SirParagon

[spoiler=(most versitile theme song in history XD)]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlz6qgahnYQ

Why not skilling bots? 1. Bots fletching, crafting and training magic in a large crowd (like the GE) are difficult to pick out or even notice. People are preoccupied with banking, buying and selling - then depart shortly after. 2. Farming is mostly carried out in isolation. Other farmers you come across probably won't bother trying to socialize, you've teleported by the time they consider the possibility that you're a bot. 3. Firemaking, construction and dungeoneering can be entirely trained within an instance (as you already mentioned) Then after eliminating anything that involves combat these are the skills a choking system would be effective against: - Woodcutting - Fishing - Hunter - Smithing (assuming it isn't being trained with superheat item) - Cooking (although bots cooking in rogues den could remain under the radar). Here's where it would partially work to prevent bots: - Thieving (pick-pocket bots, safe-cracker bots) - Agility (given that other players have access to a particular area) - Mining (only conventional stuff such as the mining guild. Living rock caverns would remain unaffected due to a combination of way too many people crowding a similar space, legit players needing to concentrate on superheat and the fact that it is a combat zone). As a side note, don't you think it would harm the spirit of the game if the standard greeting was to choke someone. I'm sure that's how things would end up. This system relies on this sort of behaviour, a guilty until proven innocent mentality.

Please read. That has been mentioned numerous times before and the solution is very very obvious First of all, it was only directly mentioned once, not numerous times. Creating a random interval would indeed make life difficult for a botter, but I still stand by my argument that this system represents over-regulation for little gain while also providing a handy little tool for trolls. Besides, it appears a choking system would only help kill off gatherer bots - you know, the ones that provide abundant supply of raw materials for everyone.

I would spend hours choking bots. Bear in mind that the time limit is from when they get choked to when they can be choked again, not from when I choke someone to when I can choke again (i.e. I can choke bots constantly for an hour) I don't believe allowing unlimited chokes on different players would be a good idea, it wouldn't be uncommon to get choked multiple times a day for no good reason. What if one person could only be choked once a day? Botters could easily overcome that by either waiting for someone to choke them, or getting a friend to choke them before they start botting. If the time interval for getting choked was more frequent, say 1 hour, smart botters just have to pay regular attention to their game screen (maybe set an alarm or something), it wont stop them from botting. Especially if they have another computer they can use to log in to the same world with an alt, then choke the botting account themselves every hour. It would hinder bots in general (like overnight ones), but I can see it becoming a trolling issue if it is to be implemented effectively.

Random events already stump newbie bots. Adding additional regulations over the top will only serve to piss off most players. It's near impossible to defeat good bot programmers without making the game a miserable experience for the legitimate users. Ever consider the likely possibility that Jagex does not want to completely eliminate bots? Anyway, individual choking with a lengthy cool-down won't do much against a massive swarm of bots - Unless someone is willing to waste hours trying to take them all down. Botters simply start new accounts after they're banned anyway. Despite that, I imagine a choking system would work quite effectively against a single bot if the question/answer was changed every day.

This suggestion sounds primarily aesthetic. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it would be cool being able to wear full Bandos without sacrificing strength. There just isn't much point in changing the existing statistics at this point. Bandos boots will barely increase in value as a result, there's already plenty of them in circulation and people will still opt for dragon boots for the additional +2 strength near identical defence, although they may briefly spike after such an update.

I fail to see the relevance. I fail to see the point in asking me to clarify what depression is. This is what can be defined as hypocrisy. You wish for me to support my claims, yet you refuse to support yours, and then claim it is my job to prove you wrong. That is like me claiming it is your job to prove there is no such thing as a god. I am neither insulting your point of view, nor claiming you are downright wrong. All I am saying is that you should base claims on something other than nothing. Completely missing the point. Consider for a moment the scenario where I somehow backtrack through everything I have learnt up to this point, quoting like crazy, providing statistics, charts, everything. What would you say then? Your only argument is that I'm not spoon-feeding sources. I'm not going to waste my time doing that, sorry to say. Especially since you haven't provided anywhere near enough incentive. Sure you can disagree, but justifying the disagreement with a personal account is like me claiming 'you're likely to roll one six out of six dice rolls' then you disagree because you have never rolled a six your entire life. We're discussing universal tendencies, not instances. I have nothing else to discuss with you. Reply if you wish, but I will not respond again.

