[2010:02:09:17:26] <SilverSeraWork> hmm, HoN operates in known territory so it's fairly well balanced and doesn't face ongoing issues related to balance as new heroes are introduced, and continual balance changes are very minor and rarely result in new unexpected balance issues
[2010:02:09:17:26] <SilverSeraWork> does that help Skystriker ?
[2010:02:09:17:26] <SilverSeraWork> =]
[2010:02:09:17:26] <SilverSeraWork> that's what HoN has imo
[2010:02:09:17:26] <Skystriker> nope, need more
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> sorry xD
[2010:02:09:17:27] <SilverSeraWork> hmm
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> I'm playing devils advocate
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> On a smurf thats running an experiment
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> And I need an example of a "You should take this from HoN, Riot" that is legit
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Kurpitsa_> why are you asking this in blcbeta
[2010:02:09:17:27] <SilverSeraWork> oh
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> because I dont want to taint the experiment :P
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> I realized asking in lolbeta was a bad idea
[2010:02:09:17:27] <Skystriker> peeps will realize which thread i'm talking about
[2010:02:09:17:28] <Kurpitsa_> what about hon?
[2010:02:09:17:29] <SilverSeraWork> well i don't play to much HoN, so i really can't give any useful info
[2010:02:09:17:29] <SilverSeraWork> =[
[2010:02:09:17:29] <SilverSeraWork> i only played a few rounds in early HoN beta
[2010:02:09:17:29] <likmasken> a chance in competetive gaming maybe?
[2010:02:09:17:29] <^ThundeR_> all i can say of hon is that its going to be big game when its out of beta ;P
[2010:02:09:17:30] <Puffen> LoL sucks
[2010:02:09:17:30] <Puffen> HoN owns
[2010:02:09:17:30] <^ThundeR_> ^That
[2010:02:09:17:30] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: always lies so....
[2010:02:09:17:30] <^ThundeR_> that wasnt a lie tho ;P
[2010:02:09:17:30] <SilverSeraWork> you're right, it was an opinion
[2010:02:09:17:31] <^ThundeR_> nor opinion
[2010:02:09:17:31] <^ThundeR_> it was a fact
[2010:02:09:17:31] <SilverSeraWork> incorrect
[2010:02:09:17:31] <SilverSeraWork> "sucks" and "owns" are subjective terms
[2010:02:09:17:31] <SilverSeraWork> a vaccuum can factually "suck"
[2010:02:09:17:31] <^ThundeR_> Lol is a horrible game.
[2010:02:09:17:31] <Skystriker> Sigh
[2010:02:09:17:31] <SilverSeraWork> a game "sucking" is only opinion
[2010:02:09:17:31] <^ThundeR_> Hon is an awesome game
[2010:02:09:17:31] <Skystriker> I shouldn't have brought it up
[2010:02:09:17:31] <SilverSeraWork> again opinion
[2010:02:09:17:32] <Skystriker> :P
[2010:02:09:17:32] <^ThundeR_> A fact ;P
[2010:02:09:17:32] <Skystriker> Why bother arguing, SilverSeraphim
[2010:02:09:17:32] <Skystriker> lol
[2010:02:09:17:32] <SilverSeraWork> because even if it has no effect i feel compelled to try to better the world
[2010:02:09:17:32] <Skystriker> Closedmindedness is pretty unchangeable :P
[2010:02:09:17:32] <SilverSeraWork> read above
[2010:02:09:17:32] <SilverSeraWork> =p
[2010:02:09:17:32] <Skystriker> Fair enough
[2010:02:09:17:33] <SilverSeraWork> i can't open minds, but i can speak truth
[2010:02:09:17:33] <^ThundeR_> *cough* you can speak crap
[2010:02:09:17:34] * Joins: Mantrid| (~mantrid@81.200.24.138)
[2010:02:09:17:36] <SilverSeraWork> ^ThundeR_: i can speak whatever i want
[2010:02:09:17:36] <SilverSeraWork> but i do my best to speak truth
[2010:02:09:17:36] <^ThundeR_> yes, you can ;P
[2010:02:09:17:36] <^ThundeR_> but you fail on that
[2010:02:09:17:36] <SilverSeraWork> i certainly do sometimes
[2010:02:09:17:36] <Skystriker> Again, silv, at this point why are you even bothering haha
[2010:02:09:17:36] <Skystriker> <3
[2010:02:09:17:36] <SilverSeraWork> for truth Skystriker =p
[2010:02:09:17:37] <SilverSeraWork> even if i were the only person on the planet pursuing truth i would still search for it
[2010:02:09:17:37] <SilverSeraWork> in my mind, truth is the only thing that's truly worth pursuing =p
[2010:02:09:17:38] <Skystriker> I have a similar sentiment
[2010:02:09:17:39] <SilverSeraWork> =]
[2010:02:09:17:39] <SilverSeraWork> every path has some enemies, the path of truth has many
[2010:02:09:17:42] <Skystriker> man
[2010:02:09:17:42] <Skystriker> I think I'm going to have to call my experiment a failure ;o
[2010:02:09:17:43] * Joins: Friend_ (webchat@173.sub-75-205-132.myvzw.com)
[2010:02:09:17:44] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork
[2010:02:09:17:44] <Puffen> why is truth the end?
[2010:02:09:17:44] <Puffen> or is it a means for something else?
[2010:02:09:17:44] <Skystriker> Puffen
[2010:02:09:17:44] <Skystriker> What is your meaning of life?
[2010:02:09:17:45] <Puffen> increase my happiness
[2010:02:09:17:45] <Puffen> that's the end goal
[2010:02:09:17:45] <Puffen> everythign else is just means to that
[2010:02:09:17:46] <Skystriker> Me too
[2010:02:09:17:46] <Skystriker> Happiness is my meaning of life
[2010:02:09:17:46] <Skystriker> I feel happy finding truth
[2010:02:09:17:46] <Skystriker> So for me, finding truth is a relative end
[2010:02:09:17:47] <SilverSeraWork> for me, truth is not relative, it's absolute
[2010:02:09:17:47] <SilverSeraWork> i know that human perception is limited and often blurry or even blind
[2010:02:09:17:47] <Puffen> that's not what he said though
[2010:02:09:17:47] <Puffen> but go on
[2010:02:09:17:48] <SilverSeraWork> so searching for truth and really finding it is a lifelong process
[2010:02:09:17:48] <SilverSeraWork> in my opinion
[2010:02:09:17:48] <SilverSeraWork> i believe that i'm right in that, but i of course can't prove it
[2010:02:09:17:48] <Puffen> Skystriker
[2010:02:09:17:48] <Puffen> but what do you mean by finding truth
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Puffen> example
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Skystriker> Are you providing one or asking for one?
