"Everything you described there comes from the cinematics. It's film."
The moody setting doesn't come from the cinematics, it comes from the feeling of attachment to the main character and the knowledge that any false movement and you're toast. It comes from interactivity with the simulated world. I remember vividly such varied interactive moments that are about as startling as the cinematic presentations: trying to hit a hitman (hitwoman) and feeling you're too "nervous" so that you should find a way to stop the shaking; hiding into a cardboard box for the first time; hiding away behind walls waiting for guards for the first time; smoking getting you out of some laser troubles (it can be beneficial to your health after all:); I could go on... these are not shown to you via cinematics: you experience them first hand, by your own will to interact with that fictional world...
"The more a game becomes high art, the less of a GAME it becomes. The non-interactive elements take over."
I don't think that'll hold true forever. It's true that today games employ Hollywood models or embrace literary narratives to impress their critics. Once true A.I. comes, though, a true interactive storytelling artistic medium will be born, in which there is an active story-aware AI agent mediating between the author's original ideas and plot and the "player"'s intentions. A plot-adapting and generating agent, that is.
First, like I said "We're still not quite there" in terms of true interactive storytelling.
We need some true AI, not just for better NPCs than the manually scripted of today but for a host of other goals.
We need NPCs with motives, goals, thirst for knowledge and power and awareness of what is going on in that simulated world and how they can act upon it in a way to benefit them. AI is needed too for the so-called drama managers who should build the plot accordingly to the player's actions. As well as for a narrator that can report in exciting manners what is going on in that world (able to narrate events in a range of literary styles in the case of IF, or to choose appropriate camera angles, perspective and order in which to present events in a 3D game.)
That said:
"But to include them in a list of 'high art' is a bit ridiculous."
As I said, we're not quite there yet. But high/fine art is really just a snotty term to define a range of things that go from Shakespeare popular plays from his days, Mozart's popular operas, Buster Keaton's popular silent short movies and urinols in an art gallery. In the end, anything can be "high art", as far as there is interest in it. I told some chap bellow to bury some cartridges of SMB1 and behold as they are treated as high art by critics in the future puzzled by the sheer ingenuity of this early interactive art example.
"Super Metroid- The opposite of metal gear solid. Pretty much all game and no story."
Games with little story generally go towards providing the player with great freedom in exploring a large area, with a single goal in mind (in this case, capturing the last metroid).
And what a game. So much to do, so many places to explore, so many clever puzzles! And, most of all, what a moody setting! There's you, alone in an alien world full of danger and puzzles in the form of finding out which suit powerup helps you into unlocking the ingenious multibranched level layouts.
Play with lights off.
"The best videogame stories pale in comparison to the best film stories."
Upon concluding the first Metal Gear Solid for PS1, I thought to myself: "Holy crap! It's been ages since I've watched anything coming from Hollywood of this scope." I remain true: the twisted story, top-notch narration, razor-sharp dialogues and voice acting, the soundtrack... there seemed to draw straight from Hollywood's best in the genre. There were some slippery spots here and there in which the drama sounded to be gearing towards the corny side, but the sheer scope of the thing far outweighted it...
Hollywood OTOH seems to have been adopting the plain-stupid-score-oriented-videogame approach, releasing flicks shock-full of action and explosions and almost no story or with corny dialogue.
Besides, not sure you've played those interactive-fiction works I've listed. They seem to be doing far better into putting someone in some character's shoes than anything else out there and some do not feel like games at all. Try Photopia, by Adam Cadre or Galatea, by Emily Short...
"What happens if my games allows only two interactions, 'previous page' and 'next page' and while doing so it is showing some writing of Shakespeare?"
Then it's not a game. But thanks for remembering Shakespeare: his plays were mere popular entertainment in his days. Now they are high-art.
That's it: bury a copy of Super Mario Bros. for a few centuries and unfold as critics in the future bow to its superior intelectual challenges as an early interactive art example...
Hollywood is scared of the games industry eating their lunch, which undoubtly will occur in the coming years. They put a high respected puppet to deride games as not being art by taking lame examples of games as art. As if most of Hollywood's output is art!
Here's a quick list for what Ebert should have "played" instead to get a grip: * A Mind Forever Voyaging, by Steve Meretzky from Infocom * Shadow of the Colossus, by Sony * Savoir-Faire, by Emily Short * The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, by Nintendo * Deus Ex, by Ion Storm * Anchorhead, by Mike Gentry * Super Metroid, by Nintendo * Spider and Web, by Andrew Plotkin * Half-Life, by Valve * Metal Gear Solid, by Konami
and so on...
