Jump to content
L2Ski

religion

Recommended Posts

Those aren't triangles by definition. They appear triangular, or reminiscent of a triangle, but it is not a triangle.

 

If the gaps were closed, it would be correct to call this a triangle: /\ Why would the pattern on a snake not be considered a triangle? There is a reason I used a pattern of colors found in nature as an example, as opposed to something like a slice of pizza which is triangular, but not a real triangle because it isn't two-dimensional.

 

Hell, call it triangular if it suits you, but you still didn't answer the question.

 

Maybe "abstract" is a confusing term to use, then. Maybe "man made" is a better term. By "abstract" I mean "entirely created and governed by man".

 

Even if the concept was entirely created or governed by man, it doesn't change the fact that the thing we are trying to represent has been found and inspired by nature somewhere down the line. I don't see how changing the word helps when the same definition is being applied.

 

No, it doesn't exist, because it is not a thing. How can an object be a lack of an object? Also, I agree that "lack of matter" would exist whether or not we talk about it, but is simply "lack of matter" the same thing as "a hole"? No, if so, we would call most of our universe "a hole". A "hole" by our definition specifically requires there to be an object that has a void inside of it. But this is nothing special, this object doesn't have some special property that makes it have a hole. It just looks that way, and it is how we interpret it. It is not a natural property.

 

Your point is that only objects can exist. This is a somewhat fair point, but here's where things get tricky. Gravity is not a physical object, but can it exist without humans? How about magnetism? Sound? Life? Existence shouldn't just be limited to, "it is something I can touch, see, and hear".

 

Let's even take animals into account. Animals can acknowledge the thing that the word "hole" represents - they can even physically live in them. It's not like "holes" appear as "filled up portions of matter" to anything that is not human. What would a doughnut look like to an animal? There would still be a "hole" in it.

 

You're just using a play on words. "A hole doesn't exist because there is nothing there." Yeah, a hole is a hole, but the hole doesn't not exist. A hole "existing" simply means that a void in an object is present. If there is a void present, a hole exists in the physical realm. The lack of a thing is still a thing. Anything can be a thing.

 

Yes. Laws are not absolute knowledge and you would be a fool to think that they are...Hell, if you asked somebody 150 years ago "Can an object ever get shorter if you just increase its velocity?" they would probably think the question was very odd and improbable. However, now we know length contraction to exist due to special relativity. In another span of 100s of years, the knowledge we have today will likely be outdated by more advanced theories.

 

Just because we currently think that nothing can go faster than the speed of light doesn't mean we know this for absolute certainty. Newton's second "law" used to be F=ma. Now it is F=dp/dt. Laws are perfectly capable of error.

 

Then it's a fallacy to call them laws and it would be scientifically correct to change them all to theories.

 

And again, if you want to say "If only there are only three possible outcomes, then it is impossible for there to be any other outcome" then fine. But you are restricting what you are looking at and separating it into categories. It's like asking "Is it impossible for a red ball to look blue?" Yes it is. By calling it "red" you assert knowledge of the object, and if that knowledge were to change, then it wouldn't be "red".

 

The same goes for your coin thing. If you want to define a coin as a flat cylinder whoose shape cannot be altered, and if you want to say that it HAS to "land" on something in order for it to be considered a "flip", then maybe anything other than those three scenarios cannot be possible. But you've just totally restricted the question to some outcomes that you have designated as possible. Its like saying "If I cannot possibly explode, can I possibly explode?" Youre restricting the premise of the natural event...

 

Yes, I know, that was the point. This is still an epistemological assertion showing that physical impossibility is possible. You asserted that it was impossible to decipher impossibilities in our physical world. I kept throwing examples at you, until finally you realized there are things that literally are impossible (a living fossil, a coin to land on anything besides heads, tails, or sides), then your point was "only man made ideas can be impossible". Uhh, of course only things thought of with language can be impossible, we're using language. The concept of "impossible" is a man made idea in the first place, so of course it's going to be abstract one way or another!

 

I don't see how this changes things. A living breathing fossil is still a physical impossibility in our physical world, regardless of the fact that some of the words I just used in there are man made.

 

Again, it is clear that you are talking about something that I am not talking about. When I use the word "logic" I use it to refer to a specific thought process. It sounds like by "logic" you mean "inductive reasoning, paired with observation." You are using the word "logic" to mean "all forms of rational actions".