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Puffen> asking
[2010:02:09:17:49] <SilverSeraWork> your question is addressed only to Skystriker right?
[2010:02:09:17:49] <SilverSeraWork> to his view
[2010:02:09:17:49] <SilverSeraWork> ?
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Puffen> for now
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Skystriker> You can answer too, silv
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Skystriker> I'm interested in hearing your thoughts as well
[2010:02:09:17:49] <Skystriker> I'll assume you were asking for an example
[2010:02:09:17:50] <Skystriker> By finding truth, there's different levels of importance
[2010:02:09:17:50] <Skystriker> Like for me
[2010:02:09:17:50] <Skystriker> Spirituality is probably the most important truth I could find.
[2010:02:09:17:50] <SilverSeraWork> i agree
[2010:02:09:17:50] <Skystriker> Each internal step I take on finding that truth feels hugely important.
[2010:02:09:17:50] <SilverSeraWork> aka growth
[2010:02:09:17:50] <SilverSeraWork> =]
[2010:02:09:17:50] <Skystriker> aye
[2010:02:09:17:50] <Skystriker> Let's say that I'm having an argument on the benefits of traffic lights, jug handles, and roundabouts.
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> Obviously this is far less important.
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> Just for fun (unless I'm a traffic engineer)
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> But I like to find out why I'm disagreeing with the other person
[2010:02:09:17:51] <SilverSeraWork> ok
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> Understand their priorities, motivations
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> And come to a consensus
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> I love disagreeing with people
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> Because it means we reason through things
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> I love disagreeing with reasonable people*
[2010:02:09:17:51] <Skystriker> lol
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Skystriker> I don't particularly enjoy debating someone who goes 'Blah sucks, blah rocks, shut up you're wrong'
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Skystriker> So I don't bother :P
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Puffen> but that's not truth
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Skystriker> Is it?
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Skystriker> I feel it is
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Puffen> that's just a higher knowledge of how other people reason
[2010:02:09:17:52] <SilverSeraWork> i don't know that i necessary "love disagreeing with people" so much as i worry that quickly agreeing might inadvertently tie me in to something i dont' actually agree with
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Skystriker> I'm not saying I disagree to disagree
[2010:02:09:17:52] <Skystriker> I'm saying I like when I find myself disagreeing with someone, and then having a good discussion on it
[2010:02:09:17:53] <SilverSeraWork> yeah
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Skystriker> Even if neither of us change our minds and walk away with, as you said, a higher understanding of the other person's side
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Skystriker> I feel I have gained another perspective on a dimension of that discussion's truth.
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Skystriker> Knowledge is fun
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Skystriker> But it's a pretty static, boring truth.
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Archons> Hey, you guys seems like you could do my religion essay for tomorrow:P
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Skystriker> being able to beat someone at a trivia game isn't my ideal meaning of truth :P
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Skystriker> lol xD
[2010:02:09:17:53] <Archons> The discussions we've had about this...
[2010:02:09:17:54] <Puffen> but truth is the result of a scientific study, in my book. What you're describing is just knowing (or think you know) more about how other people reason - that isn't necesarily true to any point
[2010:02:09:17:54] <Skystriker> Fair enough
[2010:02:09:17:54] <Skystriker> I'm using a different meaning of the word.
[2010:02:09:17:54] <Skystriker> Or perhaps, using a not-correct version that is really just a representation of something else in my head.
[2010:02:09:17:54] <Skystriker> I recognize, and -value-, the type of truth you are talking about.
[2010:02:09:17:55] <Skystriker> But that's not really what I mean when I say I always pursue truth.
[2010:02:09:17:55] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: science is based on assumption though, and by that i mean that we assume that "if i witness something 100,000 times (an apple will fall when dropped), and every time it does the same thing (the apple falls), then i can say with certainty that gravity works in the way which i define it as a "law of nature"
[2010:02:09:17:55] <Puffen> so what you say when you "seek truth" is more of a search for greater understanding how the human beings around you and how they reason?
[2010:02:09:17:55] <Puffen> or something?
[2010:02:09:17:56] <Puffen> of the human*
[2010:02:09:17:56] <Skystriker> Sure, puffen
[2010:02:09:17:56] <Skystriker> But that's an aspect of it
[2010:02:09:17:56] <Skystriker> For me, the search for spirituality truth is a blend of the truth used there and your truth, through scientific study
[2010:02:09:17:56] <Skystriker> Just because two people who previously disagreed come to common ground doesn't make them right, obviously
[2010:02:09:17:57] <Skystriker> But that's most likely a step towards truth, if they're both intellectually honest
[2010:02:09:17:57] <SilverSeraWork> yeah sky, i think you have to be careful of the idea that obviously one human is fallible, but maybe if we get enough humans and discuss things with each other, then humanity as a whole is not as fallible as a single human
[2010:02:09:17:57] <Skystriker> No, I'm just saying if two people collaborate they're probably closer to truth.
[2010:02:09:17:58] <SilverSeraWork> humanity as a whole is jsut as fallible (probably MORESO, ie mob mentality) as a single human
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> Fair enough
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> But again
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> The spirituality aspect is different
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> I feel there's an objective truth to that, or at least one specific to me.
[2010:02:09:17:58] <SilverSeraWork> but discussion does help to gain additional perspectives which is important because human perspective is very limited
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> And I want to get closer to that.
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> Aye
[2010:02:09:17:58] <Skystriker> I like being shown new perspectives, new modes of thought.
[2010:02:09:17:59] <SilverSeraWork> i believe that there is definitely and absolute spiritual truth that affects everything including the physical universe
[2010:02:09:17:59] * Joins: LoLIHL|Away (~micha1337@dslb-088-064-252-048.pools.arcor-ip.net)
[2010:02:09:18:00] <SilverSeraWork> the universe is not chaotic by nature, it is orderly, and it continues to expand from it's single point of origin
[2010:02:09:18:00] <SilverSeraWork> that much is "scientifically accurate"
[2010:02:09:18:00] <Skystriker> I'm not very far in my truth spiritually
[2010:02:09:18:00] <SilverSeraWork> i believe science absolutely plays an important role in discovering and understanding the physical universe, but it is not the answer to everything
[2010:02:09:18:00] <Puffen> What the hell are you talking about when you say spiritual truth?
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Skystriker> I was raised fundamentalist Christian, and most of my growth has been throwing off a lot of that.