Interactive art is here to stay! The original author of a work of art does not mean his audience to sit there passively reading/watching the plot unfold, but to activelly participate and change the outcome in ways he could not see. We're still not quite there, but eventually this goal will be reached...
In other news, hormones are found to cause obtuse behaviour during the teens.
Email, usenet, irc, "social networks", instant message clients, cell phones.. these are just different means of telecommunication. Some more awkward than others.
Emails have been around since the first days of arpanet. It's proven and simple technology. What is instant messanging other than instant "email"? What is a blog other than a homepage with anonymous messages attached? "social network" merely means a blog with dozens of links to friends' blogs and a public billboard of posts between such friends to show off their friendship to whomever cares...
Not everyone enjoys all the other marvelous stuff going around "social networks". Sometimes, all you need is To: and Subject:
I was born in 1975. I was an early microcomputer aficionado and was at my early 8 playing with a MSX running Microsoft Basic. As I grew older, I felt an urge for an IBM with Microsoft DOS programming in QBasic with edit. Microsoft Windows 3.1 grabbed my interest eventually and there was I setting modems up and getting into BBSs... Microsoft Win95 got me to line up to be one of the first to get it. I was astounded by Win2K and the host of amazing DirectX games, including my beloved Microsoft Flight Simulator. Microsoft lauches an amazing gaming machine: XBox! whoorey! Microsoft was able to steal gold developers Rare from Nintendo. whoorey! take that, jap suckers! Got Microsoft XBox 380 on day one! Got Zune on day one! Got Microsoft Vista on day one! Am I rich and souless or not?...
oh, those were the golden days... now I'll take a snack over my internet-powered Microsoft fridge, sit to play my XBox Ultra on my Microsoft home-theater and then feel today's Space Opera simstim via my left ear cyberspace microsoft...
much better will be when robot and boy will be one either via a robotic exoskeleton providing "safety" and/or brain implants providing "social intelligence".
I don't think Christ the Redeemer was included for the statue, which is a cheap, blocky concrete statue without much charm. Christ the Redeemer was included for the whole of it, for the magnificent view of the site itself -- wasn't the original list a list of must-see sites? The site is a wonder to see, cheap statue or not.
Of course, it's not man-made, just natural beauty.
" But you must base this assumption on something?"
Because I want to believe? My rational mind can't feel sympathy for the idea that it's all random-generated, a paternal figure placing order to the chaos is much more charming...:)
"...so my theory is less likely to be right because it is 'silly'?"
no, because there's no purpose for a small pink elephant, while there's clearly a place for a Creator of the Universe. Purpose.
"A good story, but doesn't answer my question."
well, if one of the best sci-fi writers can't do the job for you, who am I to take the task of giving some insight into such profound existentialist questions?...
"Ah so you are not a Christian then - you have invented your own religion."
kinda. I'm a Jesus follower, so I guess I'm Christian. But I'm not a literal Bible babbler.
"however twice now you have asked for evidence that god doesn't exist before you will believe that, however you believe in god without any evidence."
make that 3 times then: I believe in God without any evidence at all, except the fact that I believe everything is His creation. So, that's enough evidence to me.
"Can you define exactly what your god is?"
Yes, He's the Creator of everything. He also sent in a few special PR people to guide mankind and possibly other sentient beings in His universe. I'm an open-minded Christian, because I believe Jesus was one of such messengers as other cultures have theirs.
"But on what evidence are you basing this assumption?"
None. This is a personal choice, based on faith alone. Have you been following my reasoning or is just trolling?
"There is no proof that itches are not caused by a small pink elephant orbiting Pluto - do you therefore believe this also?"
I believe there's a God, Creator of Everything. The idea of Creator (cause) and Creatures (effects) isn't silly as your small pink pluto-orbiting elephant and even matches most of our observations of how the universe works.
"which god is it they believe in anyway, and how did it get in a position to create a universe? Does this god have a god? Who created that one?"
"The religions all have different gods, so who is the right one? Surely if for example the Muslim god is the right one, then you can't be punished for being born in the wrong religion?"
I believe the Creator of Everything doesn't really care for the institutions man created to deal with the different cultures interpretations of His Laws.
