me doing bad things.

Pascal approves of this.

But flipping that around, this is a way of thought essentially says that its preferable to live in willing ignorance, in order to enjoy the benefits of said ignorance, than search for the truth. Sounds good from a practical standpoint, but its also a form of belief that can lead to very ugly results, as well as staleness.

To show just how ugly this line of thinking can be, think of the following situation:

You found traces your wife and love of your life cheated on you and your child isn't yours, nothing concrete yet but with further investigation you could potentially find out. What would you do?
>Investigate, where either nothing would come out of it... or you would indeed find all of this to be true, ruining your marriage and your relationship with not-your child.
>Do nothing.

Using the same way of thinking as Pascal, it'd be preferable to do nothing. After all the first option wields a chance of ruining your current life, whereas the second one would always have a good result. But it feels wrong doesn't it?

That brings us to the original question of your post:

Serious question from an older guy, what’s even the point of being an atheist?
To me it’s like some weird political statement with no payoff where the essense of it means that you shove good and evil and heaven and hell under the rug and you’re essentially missing the power of key ingredients in all the awesome metal in the world and tons of movies and books and demon slaying games like Diablo and Doom.

Why not just be casual about it? Won’t know for sure until it’s too late to do anything about it anyway.

Its the same with atheism/agnosticism, at least for me. I don't want a life philosophy built on something i can't believe from the bottom of my heart. If you can genuinely belive in those things, good for you. I can't, i just see too much wrong with them. So i search for answers.

Of course, for atheists in general, i don't doubt there are plenty of people who just have such beliefs because its trendy, or because its some perceived way of "rebelling against the system", which is also hilarious considering the staggering amount of world leaders who would happily say stuff like "following the science", a phrase that will never not make me retch.

 

[ConcealedBlaze]

Pascal approves of this.

But flipping that around, this is a way of thought essentially says that its preferable to live in willing ignorance, in order to enjoy the benefits of said ignorance, than search for the truth. Sounds good from a practical standpoint, but its also a form of belief that can lead to very ugly results, as well as staleness.

To show just how ugly this line of thinking can be, think of the following situation:

You found traces your wife and love of your life cheated on you and your child isn't yours, nothing concrete yet but with further investigation you could potentially find out. What would you do?
>Investigate, where either nothing would come out of it... or you would indeed find all of this to be true, ruining your marriage and your relationship with not-your child.
>Do nothing.

Using the same way of thinking as Pascal, it'd be preferable to do nothing. After all the first option wields a chance of ruining your current life, whereas the second one would always have a good result. But it feels wrong doesn't it?

That brings us to the original question of your post:

Its the same with atheism/agnosticism, at least for me. I don't want a life philosophy built on something i can't believe from the bottom of my heart. If you can genuinely belive in those things, good for you. I can't, i just see too much wrong with them. So i search for answers.

Of course, for atheists in general, i don't doubt there are plenty of people who just have such beliefs because its trendy, or because its some perceived way of "rebelling against the system", which is also hilarious considering the staggering amount of world leaders who would happily say stuff like "following the science", a phrase that will never not make me retch.

I mean sure. But growing up in the Bible Belt I also know innumerable people that believe in God because it’s “trendy.” That’s not really a good argument against a philosophy

 

[Guilty_AI]

The problem is you’re the one asserting a specific claim. Intelligent creator. The alternative: we don’t understand why life exists. That’s the base line. Going beyond that requires specific evidence because you’re the one making the claim. Saying there’s no evidence of an intelligent creator doesn’t require support because no evidence has been submitted that an intelligent creator was involved in the development of life.

I'm not asserting this claim, i was questioning the person who originally declared "God doesn't exist".

And what if there is evidence to support the existence of an intelligent creator?

 

[EruditeHobo]

Of course, for atheists in general, i don't doubt there are plenty of people who just have such beliefs because its trendy, or because its some perceived way of "rebelling against the system", which is also hilarious considering the staggering amount of world leaders who would happily say stuff like "following the science", a phrase that will never not make me retch.

Why retch at the phrase regardless of context? The context is what matters, in that case.

When someone says "most scientists are aligned on the realities of climate change" -- which in some ways can amount to "follow the science" -- does that make you retch?

And what if there is evidence to support the existence of an intelligent creator?

"Evidence" that is undetectable by humans is indistinguishable from a complete lack of evidence.

I mean sure. But growing up in the Bible Belt I also know innumerable people that believe in God because it’s “trendy.” That’s not really a good argument against a philosophy

Any belief can be "trendy", depending on the environment. Trendiness is a poor reason to hold a belief no matter what it is.