[2010:02:09:18:01] <SilverSeraWork> what does fundamentalist mean
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Skystriker> meh, irrelevant
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Skystriker> for the topic at hand xD
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Puffen> SilverSeraphim, strict
[2010:02:09:18:01] <SilverSeraWork> it's relevent to me
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Puffen> he believes the world is 6k years old
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Skystriker> well, sure, but a sec
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Puffen> etc
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Puffen> ./pun
[2010:02:09:18:01] <Skystriker> People did try to get me to believe that, lol
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> I don't think I ever swallowed that particular piece.
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> Anyways
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> Right now
[2010:02:09:18:02] <SilverSeraWork> 6k year old world is not necessarily stated or even implied in the bible
[2010:02:09:18:02] <SilverSeraWork> that's an idea
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> I believe that some supernatural creative force created the internet.
[2010:02:09:18:02] <SilverSeraWork> that some peole hang on to
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> wow
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> I just said internet
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> instead of universe
[2010:02:09:18:02] <SilverSeraWork> Skystriker: i blieve you speak of Al Gore
[2010:02:09:18:02] <SilverSeraWork> ;)
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> That is um, pretty epic.
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> Anyways
[2010:02:09:18:02] <Skystriker> Creative force.
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Skystriker> I also believe that any and all exclusive religions are wrong (in that aspect), and that is not because of any evidence, but because of what my brain/heart/soul/ME feels
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Skystriker> Exclusive being:
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Skystriker> We have a monopoly on a positive afterlife
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, you get that figure when you calculate all the relatives mentioned in the bible
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Skystriker> Believe with us, heaven, don't, hell
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Puffen> you
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Puffen> know
[2010:02:09:18:03] <Puffen> lineage
[2010:02:09:18:04] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: the bible is not an all inclusive lineage from the start of time
[2010:02:09:18:04] <SilverSeraWork> 6k world is a best guess with limited information
[2010:02:09:18:04] <SilverSeraWork> and could be totally off
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> w.e, irrelevant
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> for now
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> So
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> Creative force
[2010:02:09:18:04] * Quits: Kae (~kb@c-50c8e253.97-16-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se) (Read error: Operation timed out)
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> Oh
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> before the exclusive part
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Skystriker> I believe there's an afterlife.
[2010:02:09:18:04] <Flydiverny> o,o
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Skystriker> This is also not based on evidence.
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Skystriker> (obviously)
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Puffen> [18:00:49] <SilverSeraWork> i believe science absolutely plays an important role in discovering and understanding the physical universe, but it is not the answer to everything
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Puffen> retard
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Skystriker> To me, life is pretty meaningless if this is all there is.
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Puffen> k afk
[2010:02:09:18:05] <SilverSeraWork> Skystriker: i agree
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Puffen> no but really
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Skystriker> Puffen
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Skystriker> No offense man
[2010:02:09:18:05] <SilverSeraWork> "retard" isn't a reasonable argument for anything
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Skystriker> But you're quickly just gonna earn /ignore (not that you care) if you approach discussion that way
[2010:02:09:18:05] <SilverSeraWork> it's an insult
[2010:02:09:18:05] <Puffen> how can you value anything that hasn't been derived from scientific method?
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Puffen> I'm jsut trolling
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Puffen> chill
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Skystriker> ah
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Skystriker> ;p
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Skystriker> hard to get inflection on teh interwebs sometimes
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Skystriker> What do you mean, puffen?
[2010:02:09:18:06] <SilverSeraWork> trolling is funny once in a while, most of the time isn't annoying
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Puffen> Sure, you might get information that isn't acceptable in scientific terms
[2010:02:09:18:06] <SilverSeraWork> err isn't = it's
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Skystriker> Aye, I just didn't see the troll, so I missed the point xD
[2010:02:09:18:06] <Puffen> like eye-witness reports
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Puffen> But how can you trust that?
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Skystriker> I'm not talking about stuff like that
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Flydiverny> I doubt scientific methods will be able to answer all questions even with endless time o,o
[2010:02:09:18:07] <SilverSeraWork> all of science is based on "eye-witness"
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Skystriker> Puffen, science is limited in scope
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Skystriker> Science seeks to answer how
[2010:02:09:18:07] <SilverSeraWork> science is limited to the phsycial reality
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Skystriker> Not why
[2010:02:09:18:07] <SilverSeraWork> good point sky
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Skystriker> (in general, you can EASILY strawman that)
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, and that's the only reality we know exists
[2010:02:09:18:07] <Skystriker> Puffen: see my reasoning on believing in the afterlife
[2010:02:09:18:08] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: do you ever act on somethign that you don't "know"?
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Skystriker> I believe in an afterlife solely because I want to, not because there's any evidence for it
[2010:02:09:18:08] <SilverSeraWork> do you trust a driver not to run you over when you cross the road?
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Skystriker> However, I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that not only to you, but myself.
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Puffen> Skystriker, sure, but that doesn't mean that it actually exists
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Skystriker> Sure
[2010:02:09:18:08] <SilverSeraWork> obviously
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Skystriker> And I'm not going to tell you you're wrong if/when you tell me it doesn't
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Skystriker> Spiritual growth, to me, is personal.
[2010:02:09:18:08] <Puffen> And it's the same with God
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Skystriker> Well, that for me there's evidence/reasoning for
[2010:02:09:18:09] <eXes> why do you want to believe in that, i mean if you die you wont know it anyway in case it does not exist :P
[2010:02:09:18:09] <SilverSeraWork> an afterlife can't be proven by science, but if it does exist, it's pretty important, and depending on the circumstances, could be more important than all of your phsycial life
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Skystriker> With by 'god' I use supernatural creative force
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Skystriker> Exactly, eXes
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Flydiverny> exes I have a feeling you wont know even if it does exist in any kind. ^^
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Skystriker> I can choose to live my life enjoying it, and feeling that more is coming afterwards
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Skystriker> If I'm wrong, no harm done.
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, but until it is proven you have to act that's false
[2010:02:09:18:09] <Skystriker> I disagree puffen
[2010:02:09:18:10] <SilverSeraWork> i completely disagree
[2010:02:09:18:10] <Skystriker> We haven't proved gravity, or quantum mechanics, or w.e
[2010:02:09:18:10] <Puffen> Why? Are you gonna base decisions on things that aren't certain?
[2010:02:09:18:10] <Puffen> We have through empirical data
[2010:02:09:18:10] <Skystriker> There's a lot of tangents in this discussion
[2010:02:09:18:10] <Skystriker> I'm not talking specifics at all
[2010:02:09:18:10] <SilverSeraWork> puffen, if that were true you'd never cross a crosswalk because it's not proven that that car isn't going to hit the gas as soon as you get in front
[2010:02:09:18:10] <SilverSeraWork> =\
[2010:02:09:18:11] <Puffen> That's not the same thing though
[2010:02:09:18:11] <SilverSeraWork> it is
[2010:02:09:18:11] <Flydiverny> it kind of is.