"Quite, however the body of evidence must reside with the person making the claim; it's not up to others to disprove everything that someone says, and again we come back to 'evidence' being demanded for the non-existence of god, while believing in god with no evidence whatsoever."
As I said, believing in God requires no evidence because science can't possibly ever provide one by rigorously answering: is there God? So, since we can't rely on science, believing in God is a matter of faith. Blind faith, delusional faith, whatever...
Besides, I don't think you understand the scientific method. When you say: "it's not up to others to disprove everything that someone says" you seem to forget that science doesn't advance by scientists accepting blindly old theories and models and worshipping them, but by consistently trying to break down said models, to disprove them and replace with something more solid. Science and Religion are 2 sides of the same coin...
"The only reason the 'show me evidence of non-existece' argument exists is because the people asking the question do not think they will receive an answer."
"..therefore the only possible explanation is a supernatural entity created the universe?"
I never said it is the only. I clearly said chaos theory, quantum physics and fate can equally well explain that. IMO, it's God. But that's just me, don't feel shy to choose another option.;)
"you can't claim to base reasoning on evidence for one side of an argument while conveniently ignoring a total and complete lack of evidence for the other side because it doesn't fit with the answer you want. That's called hypocrisy."
If I sounded hypocrite, sorry. But as far as I remember, I was making a point about acknowledging God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it, whily there isn't proof God doesn't exist either.
"here is the conclusion we want, what evidence can we find to support it?"
You definetely doesn't understand God believers. For them, all which exists is work of God and evidence of His glory. You can show them QM formulae and they'll say it's the writting of God recorded into the very fabric of His Creation.
Unless QM, or anything that eventually overrides it, can provide a clear answer as to why God doesn't exist, believers'll continue their worship. Some, I believe, even regardless of any reasoning or proof, though I wouldn't be among them...
yeah, such lists come out every year or just in time to trumpet sequels for the new systems or rehashes. Probably Nintendo is planning a Wii remake of Ocarina or something. These lists should be called "Best 100 games ever of the year by our teen reviewers"...:)
"you win $10 on a lottery ticket, then happen to need $10 for whatever reason, therefore a supernatural being must surely exist and have created the universe?"
Yes, little things like that. But the order is inverted: likely I feel some need first and it is "magically" is satisfied. And more likely it doesn't involve money.
I chose MY answer for that: God. But I reckon chaos theory or fate do the job just as well.
"You asked 'What is TFA about then?' That was the answer."
That was in response to your suggestion that the Catholic Church supports evolution now: "Even the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution now." I don't think so, otherwise there wouldn't be ID or this article. oh, boy, we're getting recursive here...
"See, my problem here is that you will ask for 'proof' of gods non-existence, yet will quite happily accept the existence of god without any evidence whatsoever!"
By "How can I acknowledge something without proof?" I was trying to show that you can't proof God's existence or non-existence through science, which just seeks to explains the Rules for this Universe. I can't say "I acknowledge God doesn't exist because there's no proof It exists". There's no proof God doesn't exist either.
You can't prove nor disprove God's existence through science -- it only says the Universe doesn't need God, it's an autonomous system, and Occam's Razor deals with the rest. So belief in God requires faith, not science. From that POV, I don't think my reasoning is that irrational...
"means it's very likely that it was dropped by a person"
and Who you think made the money drop?;)
I kid. I don't care if someone dropped money. What is significative here is when you find help out of nowhere when you're in most need. Like I said, feel free to bet on chaos theory and quantum fluctuations... maybe sometime you see a Chesterfield sofa running through the jungle when you most need...:)
* Ocarina of Time * Half-Life * Trinity (Infocom) * Sonic the Hedgehog * R-Type * Super Metroid * Final Fantasy VI, VII * Zonk (Infocom) * Tetris * Street Fighter 2 * Tekken 3 * Daytona Racing * Super Mario Bros. 3 * Dragon Quest IV, VII * Prince of Persia * The Lurking Horror (Infocom) * Battletoads * Galaga * Resident Evil 2 * Shadow of Colossus * R.C. Pro A.M. 2 * Planetfall (Infocom) * Doom 2 * Star Fox * Yoshi's Island * Kenseiden * Deus Ex
"Right, which means creationism has no place in science."