 

This is not what I mean when I talk about "logic". Logic is a part of scientific research, but it doesn't do the job by itself.

 

I guess we were. Funny how some things can be technically "logical" and technically "illogical" at the same time.

 

I have not contradicted myself. I acknowledge that we might not even be seeing reality, but I don't let this impact my reasoning about the physical world. What it sounded like you were saying is "Crap, maybe we are wrong about reality, which means everything else might not actually be physical!"

 

If we were wrong about reality, it could follow that everything else we've seen and touched was not actually physical, and just projections from our brains. How can you acknowledge that our perception of reality might possibly be faulty, while simultaneously saying that possibly being wrong about reality is not the cold hard truth? How is that not a contradiction?

 

And again, it sounds like you are entirely confused about my whole point. You've just said we have no means of acquiring absolute knowledge that a rock even exists to begin with. This is my point, we don't know stuff about the world for absolute truths. The only things we can know for sure are things that only exist in our thoughts. A triangle only exists in our thoughts. Definitions of words only exist in our thoughts.

 

And this is exactly why I brought up nomological possibility pages ago. We are ultimately making a universal assumption when we observe the physical world, therefore we cannot hold "absolute knowledge". However, when we are talking about the world we know of, and not in the world we don't know of, then things such as that rock really do exist, flying around the whole earth in one day really is impossible, and a fossil really can't breathe - assuming our reality is actual reality. This is absolute nomological knowledge, and this is what you and I try to work off of logically in our everyday lives. We don't take into account, "Well what if this oven is not real," when trying to bake a cake. We "know" that it is, and so we use it as it is.

 

So for debating purposes, I like to assume our reality is actual reality. And even though it is pedantic, I still acknowledge that this is an assumption - you seemed to disagree though when I said we could be wrong about reality altogether. I never said we were wrong. I just said it was a possibility, the same thing you said.

 

And I didn't talk about your "observer effect" because you don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean that by the act of human eyes looking at something, it alters the thing's existence. The observer effect simply is that to observe an elementary particle, we need to do something to it that will impact its existence. The observer effect literally has nothing to do with anything you're trying to say.

 

Isn't that basically the same thing? That the mere act of observing something has some sort of effect? You're right that I don't fully understand the subject, which is the reason why I brought it up and asked for the thoughts of someone who might be more knowledgeable in that field than I.

 

The pattern exists but it is not a triangle.

 

Patterns can exist, but holes cannot? A pattern isn't a physical object either.

 

I'm not contradicting myself, you've just managed to completely miss the idea of abstract versus non-abstract things for 5 pages and are starting to understand what the hell I am talking about.

 

No, not really. You were making more sense when you weren't arguing against something I said which was an exact copy of something I literally just saw you say.

 

Just because we were inspired by nature doesn't make these systems governed by nature.

 

Of course the system is not "governed by nature"... well, in a way it was because we wouldn't be doing things a certain way if it weren't for nature's building blocks leading us there. It's still an abstract concept, but we didn't do anything completely 100% on our own accord without the help of nature or the physical world, because that's just not how cause and effect works. We need external stimuli in order to conceptualize things, or else what would there be to conceptualize? If you can acknowledge that our abstract ideas were inspired by nature (found in nature), then I don't see what there is left to discuss on the whole abstract vs physical thing. This has been my point all along: They aren't as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be. Something like a hole is both an abstract idea (now that we made it one), and a thing that can occur in nature (without man).

 

What does 1+1 equal? Two, right? Well, when I asked that question, did you have to stop and thing "Now wait, if I have one rock and one rock, how many rocks will I have?" No. Our system of math is completely abstracted. Our understanding of "one" isn't based off of knowledge of nature.

 

A solo unit standing by itself on one side of a fence would be different from two of the same units standing next to each other on the other side of the fence, as you can see via physical observation. Now whatever we decide to label these values is a redundant point I thought we've already been over. But objectively, without man, there would still physically be a rock on this side and a rock and a rock on the other.

 

If it was, that means that there could be something we could see in nature that would change our minds about "1" and make it mean something different. Is there anything nature could show us that would make us need to change any of math? No. The system is completely man made.