[2010:02:09:18:11] <SilverSeraWork> all of trust is BASED on not "knowing"
[2010:02:09:18:11] <Skystriker> Meh silv, it is kinda different
[2010:02:09:18:11] <Skystriker> but anyways
[2010:02:09:18:11] <SilverSeraWork> if you KNOW that the car can't go cause it's out of gas, then it's much different than you trusting the drive not to run you over, because you know he can't
[2010:02:09:18:11] <Skystriker> Puffen, I will live a happier life if I choose to believe there's an afterlife.
[2010:02:09:18:11] <Skystriker> Keeping that in mind, why do you think I should not believe in it?
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Puffen> I'm not saying you can't believe it
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Flydiverny> Sadly i believe life is pointless which makes it damn boring t_t
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Puffen> sec
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Puffen> gotta google the word
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Skystriker> [12:09:45] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, but until it is proven you have to act that's false
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Skystriker> is what I was replying to
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Skystriker> So if you're not saying that, then nvm.
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Skystriker> Skepticism, puffen?
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Puffen> emphasis on "act"
[2010:02:09:18:12] <Puffen> you can believe it
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> Hrm
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> Well
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Puffen> but you shouldn't base your decisiions that it's true
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> I haven't gotten that far yet
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Puffen> or encourage it
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> Well
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Puffen> or encourage that it's true*
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> For example let's say that I have children
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> I want them to be happy
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> So I will provide them with the idea of an afterlife, if for some reason they didn't come up with it themselves.
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> But I'm not going to tell them that I know it's true.
[2010:02:09:18:13] <Skystriker> Or that they need to also believe in it
[2010:02:09:18:14] <Puffen> I'd probably do the same
[2010:02:09:18:14] <Puffen> But when they get older
[2010:02:09:18:14] <Puffen> I'd tell them exactly what I've been trying to tell you
[2010:02:09:18:14] <Puffen> that you can't put trust in something that is completely unproven
[2010:02:09:18:14] <Skystriker> Well
[2010:02:09:18:14] <Skystriker> There's different things here
[2010:02:09:18:14] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: by your own logic you shouldn't believe in a non-created universe as there isnt' any proof for it, right? or do you believe that the universe wasn't created? in my mind you would have to say that it's an "i don't know" because you can never prove it one way or the other?
[2010:02:09:18:15] * Joins: Sevenix (pheonix@PheoniX.users.quakenet.org)
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Flydiverny> Do you really have to trust it? I'm not really following here o,o
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Skystriker> Let's take one extreme: someone donates all their possessions to their religion because they believe it will increase their eternal happiness
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Skystriker> Yes, I think that's silly.
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Skystriker> Just based on what we've been talking about
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, I'd say we don't know yet because science hasn't answered it adequately
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Skystriker> The other extreme: someone just believes in it.
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Skystriker> Doesn't take any action, just goes through life confident that this isn't the end.
[2010:02:09:18:15] <Skystriker> Diff strokes for diff folks
[2010:02:09:18:16] <Skystriker> Atm, I'm on the 'just believing in it' end
[2010:02:09:18:16] <Skystriker> If I happen to grow spiritually and be more certain of different things/specifics, then perhaps that will change.
[2010:02:09:18:16] <Puffen> I'll give you an example that will hopefully show what I mean
[2010:02:09:18:16] <Skystriker> But for now I feel no need to base current decisions on potential afterlife stuff
[2010:02:09:18:17] <Puffen> Let's assume a universe where everyone believes that ghosts and werewolves exist, that a black cat crossing the street means bad luck, or that there is an invisible giant frog in the sky that will eat you if you steal from someone
[2010:02:09:18:17] <Puffen> And then we have a universe where everyone only believes what has been (adequately) proven through scientific method
[2010:02:09:18:18] <Puffen> which one do you think will reach a greater understanding of the universe first?
[2010:02:09:18:18] <Puffen> I say this because I consider the scientific method to be the closest thing we have to a truth-finder
[2010:02:09:18:18] <Puffen> it's not perfect, but it's the best
[2010:02:09:18:21] <Puffen> got quiet real quick
[2010:02:09:18:21] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: the problem with dismissing faith is that science begins with faith, there is no proof that seeing something happen 10 times or 1000 times or 1000000 times means that it will happen that way EVERY time. we call them "laws" of nature, but the 1001st time it could be different, and then we have to revise and we realize that our scientific "truth" was not truth at all!
[2010:02:09:18:21] <eXes> why I prefer science, I dont think it can explain everything, but you cant get closer
[2010:02:09:18:22] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, that is the scientific definition of truth, yes
[2010:02:09:18:22] <Puffen> I don't see how that relates to faith though?
[2010:02:09:18:23] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: it relates becuase science takes it on faith that seeing something a certain number of times means that we can call it a fact until proven otherwise
[2010:02:09:18:23] <SilverSeraWork> we have faith IN science
[2010:02:09:18:24] <SilverSeraWork> we have faith that if we drop 1000 apples that all 1000 apples will fall
[2010:02:09:18:24] <Puffen> we gain knowledge through empirical data
[2010:02:09:18:24] <Puffen> observed and recorded data
[2010:02:09:18:24] <SilverSeraWork> and we have faith that the knowledge we gain is indeed "true"
[2010:02:09:18:24] <Puffen> there is no observed and recorded data that ghosts exists
[2010:02:09:18:24] <SilverSeraWork> so we have "faith" that they don't exist
[2010:02:09:18:24] <SilverSeraWork> science is still based on faith
[2010:02:09:18:25] <SilverSeraWork> and by faith i mean trusting that something you cannot prove is true
[2010:02:09:18:25] <Skystriker> Meh
[2010:02:09:18:25] <SilverSeraWork> not faith as is religious faith
[2010:02:09:18:25] <Skystriker> We're getting way too semantical imo
[2010:02:09:18:25] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, that's just semantics
[2010:02:09:18:25] <SilverSeraWork> i think sematical distinctions are important
[2010:02:09:18:25] <Skystriker> I think there's a place for both faith and reason in a healthy human.
[2010:02:09:18:25] <SilverSeraWork> i agree
[2010:02:09:18:25] <SilverSeraWork> faith and reason are key aspects of humanity
[2010:02:09:18:25] <Skystriker> And that healthy humans can choose to -not- have faith in spiritual things.