There's only one absolute truth. The truth cannot be bent by mere faith. Besides, if the only thing backing up hope is faith then it is automatically false because you cannot truly hold a belief without observable evidence. Depression after someone's death is influenced by multiple factors. Exactly, depression at a funeral makes no sense if you're directly sad for a person's death, especially if you believe in an afterlife. People become sad for the same reasons when a loved one has to leave on a voyage from which they will never return (but, eliminate communication channels). It's a personal sadness. ================================================== At no point was I attacking you personally, you're simply interpreting my posts incorrectly. I never claimed to be an expert on anything, philosophical discussions do not require a mastery of every single subject matter, in fact I'm giving you room to prove my perspective wrong, asserting that I'm wrong is not a solid counter-argument, it's your job to find evidence outside of personal experience that contradicts what I'm saying, it should be easy if I'm truly incorrect. Think things through instead of demanding that I explain what should be obvious. Sorry, I refuse to continue having a serious discussion when all you can do is insult my point of view.

Based on? I'm making generalized statements regarding the institution of marriage in religious circles. You're not arguing against my points by calling them nonsense without providing why, it only means that you don't like or understand my opinion. Please tell me why you think it's nonsense, an argument cannot be sustained without rebuttals. What is there to define? Religious funeral: A ceremony held to mourn a deceased individual or group, explicit usage of sermons and spiritual themes leading on to... ...False hope (in this context): Hope for the continuation of the subject's spirit and 'spirits' in general. Depression (in this context): I'm not going to insult your intelligence defining what this is. Don't try to take a moral high-ground while attempting to diminish others for being 'selfish'. Funerals are about being sad for yourself and/or the people who've lost a loved one. You cannot rationally be sad for the deceased because they do not exist any more, there is no one to receive the projected sympathy, you might as well be crying over a coffin filled with cement for all the good it will do. Furthermore according to Religious beliefs, a funeral would logically be a time to celebrate an individuals ascension to 'a better place'. Funerals will always remind an individual of mortality just as marriage always reminds someone of love. I implore that you seriously question "my own mortality would be the last thing on my mind". Good on you if it was the case. If I had never experienced at least a taste of what we're discussing it would be stupid of me to hold such strong opinions. On the flip side, you cannot let your opinions be dominated by personal experience (as I have already hinted at). I don't want to dwell on the issue of raising children because that is more of a political discussion. To put it simply - there is an undeniable correlation between violence and bad parenting. Smarter parenting means a better future for everyone. There are many factors which play into this, not just religious indoctrination, although it is truly narrow minded to automatically assume it is OK to raise a child the same way you were raised just because you introspect during an idle moment and conclude that 'I turned out fine'. That is assuming the methods of one's own parents were completely flawless and therefore safe to replicate, seemingly without long-term implications. Unfortunately most experiences during childhood favour long-term implications. A bad move on the parent's part could inflict a permanent physical detriment on a child's brain because it is still developing. You don't try to design a house without any knowledge of architecture and mathematics, it doesn't matter whether you have a pretty good idea of what a house looks like, these things must be taught. Likewise, You don't dive into parenting without a proper education regarding the subject. So are we to treat parenting as an issue of private concern? Is it still a private issue when a poorly raised child ends up violating someone else's property? No. I am not stepping out of line when I encourage intelligent parenting.

There are still two primary areas which Religion dominates when it comes to social interaction, you can clearly see this in the mainstream media. 1. Marriage 2. Funerals These are often considered to be the reasons some people are unwilling to let go of their faith, I'll explain why. Religious marriage ceremonies serve to enforce conformity, especially within family groups. What happens when everyone in your family and all of your friends are organizing Religious marriage ceremonies then you decide that you don't want one? You're likely to become somewhat excluded because you're openly challenging their belief system. Children are also frequently exposed to these ceremonies and come to believe that they too should take part one day. There's the connotation that if two people are to live happily together they need to be married via the church, which isn't true at all. Marriage will not prevent separation in a relationship, and it is insecurity to think otherwise. Next we have funerals. This is the more significant of the two because it occurs at times when people are most open to accepting false hope. That does not mean it is a rational thing to be carting around a lifeless body in a box all day then storing them either underground or in a mausoleum. This is something I don't understand about mainstream Religions - according to your beliefs the dead person has journeyed to the afterlife, yet you still treat the body as if it holds the essence of who the person used to be. So basically if someone was to deny religion and refuse to attend a religious funeral it is viewed as a major disrespect and/or they would lack the false hope to help them get through the likely depression. Note that you don't need false hope to break a depression. False hope digs a person deeper into denial and the deeper they go, the harder it is to break the cycle. Funerals do not have to be religious and mourning is 100% acceptable, but please recognize that you're not sad because someone else lost their life, your sad for your loss and being reminded of mortality.