 

It was based off nature because we saw there are differing values in the world around us, and thus felt the need to create a numerical system for labeling purposes. I really don't know what you mean by "there would be things in nature that changed our mind about math if it were found in nature". I don't even know how you reached that premise.

 

Do you think animals are completely oblivious to differing values? Would a monkey see one snake guarding a tree full of fruit just as he'd see ten snakes guarding the tree? No, because objectively there is a value difference.

 

Now if I asked you "What happens when I drop this object?" you have to draw on knowledge of past physical observations to answer the question. Could nature show you something that contradicts your knowledge of objects falling? Yes, you could let go of the object and it could go up. This isn't likely based on our understanding of gravity, but it is still something you could see that could change your knowledge. There is literally nothing we could possibly see to convince us that 2+2=5, that a square has 6 sides, or that the dervative of 5x is not 5.

 

This is even more absurd. That's like saying, "There is nothing we could possibly see to convince us that a rhino can be a penguin, therefore animals are abstract." (And I also see that you're working off the presumption that anything physical is possible.) Yeah, the labels for the animals are abstract, but the animals themselves are quite concrete when it comes to their physical existence. The labels behind the numbers are abstract, but a rock plus a rock plus a rock plus a rock will always exist as that fixed value in the physical world, no matter if humans are around or not. It will never be a different value because nature says so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the gaps were closed, it would be correct to call this a triangle: /\ Why would the pattern on a snake not be considered a triangle? There is a reason I used a pattern of colors found in nature as an example, as opposed to something like a slice of pizza which is triangular, but not a real triangle because it isn't two-dimensional.

 

Patterns on a snake are not two dimensional either.

 

Also a triangle needs to be made out of lines. The "triangle" you drew is made out of very small rectangles. You've never seen a true triangle.

 

shape-triangle.gif

 

This isn't a triangle. You've never seen a triangle. It is a representation of a triangle. A triangle is an abstract concept. Like I said you can apply the shape to things and call things triangular, but it isn't actually a triangle, and therefore it doesn't make sense to treat it like it is a physical object. No physical object will really fit the definition of a triangle.

 

Even if the concept was entirely created or governed by man, it doesn't change the fact that the thing we are trying to represent has been found and inspired by nature somewhere down the line. I don't see how changing the word helps when the same definition is being applied.

 

Who cares if it was inspired by anything? How impact whats important, the fact that we created the rules that the system plays by?

 

Your point is that only objects can exist. This is a somewhat fair point, but here's where things get tricky. Gravity is not a physical object, but can it exist without humans? How about magnetism? Sound? Life? Existence shouldn't just be limited to, "it is something I can touch, see, and hear".

 

Not something that I can touch, see, and hear. But something that can be detected. If something can't be detected then it doesn't exist.

 

Let's even take animals into account. Animals can acknowledge the thing that the word "hole" represents - they can even physically live in them. It's not like "holes" appear as "filled up portions of matter" to anything that is not human. What would a doughnut look like to an animal? There would still be a "hole" in it.

 

You're just using a play on words. "A hole doesn't exist because there is nothing there." Yeah, a hole is a hole, but the hole doesn't not exist. A hole "existing" simply means that a void in an object is present. If there is a void present, a hole exists in the physical realm.

 

Exactly...a void is present...but a void isn't an object, it is the lack of an object...

 

Then it's a fallacy to call them laws and it would be scientifically correct to change them all to theories.

 

It is not a fallacy, because scientists understand how laws work. Also, the word "theory" in science doesn't even mean "something we're unsure about" a theory is an explanatory model. For example, the theory of special relativity is not something that is still "up for debate" and trying to become a law. We are extremely certain about the theory of relativity, but its just that the thing is not something that is even capable of being a law, due to the way that the knowledge is used.

 

Laws state facts, theories state explanations. We could get the facts wrong, or get the explanations wrong. Neither is better than the other.

 

Another example, the "theory" of evolution is not called a "theory" because it is a proposition. It is called a theory because it is an explanatory model for how things come to exist, due to the law of natural selection.

 

Yes, I know, that was the point. This is still an epistemological assertion showing that physical impossibility is possible. You asserted that it was impossible to decipher impossibilities in our physical world. I kept throwing examples at you, until finally you realized there are things that literally are impossible (a living fossil, a coin to land on anything besides heads, tails, or sides), then your point was "only man made ideas can be impossible". Uhh, of course only things thought of with language can be impossible, we're using language. The concept of "impossible" is a man made idea in the first place, so of course it's going to be abstract one way or another!