[2010:02:09:18:26] <SilverSeraWork> now THERE is the real question
[2010:02:09:18:26] <Skystriker> a real question, for sure.
[2010:02:09:18:26] * Quits: Shine- (~Shine@BlackStarShine.users.quakenet.org) (Signed off)
[2010:02:09:18:26] <SilverSeraWork> not whether faith exists, becuase we ALL have faith in SOMETHING, the real question is IS FAITH REASONABLE
[2010:02:09:18:26] <SilverSeraWork> =]
[2010:02:09:18:26] <Skystriker> I don't think so.
[2010:02:09:18:26] <SilverSeraWork> and people struggle to discover that their entire lives
[2010:02:09:18:27] <Skystriker> I'm confused: are you saying faith is reasonable or it isn't?
[2010:02:09:18:27] <Puffen> Big difference between believing in God and saying there is no evidence to either refute or support the idea
[2010:02:09:18:27] <SilverSeraWork> i personally believe that faith in the supernatural is reasonable
[2010:02:09:18:27] <Skystriker> Well again
[2010:02:09:18:27] <Skystriker> I believe that I've based my decision to believe in god on evidence
[2010:02:09:18:28] <Skystriker> I mean
[2010:02:09:18:28] <Skystriker> What plausible possibility is there
[2010:02:09:18:28] <Skystriker> besides that
[2010:02:09:18:28] <Skystriker> For origin of the universe?
[2010:02:09:18:28] <Puffen> But lack of knowledge doesn't mean you have to resort to an unsupported explanation?
[2010:02:09:18:29] <SilverSeraWork> actually puffen, that's exactly what we do
[2010:02:09:18:29] <Puffen> yes, I know you do
[2010:02:09:18:29] <SilverSeraWork> Steven Hawking believe in infinute universes
[2010:02:09:18:29] <SilverSeraWork> that is the current "scientific" (ie atheist) answer
[2010:02:09:18:30] <Puffen> answer to what?
[2010:02:09:18:30] <SilverSeraWork> our universe exists the way it does because there are infinite universes that express all possiblities
[2010:02:09:18:30] <SilverSeraWork> therefore we are lucky to be in this one where things randomly worked into life and at that a pretty good life
[2010:02:09:18:30] <Skystriker> Meh
[2010:02:09:18:30] <SilverSeraWork> the answer to how the universe is the way it is
[2010:02:09:18:30] <Skystriker> I still prefer the universe where my gf likes anal.
[2010:02:09:18:31] <SilverSeraWork> why it's here at all
[2010:02:09:18:31] <SilverSeraWork> lol
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> :P
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Puffen> [18:28:04] <Skystriker> I mean
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Puffen> [18:28:09] <Skystriker> What plausible possibility is there
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Puffen> [18:28:14] <Skystriker> besides that
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Puffen> [18:28:18] <Skystriker> For origin of the universe?
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> Yes?
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Puffen> What you do here is that you give credit to something that has no scientific proof of
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> I disagree
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> Well
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> yes no proof, but evidence
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> The universe has scientific laws
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Puffen> scientificly accepted evidence?
[2010:02:09:18:31] <Skystriker> EVERYTHING has a creator
[2010:02:09:18:31] <SilverSeraWork> well sky, the interesting thing is that in order to dispell the idea that there is one God who created this universe, we have to have faith and believe in an infinite number of "other" universes that we can never prove or witness
[2010:02:09:18:32] <SilverSeraWork> now which is more reasonable?
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Skystriker> Inertia, in a abstract sense.
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Skystriker> You don't spontaneously have a textbook pop out of thing air.
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Skystriker> Its crafted through human design
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Skystriker> Stars don't come from nothingness
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Skystriker> We study how they form, and can understand it
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Puffen> where do rocks come from?
[2010:02:09:18:32] <Skystriker> That's a really weird question
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Puffen> why?
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Skystriker> if you want to go all the way back, its cosmic dust, forming the earth, cooling, blah blah blah
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Puffen> So the creator is a bigger rock..?
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Skystriker> ...what?
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Puffen> that divided?
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Skystriker> Wtf
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Puffen> You say everything has a creator
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Skystriker> Yes
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Puffen> and you give a textbook as example
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Skystriker> It was random
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Skystriker> I also talked about a star
[2010:02:09:18:33] <Puffen> sure
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Puffen> the star then
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Puffen> who's the creator?
[2010:02:09:18:34] <SilverSeraWork> Skystriker: the best i've heard it explained is this: if you find a rock on the ground in the middle of nowhere, you may dismiss it and thing nothing of it. however if you find a watch in the middle of nowhere you are compelled to ask "who made this?". our world is not a simple rock. it is an unfathomably complex "watch" that we cannot even begin to fully understand. therefore in the same way it begs the question "who created all of this?"
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Puffen> or what
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Skystriker> gravity + the material
[2010:02:09:18:34] <SilverSeraWork> puffen read that ^^
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Skystriker> by creator I don't always mean a sentient being
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Skystriker> If a tree falls over, it might have been wind, or rotting, or a beaver, or w.e
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, sure, it begs the question
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Skystriker> Gravity of course had the largest roll
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Skystriker> role*
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Puffen> but we can't act to hold the answer
[2010:02:09:18:34] <Puffen> which you do
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Puffen> since u say God did
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Skystriker> By creator, puffen, I mean something that made it happen
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Skystriker> For the most part, things aren't random (you can strawman me with radioactive decay)
[2010:02:09:18:35] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: i'm not arguing right now that "God created this", that's a separate argument. what im AM arguing is that the universe WAS indeed created
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Skystriker> Puffen
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Puffen> How so?
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Skystriker> We get all the way back to the big bang
[2010:02:09:18:35] <Puffen> Why couldn't it be infinite?
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> Sure, that's a plausible explanation
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Penthero> maybe radioactive decay aren't random either, just that we lack the knowledge to be able to understand it for the time being ;)
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> Agreed, Penthero
[2010:02:09:18:36] <SilverSeraWork> i believe my arguemnt is a reasonable argument that the universe was created, NOT that it is a reasonable argument for the existence of God or that he is the one who did the creating
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> I believe it's pretty mundane scientifically to say the universe had a beginning, guys
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> It's like 15 bil give or take
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, no it isn't
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Puffen> but it's a nice try
[2010:02:09:18:36] <SilverSeraWork> why isn't it?
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Penthero> it all could be a cycle, so in the end you'll end up at A after ending it at Z :>
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> Puffen
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> Sure
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> Why?