Exactly. The purpose of science is to help us understand the nature of God's creation, not explain God's nature or how He accomplishes His feats. He's indeed outside of the scope of science, which deals with the observable universe and the laws He created to rule it.
"All it means is that primitive cultures tend to make up stories to explain what they don't understand."
Or that God's plans reveals themselves by tortuous means...
"Would it not be more accurate to say you have seen things that you don't understand therefore feel the need to attribute them to some supernatural force?"
It'd be that way if what I was referring to was something "supernatural" or unexplicable by science today. But I was just referring to small, personal experiences that strike us subtly at some moments in our lifes that could either be explained by fate, chaos theory or God. Pick your poinson, as I did.
"ID lies down that path."
I don't dig ID.
"It's about the fact that ID is simply not science."
have I said otherwise?
"An eventual step hopefully being the acknowledgement that actually, no, god didn't exist after all."
How can I acknowledge something without proof? We're dealing our everyday's lifes not with God directly, but with His creation. Science, which is all about discovering the Laws of Nature as God written them won't ever show us the nature of God, only of His creation.
"Bit convenient don't you think? That's just a cop-out for the fact there is no evidence -at all- to support the existence of 'god'."
I see evidence of existence of God every morning as I open my eyes.
it's been fun for a while, but this is getting old fast...
"they mean that it makes predictions about what should be observable in the universe today...the Big Bang theory predicted a very low level of leftover energy that would be uniform across the universe, the so called black body radiation"
ok, black body radiation was predicted and is observable. checked.
what about what remains from "before" the Big Bang? what is predicted by the theory and what is observable? The article doesn't touch that, they just require us to believe, like in any religion...
But I believe we're just infinitesimal beings living for nanoseconds in an Universe created in a soap bubble in a larger Universe. Once the bubble pops, all our vanity and questions will be gone forever. But the bubble maker may end in a similar fate...
Slashdot Mirror
"Everything you described there comes from the cinematics. It's film."
The moody setting doesn't come from the cinematics, it comes from the feeling of attachment to the main character and the knowledge that any false movement and you're toast. It comes from interactivity with the simulated world. I remember vividly such varied interactive moments that are about as startling as the cinematic presentations: trying to hit a hitman (hitwoman) and feeling you're too "nervous" so that you should find a way to stop the shaking; hiding into a cardboard box for the first time; hiding away behind walls waiting for guards for the first time; smoking getting you out of some laser troubles (it can be beneficial to your health after all:); I could go on... these are not shown to you via cinematics: you experience them first hand, by your own will to interact with that fictional world...
"The more a game becomes high art, the less of a GAME it becomes. The non-interactive elements take over."
I don't think that'll hold true forever. It's true that today games employ Hollywood models or embrace literary narratives to impress their critics. Once true A.I. comes, though, a true interactive storytelling artistic medium will be born, in which there is an active story-aware AI agent mediating between the author's original ideas and plot and the "player"'s intentions. A plot-adapting and generating agent, that is.
"the feeling of doing something or being something that you're really not."
simstim
though certainly not art.
First, like I said "We're still not quite there" in terms of true interactive storytelling.
We need some true AI, not just for better NPCs than the manually scripted of today but for a host of other goals.
We need NPCs with motives, goals, thirst for knowledge and power and awareness of what is going on in that simulated world and how they can act upon it in a way to benefit them. AI is needed too for the so-called drama managers who should build the plot accordingly to the player's actions. As well as for a narrator that can report in exciting manners what is going on in that world (able to narrate events in a range of literary styles in the case of IF, or to choose appropriate camera angles, perspective and order in which to present events in a 3D game.)
That said:
"But to include them in a list of 'high art' is a bit ridiculous."
As I said, we're not quite there yet. But high/fine art is really just a snotty term to define a range of things that go from Shakespeare popular plays from his days, Mozart's popular operas, Buster Keaton's popular silent short movies and urinols in an art gallery. In the end, anything can be "high art", as far as there is interest in it. I told some chap bellow to bury some cartridges of SMB1 and behold as they are treated as high art by critics in the future puzzled by the sheer ingenuity of this early interactive art example.
"Super Metroid- The opposite of metal gear solid. Pretty much all game and no story."
Games with little story generally go towards providing the player with great freedom in exploring a large area, with a single goal in mind (in this case, capturing the last metroid).
And what a game. So much to do, so many places to explore, so many clever puzzles! And, most of all, what a moody setting! There's you, alone in an alien world full of danger and puzzles in the form of finding out which suit powerup helps you into unlocking the ingenious multibranched level layouts.