Look, I've already explained in detail why I have concluded the idea of god to be logically false, read my previous posts. I don't like repeating myself, but here it is again. You cannot solely support an argument with personal experience, it does not mean you're completely wrong, it just means you have a weak argument - a minority occurrence across a sample space of all religious people. To be honest I'm not 100% sure what it is you're objecting to. That being religious is a bad thing? My argument concerns the necessity of religion because it can be a bad thing. I know you're able to acknowledge that. So you should first be trying to demonstrate why religion is necessary.

The problem here is that you're using yourself an example while I'm using the general state of the world as an example. (I did edit the middle paragraph of my previous post btw). I can't argue if you keep throwing exceptions at me, there's no point. I'm not the one who has to prove anything. We simply have to question the necessity of religion and then analyse the problems it may cause.

I did answer the question, society is the upbringing of children. I am not stepping out of place when I insist children should be raised more rationally, cut the fat so to speak. People shouldn't be afraid to break tradition, tradition represents stale thinking. When you use yourself as an example it doesn't matter if it seemingly disproves a statement, an exception on its own does not equal the rule. So until you show me how the rest of (global) religious society behaves similarly your points are a little invalid. However, I do acknowledge that a religious individual can still be a great person, although I would argue that it is not the religious aspect that causes people to become good. Of course people are going to disagree - this is a constant. Just step back and look at the magnitude of religion, what do these ideas represent? (where you go when you die). I'm quite sure disagreements over religion hold a great deal more gravity in a person's mind than say.. 'who gets the last slice of pizza?'

I was just thinking the same thing :o Although it wasn't too bad since yellow nicely contrasts with dark blue and green isn't much of a strain anyway. Red would have been worse. Sorry, my replies are a bit messy since I'm responding within quotes. I'll start separating them out.

Sorry to barge in on your argument, but who are you to tell anyone what to teach or not to teach their children? Sure, there are ways of over-doing it, but as long as the children get to choose not to believe in the religion they've been brought up with I don't see what's so bad about a religious upbringing. [hide=response]Who am I? You do realise that how we collectively raise children affects all society. What's so bad about a religious upbringing? How about the surreptitiously dangerous mindset of paranoia and punishment regarding different ideologies? If you're going to teach a child one religion, teach them all religions, then teach them how morality can exist without the threat of damnation.[/hide] Everyone in my family has been raised Catholic: that is to say, exposed to moral values and biblical stories, taught about the faith.. but we are by no means forced to assume it as truth - nor was it taught as such. As a child I was told these were stories with moral values within them, not something to mindlessly assume to be the truth. You just appear to be over-generalising things. [hide=response]What's so difficult about teaching a child that violence is bad or that you shouldn't violate the property of others? Why traumatize children with the false idea of eternal damnation? Why is learning blind faith a good thing what it is a completely irrational concept? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they did force you through a baptism and holy communion, right? Anyway, you shouldn't try to use yourself and/or family when trying to prove a point because that represents an extremely limited sample space.[/hide] Then could you please explain to me why the religious community I was raised in always was against war? Religion doesn't equal war, but has been used as an excuse for war. [hide=response]Again, you can't use yourself as an example. I never said Religion equals war, but it definitely plays a major role in spurring conflict between sectors of society. Why? Simple. As soon as a society develops and accepts a collective ideology anyone who approaches with a different way of thinking instantly challenges what people believe to be true. People will begin to condemn foreign ways of thinking, even inflicting punishments in response as a desperate means of somehow validating their own beliefs. This can only escalate.[/hide]

Sorry, are you trying to restrict my right to teach my children what I believe to be the truth? What YOU believe to be the truth. A child should be freely exposed to all belief systems, all learning opportunities and then they will make up their mind through critical thinking. Religion as whole would completely evaporate if only a single generate skipped the indoctrination process, consider that for a moment. Oh, and also: This is blatant speculation at best which doesn't even attempt to take into account any other (real) reasons why the US goes to war a lot. The US isn't even the most religious North American country. This is not speculation and I'm not here to spoon-feed you data. If you want proof, go search for it. You cannot ignore the historical correlations between violence and religion.