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Puffen> Skystriker, that's bigbang
[2010:02:09:18:36] <Skystriker> What started the cycle
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> the cycle before it?
[2010:02:09:18:37] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: what is unreasonable about my argument for creation?
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> puffen
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Penthero> Skystriker the definition of a cycle :E
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> You're saying 'stuff just IS, okay?'
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Puffen> Skystriker, we don't know yet
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> Ok, fair enough
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Penthero> there's no need for a before the cycle started, as there the cycle is again ^^
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> Yes penthero, but something had to start the cycle
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> Or create it
[2010:02:09:18:37] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: "we don't know yet" isn't a reasonable argument for there NOT being a creator
[2010:02:09:18:37] <Skystriker> Or w.e
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Skystriker> For example
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, correct
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Penthero> are you really sure? maybe it's just your knowledge that's currently limiting you
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Skystriker> This is true, Penthero
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Puffen> But I don't see your argument for there being a creator.
[2010:02:09:18:38] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: you say that my argument isn't reasonable, that it is only a "nice try" but you don't give any reasons WHY you find it to be unreasonable
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Skystriker> But I personally feel it's less of a stretch to label that creator god than something beyond human ken.
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, you only proved that humans seek answers to questions
[2010:02:09:18:38] * Wickdawesomeafk is now known as Wickd
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Skystriker> SilverSeraWork: Hes just saying that you're not proving anything.
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Penthero> we cannot just simple say it must be in a certain way just because we don't understand it, it might be even be something even harder to understand :E
[2010:02:09:18:38] <SilverSeraWork> of course i'm not proving anything
[2010:02:09:18:38] <SilverSeraWork> id din't say i was
[2010:02:09:18:38] <Skystriker> SilverSeraWork, with your example
[2010:02:09:18:39] <SilverSeraWork> i said that it's reasonable to assume the universe was created
[2010:02:09:18:39] <Skystriker> I DO ask the question of where the rock came from with regard to the universe
[2010:02:09:18:39] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, but unfounded
[2010:02:09:18:39] <Skystriker> I don't care if the universe is simple as dirt or complex as w.e
[2010:02:09:18:39] <Skystriker> Aside from the obvious limitation that I need to be comprehending it, I would be asking the same question if our universe consisted of a marble in space.
[2010:02:09:18:39] <Skystriker> I'm not talking intelligent design
[2010:02:09:18:39] <Skystriker> I'm just saying, there needs to be some creative force.
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Skystriker> Just as we believe in gravity
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Skystriker> I believe in other laws of nature
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Skystriker> Things don't just 'exist'
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Skystriker> They're that way as a combination of preexisting forces
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Penthero> maybe it did <.<
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Skystriker> And again
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Skystriker> It takes more faith for me to believe that than in a god
[2010:02:09:18:40] <Penthero> who the fawks knows, there's alot more simple stuff we cannot understand
[2010:02:09:18:41] <Skystriker> And again, I'm not arguing that I'm right or that I have all the answers, penth
[2010:02:09:18:41] <Skystriker> Just saying that's the conclusion I've drawn
[2010:02:09:18:41] <Skystriker> That our universe was created.
[2010:02:09:18:41] <Puffen> Without any support of scientific data
[2010:02:09:18:41] <Skystriker> If you choose to believe that it's an infinite cycle, and you don't have an answer to 'why is the cycle here then', that's fine.
[2010:02:09:18:41] <Penthero> and regarding the the thing someone said that 1000apples falls thingy, if you look at it from science side, it's not a fact that it will always be drawn to earth thanks to gravity ;)
[2010:02:09:18:41] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: unfounded? i gave you my foundation. my foundation is based on reason. it is based on the idea that all humans reasonably agree when they find somethign complex, with signs of craftmanship, that it was in fact created, and not random
[2010:02:09:18:42] <Skystriker> Penthero, plz stop strawmanning :P
[2010:02:09:18:42] <Skystriker> It's hard enuff to keep a spiritual discussion in manageable terms xD
[2010:02:09:18:42] <Penthero> I just didn't have time to reply to that when it was posted :>
[2010:02:09:18:42] <Penthero> and Skystriker, never claimed you did know ;)
[2010:02:09:18:42] <SilverSeraWork> Penthero: i was using that arguement to mean the exact thing you meant to counter with, that scientific principles are taken on faith, becuase we can't truly "prove" anything
[2010:02:09:18:42] <Penthero> I'm just saying it's as plausible to belive in the opposite that you believe in
[2010:02:09:18:43] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, yes, you're claiming (with reason) that humans seek out answers
[2010:02:09:18:43] <Puffen> But that doesn't support the idea that it was in fact created
[2010:02:09:18:43] <SilverSeraWork> that's what reason MEANS
[2010:02:09:18:43] <Skystriker> Puffen
[2010:02:09:18:43] <SilverSeraWork> we make reasonable assumptions
[2010:02:09:18:43] <Skystriker> Do you understand why I think there has to be a creator for the universe?
[2010:02:09:18:43] <SilverSeraWork> about thigns we don't or cna't know
[2010:02:09:18:43] <SilverSeraWork> brb, bathroom
[2010:02:09:18:43] <Skystriker> because EVERYTHING else in the universe works that way.
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Skystriker> Just as I assume this phone will be affected by gravity as is everything else.
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Penthero> SilverSeraWork we can prove that it's true for that small part, than that it might be incorrect in the bigger picture is something everybody know <.<
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Puffen> Skystriker, what you're saying is that every entity was something else before
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Skystriker> Penthero: laws of nature tend to try to address the bigger picture
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Penthero> most science people learn at low-grade school have already been proven false ;p
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Skystriker> No, puffen
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Skystriker> I'm saying that there's always a cause for an effect
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Skystriker> Its not the entity that matters
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Penthero> Skystriker but we don't know everything in the bigger picture yet
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Skystriker> And?
[2010:02:09:18:44] <Penthero> that's why it's impossible to add that...
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Skystriker> Look
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Skystriker> What are you trying to convince me of
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Penthero> so within a limited frame it's not incorrect
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Penthero> Skystriker, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Skystriker> ok
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Skystriker> Well I am saying that, to the best of my knowledge, I believe in a creator of the universe because it makes the most sense to me
[2010:02:09:18:45] <Skystriker> over infinite cycles
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Penthero> yes, you may :>
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> (which is the only other plausible explanation)
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> (that I've heard)
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> But
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> The cycles
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> STILL beg the question of what started/created the cycle
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> Which is why I choose the creator
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> option
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Penthero> I rather believe that it's useless to try to understand it as we lack far to much knowledge to even try to comprehend wtf it is
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Skystriker> Well
[2010:02:09:18:46] <Puffen> Skystriker, yes u are correct
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> I feel that's a lame approach to take :(
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> I mean
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> We don't know everything about science
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Penthero> but the possibilities are pretty much infitiny in what you want to believe in :E
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> So we shouldn't bother trying to learn more?
