Also, I'd like to point out that "science can't explain it now (see: now), so it must be paranormal" constitutes an argument from ignorance.
lol creationism in disguise
ワンダ. All the way.
Naturally, that's true, and there are people who would prefer that god not exist because of not wanting to be wrong, etc. But wouldn't you agree that generally speaking, it's easier on the person's state of mind to believe in some sort of benevolent god? It's a lot harder not believing that there's someone watching over you and that when you die you have a place in a great haven where there's no suffering. I choose not to specifically believe in him because it seems like the truth to me, not because I'd like to, and I'm sure that's the case for most of us. If such a god was proven, I wouldn't stand much to lose. But PV's right, this is straying.
My point is that "you can't prove or disprove it" doesn't hold as much merit as one would think it does. But you seem to understand that already, so whatever. Regardless, they *knew* their gods were there. They had a feeling about it. People have feelings about all sorts of things, really. But you can't rely on them. Outside of theological debate, we disregard any claims and assertions that doesn't have reasonable evidence behind them. Imagine if we started arresting people on "feelings". Because the authorities "knew" they were guilty, because it was "obvious". That's why we don't do that. We hold trials. =/ I'm sorry for being thickheaded today, but I'm not understanding what you're trying to get across. I never said otherwise. =/ My point is that yes, neither side has absolute proof, but if we needed absolute proof to believe anything we'd never believe in anything at all. We settle for high degrees of certainty. Therefore, "neither side can prove themselves absolutely" loses a lot of its value as an argument. Again, you already seem to understand this, so maybe the joke's on me. :/
No, but that doesn't mean it's plausible either. Russel's teapot applies. Feelings can't be used as proof of anything. Do you think a muslim, or buddhist, or the ancient egyptians, greeks, didn't feel the same way? They can't all be right. For all you know, it *COULD* be in your head. Not saying it is, but the human mind is a powerful thing. If it wants to believe something enough, you can be sure it'll seem like the truth. When it comes to reaching the truth, only objective evidence can really be trusted. The two are too close to the same thing. If you mean *absolute* evidence, no, neither side can prove their beliefs absolutely. And if you want to get that technical, we can't prove *anything else* absolutely either.
So what is evolution's hidden agenda? How does logic prove evolution wrong?
It doesn't look too terrible. The train is just a means of transportation, the game on the whole is still a top down dungeon exploring adventure game just like all the other zeldas. It's just a little handheld game, they can't do too badly with it.
Darkness or no darkness, silhent hill is fucking creepy and i'd never want to play that shit in the dark either, so don't feel too bad :v
Oh, one more thing: complexity doesn't necessarily indicate design. Simplicity might be a better criteria to judge that by.
You do realize you're just basically making subjective assertions, right?
Okay. A great number of lives (let's attribute a value of 1 million for the sake of the question) is in peril. You, for whatever reason and due to whatever circumstances, are the only person who can prevent this. You can do it. You are perfectly capable of saving all those people. However, there is one thing stopping you: one misguided individual. You have no choice but to (see: NO CHOICE BUT TO, meaning you either have already tried everything else, or any other methods will not work for whateve reason) kill him/her to proceed. What do you do then?
Well, I never said that all internet relationships lead to nothing. Whether it does or not is a variable I left out for the sake of the discussion.
Who created that something?
Whether they're the *most* important or not is debatable, but they ARE very important. There are a lot of thing in an internet relationship that you'll never be able to experience in a real life one. I guess, potentially, the reverse is also true (on the internet, some people feel more free to act like themselves, so they might be more honest; on the other hand, it's very easy to lie on the internet too, but now I'm just getting ahead of myself). Either way, I'm not going to crucify anyone for doing it. I don't necessarily agree with the practice, but like most things, whether people want to do it or not is their choice. All I'm saying is, it's not for me.