 

I don't see how this changes things. A living breathing fossil is still a physical impossibility in our physical world, regardless of the fact that some of the words I just used in there are man made.

 

It's not got anything to do with words.....again...It's got to deal with the claim.

 

When you call something a "fossil" you're calling it dead. When you call something "living" you're calling it alive. What could we possibly look at and call it alive and dead at the same time?

 

Now let's change your question around. "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I would say yes, it could be possible. Would I call this thing "living" or "dead"? I have no idea. But when you ask questions like "can a dead thing be alive?" I have to say its impossible because by using the term "dead" you are categorizing the thing into what you hold for the definition of "dead". If you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, how could you possibly ever think it was alive?

 

Look at my question again: "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I did not classify this object into any abstract categories of what the object may or may not be able to do. Now, I did use the word "skeleton" but if we had a skeleton in front of us, I could point to it and ask "Is it possible for that thing to start moving?" I would say yes. Now if I ask the question "Could a dead thing be alive?" I would have to say no. It couldn't, because you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, and if we can call it dead I can't see how we could possibly ever call it "alive"?

 

 

 

If we were wrong about reality, it could follow that everything else we've seen and touched was not actually physical, and just projections from our brains. How can you acknowledge that our perception of reality might possibly be faulty, while simultaneously saying that possibly being wrong about reality is not the cold hard truth? How is that not a contradiction?

 

I was just saying your use of the phrase "cold hard truth" implied negative feeling. I don't think theres anything negative about the fact that we might not even be seeing reality. I think its a possibility, but it isn't worth persuing as a base to make other decisions off of.

 

And this is exactly why I brought up nomological possibility pages ago. We are ultimately making a universal assumption when we observe the physical world, therefore we cannot hold "absolute knowledge". However, when we are talking about the world we know of, and not in the world we don't know of, then things such as that rock really do exist, flying around the whole earth in one day really is impossible, and a fossil really can't breathe - assuming our reality is actual reality. This is absolute nomological knowledge, and this is what you and I try to work off of logically in our everyday lives. We don't take into account, "Well what if this oven is not real," when trying to bake a cake. We "know" that it is, and so we use it as it is.

 

So you're saying that you just want to treat scientific knowledge as absolute knowledge, just for convenience?

 

 

Isn't that basically the same thing? That the mere act of observing something has some sort of effect? You're right that I don't fully understand the subject, which is the reason why I brought it up and asked for the thoughts of someone who might be more knowledgeable in that field than I.

 

It isn't that the act of observing the thing has an effect, its that our tools of observing the thing have an effect.

 

Say we were miners, and we were looking for gold 500 years ago. We would slam our pickaxes into the ground and hope to unearth some precious ore. But, theres no way for us to know whats below the ground until we dig at it. So we swing our pickaxe at the ground and accidentally shatter a valuable ancient vase. This vase just experienced the "observer effect" (kind of...I mean, this is just an analogy). We wanted to see what was under the ground, but the only way for us to do that was to dig into the ground and disturb the way that things were sitting. Nowadays, we could use ultrasound to see what was below the ground before we ever broke the surface, and our destructive "observer effect" was reduced.

 

The same is true for quantum phenomena. It's not that the act of a human detecting it affects the particle. It's that the only methods we have for detecting the particle will affect the particle. It is entirely possible for us to invent some type of device that will not create an observer effect. It isn't human existence that affects the particle.

 

Patterns can exist, but holes cannot? A pattern isn't a physical object either.

 

Okay then it isn't a pattern, it is skin.

 

Of course the system is not "governed by nature"... well, in a way it was because we wouldn't be doing things a certain way if it weren't for nature's building blocks leading us there. It's still an abstract concept, but we didn't do anything completely 100% on our own accord without the help of nature or the physical world, because that's just not how cause and effect works. We need external stimuli in order to conceptualizing things, or else what would there be to conceptualize? If you can acknowledge that our abstract ideas were inspired by nature (found in nature), then I don't see what there is left to discuss on the whole abstract vs physical thing. This has been my point all along: They aren't as mutually exclusive as you're making them out to be. Something like a hole is both an abstract idea (now that we made it one), and a thing that can occur in nature (without man).