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Puffen> Even if there is a cycle to universe
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Puffen> that cycle is still a series
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Puffen> which is again an entity
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Penthero> Skystriker, currently I think so
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> And something had to cause it
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Puffen> and thus should have a predecessor
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Puffen> yes
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> Exactly, puffen
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> When I say 'god' created it
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> I don't care what god is
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Penthero> Puffen not neseccery ;)
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> All I'm saying is holy shit here's someone who transcends the laws of nature.
[2010:02:09:18:47] <Skystriker> Because he didn't need a beginning
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Puffen> Penthero, no but according to logic
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Puffen> it is
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Penthero> according to our flawed logic :>
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Puffen> possibly
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Skystriker> Yes, Penthero, but its the only logic available
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Puffen> but we haven't seen it disproven yet
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Puffen> so I'll use logic
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Skystriker> When you get your hands on some of that good stuff, lemme know and share plz
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Penthero> you do know that it's been proven that the science logic is lacking and cannot prove alot
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Skystriker> No
[2010:02:09:18:48] <Skystriker> It has not
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Skystriker> Logic has never been disproven
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Skystriker> That's kind of impossible
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Skystriker> lmao
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Puffen> And even if it did, it wouldn't be a big revelation
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Penthero> the scientific logic has, yes
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Puffen> Science can't probably answer everything
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Puffen> but it's the closest and most accurate tool
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Penthero> it cannot explain everything in our mathematic
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Skystriker> I think I was responding to the wrong question
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Skystriker> for example, there are provably unsolvable math problems, as penthero said
[2010:02:09:18:49] <Skystriker> But you're using -logic- to say that
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Penthero> eh?
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Skystriker> You're not saying that logic is flawed, but that it is not omnipotent
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Skystriker> Logic is reasoning
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Skystriker> I mean
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Skystriker> How do you even go about disproving reasoning
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Penthero> for me, logic that cannot explain everything is flawed, and therefor should not be taken as truth
[2010:02:09:18:50] <Skystriker> Then wtf is true?
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Penthero> well
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Penthero> I dunno :P
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> causility is a proved to be true
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> and since that's true
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Skystriker> causality = using logic :P
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> it follows what we said earlier about cycles
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> yes
[2010:02:09:18:51] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: how was causality proved to be true?
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Penthero> Skystriker, aren't that what this discussion is about? what the ell the truth can be? ^^
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Skystriker> Causality is as proven as gravity
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> and gravity is accepted to be true
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> is it not?
[2010:02:09:18:51] <SilverSeraWork> accepted is DIFFERENT than proven
[2010:02:09:18:51] <Puffen> it might not be explained in theory, but it's accept to be true
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Skystriker> I'm not arguing that logic is flawed
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Skystriker> Thats penthero
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Skystriker> I think logic, causality, gravity, etc. are all true, yes
[2010:02:09:18:52] * eyes`RebooM is now known as eyes`Leaf-_-
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Skystriker> And I think that causality points to some force that doesn't need a beginning
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Puffen> [18:50:59] <Puffen> causility is accepted to be true and has never failed so far
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Skystriker> Which I'm just labelling god for easy reference
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Puffen> SilverSeraphim
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Puffen> better?
[2010:02:09:18:52] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: but WHY believe it?
[2010:02:09:18:52] <Penthero> just becaise it haven't failed so far doesn't mean it's true :>
[2010:02:09:18:53] <SilverSeraWork> you don't KNOW that it's true
[2010:02:09:18:53] <Puffen> correct
[2010:02:09:18:53] <SilverSeraWork> i don't get why you would believe in causality or gravity if you can't KNOW that they are true?
[2010:02:09:18:53] <Skystriker> Penthero: this isn't productive reasoning.  Go argue the matrix elsewhere ><
[2010:02:09:18:53] <Puffen> But the history of it's accuracy leads me to believe it will happen in the future again
[2010:02:09:18:53] <Puffen> I can throw an apple in the air 10k times
[2010:02:09:18:53] <Penthero> Skystriker nothing better to do :>
[2010:02:09:18:53] <Skystriker> ;p
[2010:02:09:18:53] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: so you believe that it is REASONABLE to have faith that the apple will fall?
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Penthero> when science already proven that it might not be the case that it will fall ;p
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Skystriker> Ugh
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Skystriker> I do not agree with your use of the word faith
[2010:02:09:18:54] <SilverSeraWork> Skystriker: why is that?
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, I believe looking at the apple's results you could say it's likely that it will fall again
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Skystriker> Faith to me is believing in something when you can't know that it's true, even in a scientific sense.
[2010:02:09:18:54] <SilverSeraWork> is there somethign wrong with the dictionary definition of faith?
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Skystriker> It's jsut
[2010:02:09:18:54] <Skystriker> not making for productive conversation
[2010:02:09:18:55] <SilverSeraWork> actually it is
[2010:02:09:18:55] <Skystriker> We're spending all our time arguing the meaning of words and not getting anywhere on why we believe in what we believe :P
[2010:02:09:18:55] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: so you organize your life according to what is likely? correct?
[2010:02:09:18:55] * Joins: Fawkes^ (~sirfawkes@ip196.otanner12.opintanner.fi)
[2010:02:09:18:55] <Penthero> *only believe in the fact that the human race currently lack the knowledge to understand anything*
[2010:02:09:18:55] <Puffen> correct
[2010:02:09:18:55] * Joins: An7hrax (~an7hrax@An7hrax.users.quakenet.org)
[2010:02:09:18:56] <SilverSeraWork> so, based on past experience with universes, is it likely that ours was created or random?
[2010:02:09:18:56] <Puffen> what past experiences are you referring to?