The conflict between atheist and agnostics is essentially whether we should choose to assume some sort of meaningful reason behind the origin of the universe - this is the true philosophical discussion. As soon as people start introducing holy-books to the argument the atheists tend to exclusively target silly fantasies instead of the core concept of universal intent. Both sides are at fault. In this day and age there's no need to discuss why the stories embedded within organized religion are false. ...but fine. If someone wishes to hold on to the stories told by religion then by all means do so. My only real problem is how the religious are so adamant to mount their moral high horse. Have a good read through your holy book then tell me your beliefs do not violate the non-aggression principle. You explain to me why morality would not exist without religion. Is it pure coincidence that the most religious western nation (the US) is also the most involved in foreign wars? Explain why you believe some people are innately evil? (I would like to point out that a person's behaviour is almost solely determined by their upbringing). Don't you dare corrupt your children's minds before they have the chance to rationalize what is being proposed to them. Children will believe anything they are told and it is truly monstrous for any institution to take advantage of this. Altruism exists in nature without coercion, it is always mutually beneficial for two parties to cooperate without threatening each other. Also understand it is not virtuous to do good while under the impression you're going to hell if you don't. @CrustyGoblinFoot At this point I'm quite sure we've both conveyed our respective sides well enough, I can see the previous argument going in circles if we continue. There's still a part of me that wants to believe the universe isn't a freak occurrence.

Because I was explaining to someone else that the position of atheism is more than just a lack of belief. Indeed, Atheism is based on critical thinking. I don't think I missed the point - I simply chose not to respond because the semantic error makes it impossible to address your point if we don't even have a shared understanding of what "agnosticism" denotes. Agnosticism makes no claims aside from the fact that we have no means of discerning the truth. If you want to argue that agnosticism does make claims about invisible objects existing, then you would have to prove that there really is evidence for/against the existence of god out there. Of course there is no legitimacy to an argument with no backing. In fact, that's exactly what I stated: Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim. The notion that our minds are incapable of understanding the origin of the universe is pure assumption, why can't we understand? because we don't understand it now? Why is it rational to hold onto the idea of god when almost everything that used to appear mystical to us has been explained by science? Conceptions of God. Granted, you were addressing the most common illustrations of "god", but as you can see in the link, there is no mutual agreement that every single religious group goes by when it comes to the qualities of "god", aside from them all proposing divinity... to a million different figureheads. There's an easier way of explaining this. If John Brown's Wikipedia entry claims that he is a famous poet who grew up in New York, and you find out it was all a sham and that John is actually a famous painter, does this prove that John Brown doesn't exist, or does it simply suggest someone was wrong about him? "1. as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category": Human-like? Consciousness cannot exist without matter or supernaturally project itself. This is an egocentric fairytale. "2. the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself:" Where and how would such a being exist? Another dimension? You cannot ascribe attributes to something which we cannot observe or interact with. Why is it even necessary to create an infinitely generalized entity and slap an 'existence' label over it, what purpose does it serve? All purpose? Complexity this, complexity that. "3. the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc:" We cannot understand? That would make everything in the universe that we do understand an illusion and there is no rational reason to believe so. If we cannot comprehend the ground of being then what is being?. Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but are you saying your definition of complex is something that takes a lot of time to form? Isn't that rather subjective and relative? I think "complex" has an opinionated ring to it, which is why I'm confused about your statement, "Complexity implies evolution." Heck, anything becomes complex once you look into it deep enough. Complexity is defined through the comparison of functionality and structure. E.g. A fly is going to look millions of times more complex than a bacteria cell. Clearly a being capable of creating and maintaining a universe is going to be immeasurably complex. At no point in natural history did complexity arise from nowhere, just as matter cannot spontaneously pop into existence. This isn't unique to lifeforms - look at the sun, formed from a cloud of dust and gas, it was never immediately a star. Using god to explain origin cannot be a solution because then you have to explain god's origin, yet the idea of god having an origin contradicts what it is to be a god. Universal origin is truly mind-blowing, although most people seem to be willing to accept the Big Bang and be done with it. Given the evidence, a Big Bang probably did occur, but I refuse to believe that was the start. There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of god's existence: fact or fiction. What other possibilities are out there? correct No, because square =/= circle, unless you modified the constituents of these terms (a "circle" is now any shape with four equal sides) The word circle is simply our means of referencing a concept, you cannot change the concept by changing the word. correct (If these two conclusions can be accepted, why support agnosticism?) --- All in all, I do take pleasure in discussing these abstract concepts with someone else who likes to challenge the most generally-accepted epistemological arguments instead of reiterating what they heard someone else say in a Youtube video. Maybe we'll actually get somewhere. :-P I too enjoy this discussion.