 

You just said the same thing again. I'm telling you yes, it was inspired by nature. But none of it is governed by nature. So what if it was inspired by nature? If the system doesn't have any rules that were created by nature then why does it matter?

 

A solo unit standing by itself on one side of a fence would be different from two of the same units standing next to each other on the other side of the fence, as you can see via physical observation. Now whatever we decide to label these values is a redundant point I thought we've already been over. But objectively, without man, there would still physically be a rock on this side and a rock and a rock on the other.

 

You've got this backwards. We don't have math because we saw that one bird is different than two. It is the opposite. We know that one bird is different than two because we have math.

 

It was based off nature because we saw there are differing values in the world around us, and thus felt the need to create a numerical system for labeling purposes. I really don't know what you mean by "there would be things in nature that changed our mind about math if it were found in nature". I don't even know how you reached that premise.

 

I reached that premise because if a part of our knowledge depends on something we did not create, then we may not know everything about it. There is no part of math that depends on something that we did not create. Is there any part of mathematical understanding that could ever be disproven by something that you see in the physical world? If there isn't, then math doesn't depend on the physical world and was therefore entirely created by us.

 

 

This is even more absurd. That's like saying, "There is nothing we could possibly see to convince us that a rhino can be a penguin, therefore animals are abstract." (And I also see that you're working off the presumption that anything physical is possible.)

 

I think this comparison just goes to even further demonstrate the effectiveness of the distinction between man-made and not man-made. We invented the system of classifying animals by name. If we call something a penguin, theres no possible way we would call it a rhino. Hopefully you are beginning to see the difference between questions that rely only on man-made classifications and questions that are about nature.

 

Again, you're losing the line between pure physical questions and questions that break down due to classification contradiction. If your question was "Could there be an animal that is half-rhino half-penguin?" Then I would say this question could be influenced by observations in the physical world. But the question the way you phrased it "Can a rhino be a penguin?" doesn't even require observation. By calling it "a rhino" you can't call it "a penguin". The fact that you don't even need to think about biology or anything to answer your question should send off a flag that the question is not physical. Now take a look at the other question "Could there be a half-rhino half-penguin?" We could investigate this question by looking at DNA, looking at animals, etc. There is nothing about this question that immediately excludes possibilities due to our classification.

 

Yeah, the labels for the animals are abstract, but the animals themselves are quite concrete when it comes to their physical existence. The labels behind the numbers are abstract, but a rock plus a rock plus a rock plus a rock will always exist as that fixed value in the physical world, no matter if humans are around or not.

 

A rock plus a rock is not math.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterns on a snake are not two dimensional either.

 

A color scheme pattern, where you are only exposed to the outer layer, isn't two-dimensional?

 

This isn't a triangle. You've never seen a triangle. It is a representation of a triangle. A triangle is an abstract concept. Like I said you can apply the shape to things and call things triangular, but it isn't actually a triangle, and therefore it doesn't make sense to treat it like it is a physical object. No physical object will really fit the definition of a triangle.

 

I still don't see how the surface of something cannot have a triangle on it though. We can simply use color contrast to get around the "small rectangles" problem.

 

Who cares if it was inspired by anything? How impact whats important, the fact that we created the rules that the system plays by?

 

If it was inspired by something in nature, it has been found in nature. We can't conceptualize things out of the blue - we need some stimuli, physical stimuli, first. Now the concept "label" or "love" are truly abstract ideas in and out, but the concept behind something like a "hole" or a "lie" would still very much so exist without a human definition for them.

 

Not something that I can touch, see, and hear. But something that can be detected. If something can't be detected then it doesn't exist.

 

And what is your definition of "something that can be detected"? A hole cannot be detected? Animals acknowledge these on a daily basis - some even live in them.

 

Exactly...a void is present...but a void isn't an object, it is the lack of an object...

 

Yes, it is a lack of an object on an object, which has great relevance to the physical realm. A "hole" would exist without humans just as much as "rock" would exist without humans. We did not invent holes, we just invented the label.

 

It is not a fallacy, because scientists understand how laws work. Also, the word "theory" in science doesn't even mean "something we're unsure about" a theory is an explanatory model. For example, the theory of special relativity is not something that is still "up for debate" and trying to become a law. We are extremely certain about the theory of relativity, but its just that the thing is not something that is even capable of being a law, due to the way that the knowledge is used.

