Is it gonna be some kind of subversion where a sentient Thimble owns everything on the planet and charges everyone preposterously high rent until everyone but the Thimble starves to death and the Thimble realizes it actually has no wealth whatsoever?
Or is it just gonna be like Battleship where it becomes about aliens for some reason?
I will sing the praises of this game until the end of capitalism, but calling this an “evolving game” if you don’t consider Phantom Liberty’s additions is kinda ridiculous. The “2.0” update was just the final additions of the features that made it a complete game. Might as well call any game that goes from beta to a release-ready version an “evolving game” at that point.
I just finished playing Horizon: Zero Dawn for the second time and it was way more engaging than I remember it being back in 2017. Apparently a lot of reviews ragged on it for “not being Breath of the Wild” which is a lame thing to complain about, even if the game came out at the same time, and they share a lot of thematic elements (like heavily focusing on archery, fighting ancient machines, exploring a beautiful world, etc.).
But it’s a very different game, very narrative heavy, very beautiful, and very well-optimized on PC. The combat is very focused and fun in a good way.
That’s perfect. I don’t think there could be a better way to describe it in one sentence. It’s also a fun spin on the “like skyrim with guns” oversimplification lol
Having not watched the linked video, and I swear I’m not saying that evolution is not true because I believe it is a very solid, theory for the development of life over time, but wasn’t evolution also used to justify slavery?
Again, I haven’t watched the video so I don’t know what parts of Christianity exactly are inspiring this question, but I don’t believe the heart of Christianity encourages slavery
I truly understand the belief that the existence of evil contradicts the idea of an all-knowing and/or good creator, but I firmly believe that it doesn’t. The definitions of “good” and “evil” are so difficult to nail down that I don’t think the existence or perception of these concepts can disprove the existence of something that caused the big bang or something that guided evolution to the conception of humanity. Evil itself is a concept of morality and morality itself is extremely nebulous.
I agree our physical laws don’t leave room for the supernatural but that’s because we can’t reproduce the supernatural under the experimentational parameters which produced the definitions/theories of our physical laws.
The explanation for the big bang doesn’t explain how the rules of logic by which we theorized its origin came into existence.
I don’t understand your final point about violations of logic. I don’t think any explanation for the origin of our universe and the logic that exists within it can be explained using the rules of logic that are contained within our universe.
I understand that what I believe is not what everyone will or should believe, but I’m fairly certain what you listed is not evidence in the concrete sense.
Why don’t you deal with the evil instead of telling people they don’t have the ability to understand that their kid dying of cancer is a good thing?
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I never said that any god or creator that exists must be “good.” I also never said that kids dying of cancer is a good thing. I’m just saying we don’t have concrete definitions of “good” or “evil” so it doesn’t really make much sense to try and understand the origin of the universe and/or the cause of the big bang by comparing it to morality. I also am not trying to convince you that a god exists. I’m trying to establish that it takes faith to believe this universe was not created by something.
argument from ignorance
Ignorance of what? The laws of physics are defined as such because of our limited ability as humans to run experiments on their consistency. Humans obviously lack the ability to cause supernatural events so how could we possibly run experiments on their consistency? Once we run experiments that prove something inconsistent in the laws of physics, their definitions will be adjusted to appropriately account for them. However, an event caused by a supernatural being’s will would obviously not be representative of or fit into the definition of a law, it would be an exception to the law that we as humans could not replicate, so how could we possibly define a natural/physical law based on an exception?
we have an explanation for how we got here from the Big Bang onward that shows no evidence of intelligence operating behind it
My point in responding to this was mainly to say that one of our physical laws state that matter an energy can neither be created nor destroyed so where did it come from initially? If it was always there, fine but we don’t really have evidence of that.
God is unlimited. Can God die? No. There is something it can’t do. Therefore God is limited.
My point about the rules of logic applies here. Something that created this universe and the rules of logic that this universe follows would not need to abide by the rules of logic that it created in a contained setting like this universe.