In the sense that they are both beliefs, yes. Then why is it a necessary comparison? That's common sense. Either way, it still depends on how belief is defined. 'I have faith it will rain tomorrow' is not the same as '(I believe) It will rain tomorrow' Now this is getting confusing. How is agnosticism anything like pointing at the sky and asserting the existence of an invisible dragon? If anything, it is just the belief system with the conclusion that there is no evidence for or against the existence of god(s). Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim. Through all of the knowledge we've obtained, there is nothing out there dictating that invisible dragons cannot exist. Sure it is extremely unlikely, but where is this logical contradiction attached to the existence of a non-visible reptilian creature with wings? It is quite a large universe out there. You missed the point, one cannot claim to see or visually describe what is invisible. Assumptions whether something may exist without evidence does not bring legitimacy to an argument, it's a waste of everyone's time. Granted an invisible dragon is still more plausible than a god or greater power. Also, you seem to be saying that we have evidence that leads us to "the impossibility of a god". For particular deities, maybe. But "god" is such a malleable term with several thousand interpretations - it would be awfully hard to address and dismiss each one of god's proposed characteristics as logical possibilities in one sweeping generalization. The logical fallacies you've gathered could simply be the result of skewed interpretations of this deity - disproving specific qualities about the entity but not disproving the entity altogether. I see no evidence that it is impossible for the world we see to be constructed by intelligent design, but I also see no evidence of the contrary. This "evidence" you speak of is more analogous to pointing at invisible things in the sky than agnosticism is. Every single interpretation of god can be disputed. My prior argument applies to any god, I was not cherry-picking a particular religion, the qualities common to all gods define a god. It is also important to realize that every step humanity takes toward science is a step away from intelligent design. People should not be held back by such an archaic concept. And since evolution in itself is a complex system, how do you propose that came about? I think you are applying scientific methods to the areas where they don't give very applicable, relevant results (like the non-repeatable event of abiogenesis). Evolution was not intelligently designed any more than an interesting eroded rock formation. It occurs through the gradual transference of mutation across many generations. This genetic imperfection is contradictory to the notion of intelligent design. Advantageous mutations lead to survival and reproduction, bad mutations lead to premature death (otherwise known as natural selection). Such a process would not occur if all lifeforms were innately perfect. Abiogenesis is definitely baffling, but jumping straight to god in as an explanation has never been the true solution to any mystery - It's just lazy philosophy. 'God did it' is exactly the same as 'it was magic'. Somebody tell me why it's logical to believe in supernatural exceptions to the rule of reality. You are told that there is a cat in a box. Without being able to touch it or manipulate it, you are asked whether it is alive or dead. Because you circumstantially have no good way of finding an answer, does that suggest it is neither dead nor alive? Insisting something is "unanswerable" is not the same as suggesting there is "no answer out there at all" - we as limited beings with limited perception just cannot reach it. Quantum physics eh? Personally I consider Schrödinger to be talking out of his ass, like most quantum physicists. We know for a fact that cats exist, dead or alive - that immediately rules out comparison with a deity. There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of this cat, it must be either dead or alive, there is no in-between or lack of state. Opposites are a fairly basic concept. Let's make the example more relevant to this argument. Say you're locked and chained inside a pitch-black room, there may exist a box outside this room, that box could contain anything of any state. Does that mean there is a possibility that the box contains a square circle?

Here's a little parody AMV I edited together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpiv3M6ospo EDIT: I had to re-upload, audio issues.