Play with lights off.
"The best videogame stories pale in comparison to the best film stories."
Upon concluding the first Metal Gear Solid for PS1, I thought to myself: "Holy crap! It's been ages since I've watched anything coming from Hollywood of this scope." I remain true: the twisted story, top-notch narration, razor-sharp dialogues and voice acting, the soundtrack... there seemed to draw straight from Hollywood's best in the genre. There were some slippery spots here and there in which the drama sounded to be gearing towards the corny side, but the sheer scope of the thing far outweighted it...
Hollywood OTOH seems to have been adopting the plain-stupid-score-oriented-videogame approach, releasing flicks shock-full of action and explosions and almost no story or with corny dialogue.
Besides, not sure you've played those interactive-fiction works I've listed. They seem to be doing far better into putting someone in some character's shoes than anything else out there and some do not feel like games at all. Try Photopia, by Adam Cadre or Galatea, by Emily Short...
"What happens if my games allows only two interactions, 'previous page' and 'next page' and while doing so it is showing some writing of Shakespeare?"
Then it's not a game. But thanks for remembering Shakespeare: his plays were mere popular entertainment in his days. Now they are high-art.
That's it: bury a copy of Super Mario Bros. for a few centuries and unfold as critics in the future bow to its superior intelectual challenges as an early interactive art example...
Hollywood is scared of the games industry eating their lunch, which undoubtly will occur in the coming years. They put a high respected puppet to deride games as not being art by taking lame examples of games as art. As if most of Hollywood's output is art!
Here's a quick list for what Ebert should have "played" instead to get a grip:
* A Mind Forever Voyaging, by Steve Meretzky from Infocom
* Shadow of the Colossus, by Sony
* Savoir-Faire, by Emily Short
* The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, by Nintendo
* Deus Ex, by Ion Storm
* Anchorhead, by Mike Gentry
* Super Metroid, by Nintendo
* Spider and Web, by Andrew Plotkin
* Half-Life, by Valve
* Metal Gear Solid, by Konami
and so on...
Interactive art is here to stay! The original author of a work of art does not mean his audience to sit there passively reading/watching the plot unfold, but to activelly participate and change the outcome in ways he could not see. We're still not quite there, but eventually this goal will be reached...
In other news, hormones are found to cause obtuse behaviour during the teens.
Email, usenet, irc, "social networks", instant message clients, cell phones.. these are just different means of telecommunication. Some more awkward than others.
Emails have been around since the first days of arpanet. It's proven and simple technology. What is instant messanging other than instant "email"? What is a blog other than a homepage with anonymous messages attached? "social network" merely means a blog with dozens of links to friends' blogs and a public billboard of posts between such friends to show off their friendship to whomever cares...
Not everyone enjoys all the other marvelous stuff going around "social networks". Sometimes, all you need is To: and Subject:
no, it's dangerous because he's using telnet rather than ssh.
that would be nice, except now you have a full blown desktop environment worth of bloat behing it!
Only 3 tabs or popups open at any one time!
I was born in 1975. ...
I was an early microcomputer aficionado and was at my early 8 playing with a MSX running Microsoft Basic.
As I grew older, I felt an urge for an IBM with Microsoft DOS programming in QBasic with edit.
Microsoft Windows 3.1 grabbed my interest eventually and there was I setting modems up and getting into BBSs...
Microsoft Win95 got me to line up to be one of the first to get it.
I was astounded by Win2K and the host of amazing DirectX games, including my beloved Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Microsoft lauches an amazing gaming machine: XBox! whoorey!
Microsoft was able to steal gold developers Rare from Nintendo. whoorey! take that, jap suckers!
Got Microsoft XBox 380 on day one!
Got Zune on day one!
Got Microsoft Vista on day one! Am I rich and souless or not?
oh, those were the golden days... now I'll take a snack over my internet-powered Microsoft fridge, sit to play my XBox Ultra on my Microsoft home-theater and then feel today's Space Opera simstim via my left ear cyberspace microsoft...
much better will be when robot and boy will be one either via a robotic exoskeleton providing "safety" and/or brain implants providing "social intelligence".
I don't think Christ the Redeemer was included for the statue, which is a cheap, blocky concrete statue without much charm. Christ the Redeemer was included for the whole of it, for the magnificent view of the site itself -- wasn't the original list a list of must-see sites? The site is a wonder to see, cheap statue or not.