 

[Fredrik]

To show just how ugly this line of thinking can be, think of the following situation:

You found traces your wife and love of your life cheated on you and your child isn't yours, nothing concrete yet but with further investigation you could potentially find out. What would you do?
>Investigate, where either nothing would come out of it... or you would indeed find all of this to be true, ruining your marriage and your relationship with not-your child.
>Do nothing.

Using the same way of thinking as Pascal, it'd be preferable to do nothing. After all the first option wields a chance of ruining your current life, whereas the second one would always have a good result. But it feels wrong doesn't it?

By being casual I don’t mean that I don’t care. I just don’t see the point in taking a hard stance. What would I gain from that? As I see it, nothing. That’s why it seems like a political statement to me more than anything else. You gain nothing, except possibly these talks and some pats on the back among likeminded I assume.
As for your analogy, it’s really only useful if you’re devoting your life to the cause. My life would change drastically if I found out that my wife cheated. But what would change if I found out that God exist or don’t exist?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Why retch at the phrase regardless of context? The context is what matters, in that case.

When someone says "most scientists are aligned on the realities of climate change" -- which in some ways can amount to "follow the science" -- does that make you retch?

There were plenty of times in history when "most scientists" were completely off the mark. Science isn't something to be followed, it is not a holy scripture, its a conoction of studies meant to inform and aid us, not something to be blindly "believed" in.

"Evidence" that is undetectable by humans is indistinguishable from a complete lack of evidence.

What if this evidence is detectable?

 

[Fart Knight]

Any weeb jrpg type game. Fuck that shit.

 

[Guilty_AI]

By being casual I don’t mean that I don’t care. I just don’t see the point in taking a hard stance. What would I gain from that? As I see it, nothing. That’s why it seems like a political statement to me more than anything else. You gain nothing, except possibly these talks and some pats on the back among likeminded I assume.
As for your analogy, it’s really only useful if you’re devoting your life to the cause. My life would change drastically if I found out that my wife cheated. But what would change if I found out that God exist or don’t exist?

I mean, taking a soft stance is also fine, and truth to be told i mostly talk about this cause i enjoy the existential questions, it really doesn't change much in my life aside from adding to my repertoire of dark jokes.

 

[ungalo]

As a catholic i think you should play Cyberpunk OP.

 

[EruditeHobo]

There were plenty of times in history when "most scientists" were completely off the mark. Science isn't something to be followed, it is not a holy scripture, its a conoction of studies meant to inform and aid us, not something to be blindly "believed" in.

So sounds like things that make you "retch" are when people misunderstand and misapply the label of "science" to push some agenda. Is that what you meant by that phrase making you "retch"?

What if this evidence is detectable?

Then let's assess it! What is the evidence that there is an omnipotent creator, or that the universe is "designed"?

 

[mdkirby]

Nearly didn’t play atomic heart as a portion of the revenue would fund Russias war effort…I decided to play it via gamespass and donated £100 to a ukraine drone fund.

I’ll grab the dlc and help pay for another drone

Think that’s the only instance I can think of

 

[mdkirby]

Even though I've heard a lot of supposedly good things about Disco Elysium. I don't think I'll ever touch it. I've heard it's made by a bunch of hardcore Stanlists/Marxists, and honestly I've just no interest in exposing myself to any of their diatribe.

It has all politics…and you can engage with and role play as any. I was a capitalist thieving drug addicted drunk…tho i had my character turn his life around and become a somewhat competent detective halfway through. Conversely you could play as a commie….or if you really want a fascist white nationalist. It doesn’t force you to be either. Just upto you.

 

[GetInTheRobot]

Why not just be casual about it? Won’t know for sure until it’s too late to do anything about it anyway.

Because theist aren't that casual about it until recently only in specific regions. Being an Atheist is somewhat a rebellion against the norm which is theism because a majority of the world is still run and governed by frontward facing religious people. But I think atheist fail in getting into religious debates, it doesn't matter, just continue to show how secularism improved the world for the better. What one believes in doesn't matter as long as their beliefs aren't used to make the lives of others worse. Naturally secularism is the end game for humanity. It's the only way we can coexist.

 

[Susurrus]

5 and a half minutes into their Game Awards acceptence speech they shout out Marx, and Engels for their, "political education."



They also have(had) a portrait of Stalin in their office, which they praised on social media.

And last, but not least they got Chapo Trap House to do the original voice acting before having it recast for the final update.



Now call me crazy, but if a game dev....

Praised Fichte, Riehl, and Spengler for their, "Political Education," at the Game Awards.
Had a stylized portrait of Adolph Hitler in their office, and posted they couldn't do it without him.
Got Richard Spencer, and David Duke to do some pro-bono voice acting work.

...odds are you just assume they're a bunch of Neo-Nazis without giving them any benefit of the doubt.

