Guest Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by a guest. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm pretty sure that doesnt matter, as when they have 1 card left they dont instantly lose. As long as they have 1 card to draw each turn (the rewinded card) they dont count as decking out. They only draw 2 if they are able to, it isnt mandatory.I think that is the case with AI5, but AI6 has to draw 2 unless their hand is full.
Either way there must be an exception to the normal rules by which the universe runs, merely in one case no attempt is made to explain it and a gaping hole is left in the logic of the universe.I do know that how the universe runs as we perceive it is very different than how it works, say on the atomic scale. When the universe began, so did mass, time, force, and everything else. So the usual is not necessary. I am quite sure science won't have it figured out before I die so I'm fine with a gaping hole.
Replying to discussion of Invisible Pink UnicornWhether an individual exists, or a certain trivia question is true is, of course, wholly different than the "big questions". The truth of Julia's existence is not going to weigh in on how you should act (morals) or how you conceive of the universe working. If it's your wife's imaginary friend and you find out, of course, you would change how you would act with your wife and be emotionally shocked, but if your local grocery clerk talked about imaginary Julia you may just humor her so you can be on your way. Whether or not Liverpool is the capitol of the UK will have no bearing on how I live my life, just on where I may get my facts from.
Yes, it is possible for the majority of the human race to be wrong, but it is somewhat more difficult for them to be wrong about whether or not they experienced something.
It would be somewhat more difficult to maintain faith without ever experiencing the divine, but I would argue it's still possible to rationally come to the conclusion God exists without direct evidence.
I offer the following analogy:
My wife has a friend named Julia. I have never met Julia, but I have no doubt that she exists. If I ask different people about her I will get different responses, including "who?" from people who haven't heard of her. It is unlikely that any two people who have met Julia would give exactly the same account. It is always possible that I will meet Julia at some point in the future, but there is no way to guarantee that I will. Even if I knocked on her door, she might not be home.
However, if I do meet Julia, there can only be 2 possible truths to the situation 1) Julia is real 2) I'm schizophrenic. Given that I can also conclude that if I haven't met her but my wife says she has that either 1) Julia is real 2) my wife is crazy or 3) my wife is lying to me.
Considering the possibility that someone is crazy is generally not useful unless there is substantial supporting evidence, outside of the initial claim. The possibility of a liar is is quite possible in the case of an individual, but if you have a large population that all says the same thing this possibility becomes much more remote, almost to the point of non-existence.
Thus I am left with 2 possibilities concerning God 1) God exists, at least in some form or 2) half the human race has the same mental illness. Number 2 is actually possible, though not very reassuring, generally I fall back on other arguments when discussing this possibility.Whether its comforting or not, the human race has had a series of mental illnesses-war, slavery, tyrannical governments, genocide, child abuse, addiction, starvation, etc. Luckily, with technology, reason, and discourse most of us don't have to live with those illnesses. I consider all those disasters as resulting from delusions, so I don't consider it a far stretch for humanity to still be lost in other mental traps, myself not excluded.
5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5ll 5ll 5ll 5ll 5ls 5ls 5ls 5lt 5lt 5lt 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jo 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7jw 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k1 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5 7k5
Now consider the beginning of the universe. There was no "before" to fall back on. Therefore the only thing that could have caused the universe is something that can violate causality.This may be where semantics rears its head.
I choose Shockwave. It is the only card in the game that can kill an opponents creature no matter how high it's health is. Sure it has to be combined with another element for it to work, but with 4 damage at minimum, it can take out half the creatures in the game instantly anyways without it. I find it a great card to use, especially in a deck with Arctic SquidsYou forgot Mutation's 10%.
I would say it isn't lying if the parents genuinely believe what they're teaching their kids. Otherwise you get into all kinds of "how can I teach someone things I don't know myself" situations.Perhaps I was delving a little too much into the analogy. If I were presented with such a study I would think I was being set up because I never heard of an actual Pink Unicorn religion.
You take a random sample of 100 people from around the globe. They aren't given a chance to speak to each other before speaking to you, and each of them is given a lie detector test, so your 90% certain that they, at least, believe what they're telling you.Are you serious about buying the saddle?
Out of that 100 people:
60 tell you there's an invisible pink unicorn following you
10 say it's an invisible purple unicorn
10 say it's an invisible pink pegasus
1 says it's an invisible blue rhinocerous
10 say they aren't sure if there's an invisible quadruped following you or not
9 say there is no invisible quadruped
Maybe this would convince me to go buy the unicorn a saddle, but it certainly isn't a strong argument against invisible unicorns.
Those figures roughly follow statistics taken from the pew test and a few other sources about worldwide belief in God. It's admittedly very difficult to find trustworthy data on this subject, and most sources disagree at least a little.
And as Artois points out here http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,6523.0.html there are some rather remarkable similarities between many religions (hence unicorn vs. pegasus and not unicorn vs. salamander or goldfish). The resurrection motif is just one of many examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's a specific argument you would like me to look at or if you would like to respond to one of my responses, please post away.