Of course, it's not man-made, just natural beauty.
" But you must base this assumption on something?"
:)
Because I want to believe? My rational mind can't feel sympathy for the idea that it's all random-generated, a paternal figure placing order to the chaos is much more charming...
"...so my theory is less likely to be right because it is 'silly'?"
no, because there's no purpose for a small pink elephant, while there's clearly a place for a Creator of the Universe. Purpose.
"A good story, but doesn't answer my question."
well, if one of the best sci-fi writers can't do the job for you, who am I to take the task of giving some insight into such profound existentialist questions?...
"Ah so you are not a Christian then - you have invented your own religion."
kinda. I'm a Jesus follower, so I guess I'm Christian. But I'm not a literal Bible babbler.
"however twice now you have asked for evidence that god doesn't exist before you will believe that, however you believe in god without any evidence."
make that 3 times then: I believe in God without any evidence at all, except the fact that I believe everything is His creation. So, that's enough evidence to me.
"Can you define exactly what your god is?"
Yes, He's the Creator of everything. He also sent in a few special PR people to guide mankind and possibly other sentient beings in His universe. I'm an open-minded Christian, because I believe Jesus was one of such messengers as other cultures have theirs.
"But on what evidence are you basing this assumption?"
None. This is a personal choice, based on faith alone. Have you been following my reasoning or is just trolling?
"There is no proof that itches are not caused by a small pink elephant orbiting Pluto - do you therefore believe this also?"
I believe there's a God, Creator of Everything. The idea of Creator (cause) and Creatures (effects) isn't silly as your small pink pluto-orbiting elephant and even matches most of our observations of how the universe works.
"which god is it they believe in anyway, and how did it get in a position to create a universe? Does this god have a god? Who created that one?"
Good questions. I'll let Mr. Asimov hand you a possible answer:
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
"The religions all have different gods, so who is the right one? Surely if for example the Muslim god is the right one, then you can't be punished for being born in the wrong religion?"
I believe the Creator of Everything doesn't really care for the institutions man created to deal with the different cultures interpretations of His Laws.
"Quite, however the body of evidence must reside with the person making the claim; it's not up to others to disprove everything that someone says, and again we come back to 'evidence' being demanded for the non-existence of god, while believing in god with no evidence whatsoever."
As I said, believing in God requires no evidence because science can't possibly ever provide one by rigorously answering: is there God? So, since we can't rely on science, believing in God is a matter of faith. Blind faith, delusional faith, whatever...
Besides, I don't think you understand the scientific method. When you say: "it's not up to others to disprove everything that someone says" you seem to forget that science doesn't advance by scientists accepting blindly old theories and models and worshipping them, but by consistently trying to break down said models, to disprove them and replace with something more solid. Science and Religion are 2 sides of the same coin...
"The only reason the 'show me evidence of non-existece' argument exists is because the people asking the question do not think they will receive an answer."
Prove them wrong, then.
"..therefore the only possible explanation is a supernatural entity created the universe?"
;)
I never said it is the only. I clearly said chaos theory, quantum physics and fate can equally well explain that. IMO, it's God. But that's just me, don't feel shy to choose another option.
"you can't claim to base reasoning on evidence for one side of an argument while conveniently ignoring a total and complete lack of evidence for the other side because it doesn't fit with the answer you want. That's called hypocrisy."
If I sounded hypocrite, sorry. But as far as I remember, I was making a point about acknowledging God doesn't exist because there's no proof of it, whily there isn't proof God doesn't exist either.
"here is the conclusion we want, what evidence can we find to support it?"
You definetely doesn't understand God believers. For them, all which exists is work of God and evidence of His glory. You can show them QM formulae and they'll say it's the writting of God recorded into the very fabric of His Creation.
Unless QM, or anything that eventually overrides it, can provide a clear answer as to why God doesn't exist, believers'll continue their worship. Some, I believe, even regardless of any reasoning or proof, though I wouldn't be among them...
You forget it comes packed with a great collection of software. Vista comes with what? solitaire and notepad?
excellent addons, indeed. oh, elite! :)
:)
yeah, such lists come out every year or just in time to trumpet sequels for the new systems or rehashes. Probably Nintendo is planning a Wii remake of Ocarina or something. These lists should be called "Best 100 games ever of the year by our teen reviewers"...