God is a violation of the law of identity
See my previous point about the rules of logic. But also, I have not been trying to make an argument about specific characteristics or specific actions of a creator of this universe. If you want to argue against the Christian definition of God and the Trinity, go for it, but I won’t argue back. I can’t make any argument that the Christian God is the creator of the universe that isn’t wholly based on faith.
I don’t see how I’m being dishonest. I have not claimed to provide any evidence, I’m just trying to explain why what you’re saying is not actually concrete evidence. You said all of your arguments are proof that a creator doesn’t exist when they are just arguments that a very specific kind of god does not exist. I have made no statements about what kind of creator does exist, but you keep arguing that this “skydaddy” doesn’t exist because of characteristics that you are assuming about it. If there is an accepted description of a creator or creators that I’m missing please educate me because I have never heard of a singular definition that everyone agrees is the correct definition of a creator.
Maybe the universe has just always been, I don’t see why that couldn’t be the case. Maybe the universe began out of an absolute void, I don’t see any evidence that can prove otherwise. Maybe the universe was created by a being that exists beyond it, I have no evidence to disprove it. You don’t have to believe any of these theories. You don’t have to believe any other theory about it either. But to assert so certainly that one of these theories is incorrect is a faith-based assertion because there is not concrete, proven, tested, logical evidence that says one of these theories is less plausible than another.
And if your statement that no god could possibly exist because one concept of a god is nonsensical, then my evidence that an intelligent creator exists is that the second law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy settle into systems of lesser complexity, not greater complexity, which is the opposite of how the theory of evolution works. Dirt evolving into simple single celled life forms and progressively getting more and more complex until fully fledged multi-celled organisms, and ones with sentience at that, violates the law of entropy. I don’t personally think this evidence is rock-solid since it all depends on how wide the scope of your defined system is, but if “skydaddy doesn’t exist because children die of cancer” is your argument against the possibility of an intelligent creator, I don’t see why this evidence is any less valid.
I can’t remember who, but when this game came out 3 years ago someone on Twitter said the shooting and driving felt like they were developed by a team that had never coded shooting or driving before. Yes, it’s been 3 years of massive updates but I don’t care. The shooting in this game rivals the best FPSes and the driving...
Honestly I fell in love with the vehicle combat because it’s hard to control. It’s chaotic, slippery, explosive, and wreckless. That’s why it’s fun! :D
'Monopoly' Movie From Margot Robbie, Lionsgate in the Works (variety.com)
Cyberpunk 2077 wins the 20th BAFTA Games Awards for Evolving Game (www.bafta.org)
Imagine being “lol omg so rule” that you win an award (i.imgur.com)
Alt Text: Avi Wigderson, an Israeli-born mathematician, won what’s known as “the Nobel Prize of computing” for his work on randomness.
Day Two: Isolation by Ayreon (lemmy.world)
rule (beehaw.org)
Spirit Of The Radio by Rush (lemmy.ca)
Open world games, need recommendations
Its been a while since I played botw and totk, I want to get into similar open world games with good combat systems, any recommendations?...
Why are black people still Christian? (youtu.be)
Christianity is a tool of oppression, used to justify slavery.
Santeria by Sublime (lemmy.ml)
What names are you all rocking? (sh.itjust.works)
Brick House by Commodores (lemmy.ml)
Never Forget... (lemm.ee)
cross-posted from: lemm.ee/post/28558826...
Based (midwest.social)
This Helldivers 2 planet needs democracy, and the final episode of Single Female Lawyer. (lemmy.world)
The Shooting and Driving…
I can’t remember who, but when this game came out 3 years ago someone on Twitter said the shooting and driving felt like they were developed by a team that had never coded shooting or driving before. Yes, it’s been 3 years of massive updates but I don’t care. The shooting in this game rivals the best FPSes and the driving...