Wow, what pieces of shit. Never played (or own) the game, and looked them up to see other games I should avoid, doesn't appear they have anything else?



Also Atomic Heart for same reasons.

 

[Larxia]

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

The problem is that thinking of a god as a human-like, self aware life form doesn't make sense in the context you just described.

If we're talking about a world where there is nothing at all except said "God", where does this god comes from? And the one before that? And so on.
And more importantly, even if you consider that God is an eternal being that was always there somehow, how do you explain his awareness, way of thinking?

Our consciousness as humans is born through language. Everything we think, feel, imagine, we do it through words. Even when you're not talking, just thinking, you're thinking through words that you learned, language is what helps you build a structure of your vision of the world, how to organize and view things. Try thinking without a language, that will be hard.
This is also why animals are so different from us, and if they started talking like us, they wouldn't stay in their current primal way of life, they would change, because their consciousness would change, evolve.

Now, in a world where only god exists, how can he creates a world, materialize concepts, ideas, to create everything that we know, without a consciousness? How can a god portrayed as a human-like life form (but god-like) can exists when it's the only thing existing at one point in time? That's just not possible, because for that to exists, it needs a context.

The only "god" concept I can understand, similar to how Descartes initially described, is some kind of power in the universe that led to creation of thing, this power being... a set of mathematics rules that made everything possible, which is just... science and nature.
Science and nature can be very mystery and be considered as some kind of power beyond our understanding, but thinking of a god as a regular but powerful guy, up there in the sky, who you can talk to and who understands you, doesn't make sense when you start thinking about the context of everything.

Also, related to this thread, the games I usually avoid for "moral" reasons, are epic exclusives because I don't like their policies on their store and their stance on exclusivity and many other things, not sure if that's really a "moral" thing though, more like customer preferences.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Problem is you're trying to add new elements that aren't really important to the concept. Are you trying to disprove the idea of an intelligent creator? Or are you trying to disprove a specific religion?

I'm not adding anything. You asked if I'd considered how to make it resolvable - I said by making it more specific. Those specifics are examples. I even gave a few real world examples of how this works and showed the clear consistency.

But this isn't a debate line - it's a distraction. You can't falsify the idea of the Great Omniscient Gonad either - doesn't mean it something we should take seriously.

What we can say is this: though there's no way to say categorically that there is absolutely no sentient designer behind the universe, we can say that nothing we've found anywhere in the natural world would lead us to think that.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but, you can also say that about the Great Omniscient Gonad.

 

[Guilty_AI]

So sounds like things that make you "retch" are when people misunderstand and misapply the label of "science" to push some agenda. Is that what you meant by that phrase making you "retch"?

No, it just means that "science" has plenty of instances where it has been wrong.

Rather, being wrong is the foundation of science, it evolves precisely because its capable of recognizing each and any of its findings and studies can be disproved at any point in time. The moment you start 'believing it' or 'following it' is the moment you completely miss the point of it.

What we can say is this: though there's no way to say categorically that there is absolutely no sentient designer behind the universe, we can say that nothing we've found anywhere in the natural world would lead us to think that.

Thats a bold claim, keep on reading below.

Then let's assess it! What is the evidence that there is an omnipotent creator, or that the universe is "designed"?

Lets start with a falsifiable condition then! The hypothesis is that we have, or not have, "an intelligent creator/designer for our know universe".
What can we take from that notion that, at the very least, can be analysed further in order to deepen our understanding? What is an intelligent creation? What is an existence that is not an intelligent creation?

 

[BbMajor7th]

I don’t know I just struggle to see how it wouldn’t make so many things in life less interesting if everything would have to be scientifically proven to even play around in my head. I live in an extremely secular country but our history is still deeply rooted in religion and I can’t even relate to the idea of cutting the bonds to all that in my head even though I haven’t been in a church in like 30 years except for funderals. Big metal fan too. And from that perspectiv, no religion, no metal Would just be a bunch of sorry asses singing about drug addiction and politics. Meh.
Anyhow, appreciate the input! And sorry if I sound too grumpy

Fellow metaller here! I don't need a scientific explanation for everything anymore than I need a religious one - curiousity is it's own reward. That probably why I lean towards scientific naturalism: it's curious. It doesn't presume to know the answers, it goes out to find them and it'll change them when better answers come along: from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Kepler to Newton to Einstein, at each stage discovering a more accurate description of the world.

I look at religion as analogy. Like all storytelling, I can be moved, inspired or upset by a story without it having to be real. Storytelling is a defining characteristic of our species and religion is absolutely an expression of that desire to contextualise the world through narrative. I don't think you need to believe it to find beauty in it - in fact, I think it undermines the poetry to pretend it's factual rather than allegorical.

 

[BbMajor7th]

That's a bold claim, keep on reading below.