"you win $10 on a lottery ticket, then happen to need $10 for whatever reason, therefore a supernatural being must surely exist and have created the universe?"
;)
:)
Yes, little things like that. But the order is inverted: likely I feel some need first and it is "magically" is satisfied. And more likely it doesn't involve money.
I chose MY answer for that: God. But I reckon chaos theory or fate do the job just as well.
"You asked 'What is TFA about then?' That was the answer."
That was in response to your suggestion that the Catholic Church supports evolution now: "Even the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution now." I don't think so, otherwise there wouldn't be ID or this article. oh, boy, we're getting recursive here...
"See, my problem here is that you will ask for 'proof' of gods non-existence, yet will quite happily accept the existence of god without any evidence whatsoever!"
By "How can I acknowledge something without proof?" I was trying to show that you can't proof God's existence or non-existence through science, which just seeks to explains the Rules for this Universe. I can't say "I acknowledge God doesn't exist because there's no proof It exists". There's no proof God doesn't exist either.
You can't prove nor disprove God's existence through science -- it only says the Universe doesn't need God, it's an autonomous system, and Occam's Razor deals with the rest. So belief in God requires faith, not science. From that POV, I don't think my reasoning is that irrational...
"means it's very likely that it was dropped by a person"
and Who you think made the money drop?
I kid. I don't care if someone dropped money. What is significative here is when you find help out of nowhere when you're in most need. Like I said, feel free to bet on chaos theory and quantum fluctuations... maybe sometime you see a Chesterfield sofa running through the jungle when you most need...
* Ocarina of Time
* Half-Life
* Trinity (Infocom)
* Sonic the Hedgehog
* R-Type
* Super Metroid
* Final Fantasy VI, VII
* Zonk (Infocom)
* Tetris
* Street Fighter 2
* Tekken 3
* Daytona Racing
* Super Mario Bros. 3
* Dragon Quest IV, VII
* Prince of Persia
* The Lurking Horror (Infocom)
* Battletoads
* Galaga
* Resident Evil 2
* Shadow of Colossus
* R.C. Pro A.M. 2
* Planetfall (Infocom)
* Doom 2
* Star Fox
* Yoshi's Island
* Kenseiden
* Deus Ex
I could go on...
"Right, which means creationism has no place in science."
Exactly. The purpose of science is to help us understand the nature of God's creation, not explain God's nature or how He accomplishes His feats. He's indeed outside of the scope of science, which deals with the observable universe and the laws He created to rule it.
"All it means is that primitive cultures tend to make up stories to explain what they don't understand."
Or that God's plans reveals themselves by tortuous means...
"Would it not be more accurate to say you have seen things that you don't understand therefore feel the need to attribute them to some supernatural force?"
It'd be that way if what I was referring to was something "supernatural" or unexplicable by science today. But I was just referring to small, personal experiences that strike us subtly at some moments in our lifes that could either be explained by fate, chaos theory or God. Pick your poinson, as I did.
"ID lies down that path."
I don't dig ID.
"It's about the fact that ID is simply not science."
have I said otherwise?
"An eventual step hopefully being the acknowledgement that actually, no, god didn't exist after all."
How can I acknowledge something without proof? We're dealing our everyday's lifes not with God directly, but with His creation. Science, which is all about discovering the Laws of Nature as God written them won't ever show us the nature of God, only of His creation.
"Bit convenient don't you think? That's just a cop-out for the fact there is no evidence -at all- to support the existence of 'god'."
I see evidence of existence of God every morning as I open my eyes.
it's been fun for a while, but this is getting old fast...
"they mean that it makes predictions about what should be observable in the universe today...the Big Bang theory predicted a very low level of leftover energy that would be uniform across the universe, the so called black body radiation"
ok, black body radiation was predicted and is observable. checked.
what about what remains from "before" the Big Bang? what is predicted by the theory and what is observable? The article doesn't touch that, they just require us to believe, like in any religion...
But I believe we're just infinitesimal beings living for nanoseconds in an Universe created in a soap bubble in a larger Universe. Once the bubble pops, all our vanity and questions will be gone forever. But the bubble maker may end in a similar fate...
thank you for creating me so that I may mod you up, o mighty God.
I wonder if by testable they mean they recreated the Big Bang, or at least Nano Bang...
;)
wait, so we've come full circle, right?