Um... how does that relate to my point about atheism being a logically thought out position (aka "belief")? I wasn't making any assertions about evidence or existence, but rather pointing out that it is a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true that one affirms by holding the label "a lack of god". Sorry if I interpreted the context of your post incorrectly. My argument is that a god cannot logically exist given all known evidence. We have to create exceptions to allow for the possibility of god, this isn't viable. It's infinitely more rational to accept gaps in our current knowledge rather than jump to conclusions about god. With such conclusions comes the reluctance to accept new evidence continually chipping away at pseudo-beliefs. The core argument of those who affirm the existence of god is 'I just know it in my heart to be true', atheism comes from rationalising through that veil of wishful thinking. Are you saying faith in god is the same as denying ( ) god? Agnosticism/Religion is like pointing at the sky claiming to see an invisible dragon... if you're fully deluded that the dragon is true then I guess it can be considered the same 'psychological state' as wholeheartedly denying the dragon (according to the definition of belief), but I fail to see why the argument should be taken seriously or why we should even provide the invisible dragon a scrap of legitimacy. Like I mentioned before, the third option - insisting that something is unanswerable (suggesting the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth) is a self-contradiction. We must only use the evidence we have available to us in order to form a true belief. Instead of denying existing evidence (like religiosity), the third option insists that there may be mind-blowing truths yet to be discovered. So what's the problem? Science is not a theory, it's a method. Science cannot be used to pave the way back to ghosts and demons, it's a progressive refining of truth. Saying something which contradicts our current level of truth cannot be made legitimate through the possibility of future discoveries.

What's the difference? By dismissing an idea as false or logically unlikely, you're still filling up a spot with a new system of beliefs. I mean, just look at the guy above me. To believe a statement to be true without evidence is faith (which is irrational, a true belief requires hard evidence). Out of the infinite numbers you could possibly use in the equation X + X = 4... 2 is the only X You can have faith 3 + 3 = 4, that doesn't mean it can ever be true, nor is there a possibility of a mystery number which also fits the equation. It's logically impossible, not logically unlikely. I admit all opinions regarding god are valid, the problem is the ideas which form them. It's easy to believe in an afterlife if you hold onto the idea that people have souls, it's easy to believe god created the universe if you're willing to accept such an entity could exist without cause-effect. People don't seem to realize that every groundless assumption they make spawns a plethora of legitimate 'how? what? why?' questions in response, you can't just brush these aside with blind faith. People say it's closed-minded to refuse the possibility of a higher power, I in turn say it's closed-minded to ignore the innate fallacy of such proposals.

Probably.

SIR! Put down that Pikachu! [hide=Less ridiculous picture][/hide]

Most people accept that a god cannot exist within physical reality. The universe we exist in abides by cause and effect. Making up a dimension where crazy things can happen with no logical explanation doesn't solve anything. So we shouldn't make absolute claims because the opposite may be possible in another universe? First recognise that saying 'you cannot make any absolute claim about truth' is an absolute claim about truth - instant hypocrisy, it doesn't work . 'God may exist in another dimension' is a self-contradicting statement because the principle behind it is that no truth can be stated. Next analyse the word 'god', defined as an immaterial intelligent omnipotence. This cannot be applied to a dimension we know nothing about. For example, if I show you a video of incomprehensible static how could you tell me you're seeing the script for Hamlet scrolling across the screen? If it were true then the video would not be incomprehensible. We cannot create X dimension claiming to know nothing about its contents then immediately assume god exists within such a dimension (obvious contradiction). Suggesting that other dimensions with gods may exist evokes the counter argument that these things may not exist. Keep in mind the impossible burden of truth resides exclusively upon the affirmative side. You cannot claim the universe operates on a set of principles then make an exception to explain how it started. Agnosticism is an inherently flawed idea. You don't need to search the entire multiverse to confirm whether a square circle can exist. Why is god a square circle? Immaterial? Consciousness is a function of the brain, a consciousness cannot exist without a physicality just as you cannot breathe without lungs. There's no such thing as ghosts, people. Intelligent and Omnipotent? All evidence suggests that complexity requires evolution. God is supposed to be an infinitely complex being, yet could not have evolved because that implies mortality. If god never evolved then it would have to be the simplest being imaginable, even simpler than we could comprehend. How could it create the universe? Unless zero complexity somehow loops back around into infinite complexity, but that's like saying existence is equal to non-existence. Now we have an unconscious being of zero complexity; it looks like god fits the description of empty space. How fitting, an imaginary friend. God is all around us indeed.