I did and I don't know what you expected me to take away from it.

Lets start with a falsifiable condition then! The hypothesis is that we have, or not have, "an intelligent creator/designer for our know universe".
What can we take from that notion that, at the very least, can be analysed further in order to deepen our understanding? What is an intelligent creation? What is an existence that is not an intelligent creation?

You know what, forget the intelligent creator and all the things science does or does not know. Answer me this: can you think of a single example in all of human intellectual endeavour where assuming the supernatural improved our understanding of anything?

 

[Guilty_AI]

I did and I don't know what you expected me to take away from it.

Its but a mere simple question, one that helps us understand the subject. To say that there is no sentient designer is to say that the universe is not an intelligent creation.

So for starters, we should define. What is an intelligent creation? What sets it apart from an existence that isn't one?

 

[EruditeHobo]

No, it just means that "science" has plenty of instances where it has been wrong.

Rather, being wrong is the foundation of science, it evolves precisely because its capable of recognizing each and any of its findings and studies can be disproved at any point in time. The moment you start 'believing it' or 'following it' is the moment you completely miss the point of it.

Doesn't "following the science" just mean, listening to scientific consensus? I "follow" a recipe, too... but I don't unquestioningly worship Gordon Ramsey, or whatever.

Lets start with a falsifiable condition then! The hypothesis is that we have, or not have, "an intelligent creator/designer for our know universe".
What can we take from that notion that, at the very least, can be analysed further in order to deepen our understanding? What is an intelligent creation? What is an existence that is not an intelligent creation?

We can't drill down on scientifically falsifying an unscientific assertion -- "there is an intelligent creator/designer for our known universe" is not scientifically falsifiable. So I'd suggest it would suffice to ask for the reasoning behind such a statement... what kind of argument would that believer bring in support of that statement?

This hypothetical person, they are saying this thing about "intelligent creator/creation"... so they should define their terms.

 

[BbMajor7th]

Its but a mere simple question, one that helps us understand the subject. To say that there is no sentient designer is to say that the universe is not an intelligent creation.

So for starters, we should define. What is an intelligent creation? What sets it apart from an existence that isn't one?

'Creation' by definition implies a 'creator' - you're begging the question and trying to assume a conclusion in your definition.

If you want to posit intelligent design, simply point to something that appears to you like it could only have come into existence through intent.

 

[Badlucktroll]

What will happen when the aliens come? Apparently they already have probes here (UAPs)

 

[Guilty_AI]

This hypothetical person, they are saying this thing about "intelligent creator/creation"... so they should define their terms.

'Creation' by definition implies a 'creator' - you're begging the question and trying to assume a conclusion in your definition.

If you want to posit intelligent design, simply point to thing that appears to you like it it could only have come into existence through intent.

Then, think of the following two scenarios:
>In the first scenario, i accidentally stumble on a bucket filled with palm-size rocks, spilling them on the floor.
>In the second one, i pick up the rocks from the bucket and build a mini-stonehenge.

If you were to come across the results of each scenario, without seeing me doing either, wouldn't you think the former was an acident, while the later the result from the labor of a person? You would never think the second case was an accident or the result of a chance event, despite never seeing the person in question, right?

 

[Fredrik]

Fellow metaller here! I don't need a scientific explanation for everything anymore than I need a religious one - curiousity is it's own reward. That probably why I lean towards scientific naturalism: it's curious. It doesn't presume to know the answers, it goes out to find them and it'll change them when better answers come along: from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Kepler to Newton to Einstein, at each stage discovering a more accurate description of the world.

I look at religion as analogy. Like all storytelling, I can be moved, inspired or upset by a story without it having to be real. Storytelling is a defining characteristic of our species and religion is absolutely an expression of that desire to contextualise the world through narrative. I don't think you need to believe it to find beauty in it - in fact, I think it undermines the poetry to pretend it's factual rather than allegorical.

From one metal fan to another. Curious is good, just don’t lock that door, keep it closed if you want but don’t lock it. Listen to Opeth In Cauda Venenum, it’s possibly the most depressive metal lyrics I’ve heard, in one song he’s wondering about how you talk to your kid about someone close dying in a family where nobody believe in anything, brutal, made me want to just hug the guy.

I lost my parents early, as said earlier no church goer but I still like the idea that there could possibly maybe be something else after death, a tiny bit of hope is all that is needed, it would be nice. And when the kids were young and asked I always said that grandma and grandpa is in heaven and so on, to me it’s a nice thought. Religion has done many bad things during history but they’ve at least managed to make death seem less… harsh. Assuming you don’t do any deadly sins of course! lol
But if it’s all just a fairly tale to keep people in groups and under control by men with too much power, then so be it. It don’t actually change my life either way.