[2010:02:09:18:57] <SilverSeraWork> exactly.     or... is is possible that science isn't the right tool for this job. that science can NEVER give insight into the beginning of the universe
[2010:02:09:18:57] <Skystriker> ^
[2010:02:09:18:57] <SilverSeraWork> beucase don't experience any other universe than this one
[2010:02:09:18:57] <Penthero> that's a possibility
[2010:02:09:18:57] <SilverSeraWork> this is it
[2010:02:09:18:57] <Penthero> we might experience another, who the fawks knows
[2010:02:09:18:57] <SilverSeraWork> none of us have experience the beginning of our universe, and we have no prior experience with universal creations or destructions
[2010:02:09:18:58] <Puffen> But now you assume there are other universes
[2010:02:09:18:58] <SilverSeraWork> i'm not assuming anything
[2010:02:09:18:58] <Skystriker> Anyways
[2010:02:09:18:58] <SilverSeraWork> i'm merely pointing out that science is never going to get us the answers to the creation of this universe
[2010:02:09:18:58] <Skystriker> Yes
[2010:02:09:18:58] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, that might be true
[2010:02:09:18:58] <Penthero> SilverSeraWork, maybe it will get us an answer ;)
[2010:02:09:18:58] <SilverSeraWork> so, if one tool doesn't work and CAN'T work, is it reasonable to consider other tools?
[2010:02:09:18:59] <Skystriker> No, no it won't Penthero
[2010:02:09:18:59] <Skystriker> It's not capable of that :P
[2010:02:09:18:59] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork, nope
[2010:02:09:18:59] <Penthero> maybe it is in a couple of millions years
[2010:02:09:18:59] <Penthero> just because our frame of knowledge are lacking now doesn't mean it still do that in the future
[2010:02:09:18:59] <Puffen> any data retrieved from anything other than scientific method cannot be relied on
[2010:02:09:19:00] <SilverSeraWork> actually, Puffen you're arguing that it SHOULDNT be relied on
[2010:02:09:19:00] <SilverSeraWork> you can rely on whatever you want
[2010:02:09:19:00] <Puffen> well
[2010:02:09:19:00] <Puffen> I rank the options of finding truth on a scale 1-10
[2010:02:09:19:00] <Puffen> and scientific method is the highest
[2010:02:09:19:00] <Puffen> it's not 10, but highest
[2010:02:09:19:00] <SilverSeraWork> do you only use 10s?
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Puffen> there is no 10
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Puffen> 10 would be finding out the truth immediately
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Puffen> or something
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Puffen> :D
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Penthero> in the end it all goes down to personal believes which doesn't say so much ;p
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Skystriker> gogo omniscience
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Puffen> Penthero, not really
[2010:02:09:19:01] <Penthero> okey, it says that alot of people have different believes :>
[2010:02:09:19:02] <Puffen> ^^
[2010:02:09:19:03] <Penthero> it's not like we can prove stuff wrong that's outside our frame of understanding <.<
[2010:02:09:19:03] <SilverSeraWork> Penthero: then how should we approach things beyond our understanding?
[2010:02:09:19:03] <Penthero> *far outside
[2010:02:09:19:04] <SilverSeraWork> ?
[2010:02:09:19:04] <Penthero> if it's close to our frame of understanding we can take the usual approaches, having some genius solve it all ;)
[2010:02:09:19:04] <SilverSeraWork> i didn't say close
[2010:02:09:19:04] <SilverSeraWork> i said beyond
[2010:02:09:19:05] <Penthero> can I finish what I am writing? :>
[2010:02:09:19:05] <SilverSeraWork> sure =]
[2010:02:09:19:05] <Penthero> if you extend the frame hopefully you'll reach that "beyond" sooner or later
[2010:02:09:19:05] <Penthero> if the gap is just to large, then I guess we'll never get a real undersanding of it
[2010:02:09:19:06] <SilverSeraWork> so, how do you approach something you cannot understand?
[2010:02:09:19:06] <Penthero> I do not know with my current knowledge
[2010:02:09:19:07] <Penthero> I cannot extend my arms far enough to grasp the way to approach what you cannot understand :>
[2010:02:09:19:08] * Quits: ningo (raw@raw.users.quakenet.org) (EOF from client)
[2010:02:09:19:08] <Puffen> We don't understand how gravity works
[2010:02:09:19:08] <Puffen> we've seen how it manifests
[2010:02:09:19:08] <Puffen> but atm it's beyond us
[2010:02:09:19:08] <SilverSeraWork> you mean we don't know why it works
[2010:02:09:19:08] <Puffen> are you saying we should resort to believeing a Frog controls gravity?
[2010:02:09:19:08] <Puffen> because science can't answer it?
[2010:02:09:19:08] <Penthero> the real truth behind gravity we might not know
[2010:02:09:19:08] <SilverSeraWork> we know that mass attracts, and more mass attracts more, but we don't know why
[2010:02:09:19:09] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: well waht is your basis for assuming that a frog controls gravity?
[2010:02:09:19:09] <Penthero> because frogs are awesome
[2010:02:09:19:09] <Puffen> I'm asking you
[2010:02:09:19:09] <Skystriker> lol
[2010:02:09:19:09] <SilverSeraWork> what signs point to that
[2010:02:09:19:09] <Puffen> Since you say science can't answer everything
[2010:02:09:19:09] <Puffen> therefore we must resort to other tools/ideas
[2010:02:09:19:09] <Puffen> and I propose the Frog
[2010:02:09:19:09] <SilverSeraWork> Puffen: well id ont have any signs that a frog controls gravity, but i do have signs that the universe had a beginning
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Penthero> tools/ideas cannot prove anything that science can't prove either :E
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Penthero> as science is a gathering of tools/ideas
[2010:02:09:19:10] * Pivan\off is now known as Pivan
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Puffen> Penthero, tools/ideas = faith
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Puffen> :P
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Puffen> those signs
[2010:02:09:19:10] <Puffen> are they based on scientific observations?
[2010:02:09:19:11] <Puffen> Or are you just dismissing science?
[2010:02:09:19:11] <Flydiverny> this stuff still going on? xD
[2010:02:09:19:11] <Penthero> Flydiverny seems that way
[2010:02:09:19:11] <Pivan> Evening children!
[2010:02:09:19:11] * Joins: bus1 (webchat@c-d9aae655.64-14-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se)
[2010:02:09:19:11] <Penthero> good evening dear Pivan
[2010:02:09:19:12] <Flydiverny> was abit interesting reading first but to tired to read it all xD
[2010:02:09:19:12] <Pivan> Now what might you guys be talking about?
[2010:02:09:19:12] <Penthero> Flydiverny, I read the beginning, then some at the end before I jumped into it :>
[2010:02:09:19:12] <Penthero> Pivan, alot? :P
[2010:02:09:19:13] <Penthero> I cannot find a short way to summarize it :E
[2010:02:09:19:13] <Puffen> SilverSeraWork
[2010:02:09:19:13] <Flydiverny> i read some big part in the middle then i tabbed to browser and tabbed back now an hour later
[2010:02:09:19:13] <Penthero> but it's been going on for 1�hour I think
[2010:02:09:19:13] <Pivan> I want to read :(