 

Laws state facts, theories state explanations. We could get the facts wrong, or get the explanations wrong. Neither is better than the other.

 

Another example, the "theory" of evolution is not called a "theory" because it is a proposition. It is called a theory because it is an explanatory model for how things come to exist, due to the law of natural selection.

 

What I'm getting from that is this: On a nomological level, they are "laws". On an absolute level, they are "theories". That would make much more sense.

 

It's not got anything to do with words.....again...It's got to deal with the claim.

 

When you call something a "fossil" you're calling it dead. When you call something "living" you're calling it alive. What could we possibly look at and call it alive and dead at the same time?

 

Now let's change your question around. "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I would say yes, it could be possible. Would I call this thing "living" or "dead"? I have no idea. But when you ask questions like "can a dead thing be alive?" I have to say its impossible because by using the term "dead" you are categorizing the thing into what you hold for the definition of "dead". If you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, how could you possibly ever think it was alive?

 

Look at my question again: "Is it possible for a skeleton of a dinosaur to start moving?" I did not classify this object into any abstract categories of what the object may or may not be able to do. Now, I did use the word "skeleton" but if we had a skeleton in front of us, I could point to it and ask "Is it possible for that thing to start moving?" I would say yes. Now if I ask the question "Could a dead thing be alive?" I would have to say no. It couldn't, because you're telling me that you know the thing is dead, and if we can call it dead I can't see how we could possibly ever call it "alive"?

 

We weren't talking about the words. I know when I call something a fossil, I'm calling it dead. This is speaking about the abstract labels of the ideas though. Now, what about the concept behind these labels? An organism that can function biologically is not the same as an organism that expired, this is a truth in nature, not just in the man made realm. In other words, take the labels out and you will still reach the fact that the thing we call a "fossil" cannot do the thing we call "breathing".

 

I was just saying your use of the phrase "cold hard truth" implied negative feeling. I don't think theres anything negative about the fact that we might not even be seeing reality. I think its a possibility, but it isn't worth persuing as a base to make other decisions off of.

 

I don't see how you got any negativity out of that. "Cold hard truth" is just a fancy way of saying "absolute objective fact" not "fact that makes me feel uneasy about life". I also never said this should halt our pursuit of knowledge. In fact, I just mentioned that.

 

So you're saying that you just want to treat scientific knowledge as absolute knowledge, just for convenience?

 

I never said that. Read my point again. Nomological ("scientific" works too now that you put it that way) knowledge is what we should be working from, naturally. Absolute knowledge is essentially impossible to obtain because we can only gather information through our limited subjective perception. We don't know a world without us, so we're always making that one universal assumption and so there is always a little asterisk attached to the claim when you say something like "law" or "fact". In a different plane of existence, the laws we know of could be completely backwards and gravity could cause things to rise instead of fall.

 

It is entirely possible for us to invent some type of device that will not create an observer effect.

 

How...? Or are you still working off that base assumption that anything is possible?

 

You just said the same thing again. I'm telling you yes, it was inspired by nature. But none of it is governed by nature. So what if it was inspired by nature? If the system doesn't have any rules that were created by nature then why does it matter?

 

If we went back in time and were to label a "cow" a "dog" and a "dog" a "cow", there would be no problem. However, it is still physically impossible for the thing we call a "cow" to be the same thing we call a "dog". Nature dictates and governs this fact.

 

Either way, I think you missed my point about everything being abstract in one way or another. "Possibility" is an abstract concept, so it's quite redundant to say "only abstract concepts can be impossible".

 

You've got this backwards. We don't have math because we saw that one bird is different than two. It is the opposite. We know that one bird is different than two because we have math.

 

Where did math originate from? Do you think that some invisible sentient floating mass of energy existing in purgatory could conceptualize math on its own? Actually, that sounds pretty interesting. Would that floating energy be able to conceptualize anything aside from "I am"?

 

I reached that premise because if a part of our knowledge depends on something we did not create, then we may not know everything about it. There is no part of math that depends on something that we did not create. Is there any part of mathematical understanding that could ever be disproven by something that you see in the physical world? If there isn't, then math doesn't depend on the physical world and was therefore entirely created by us.

 

We might not know everything about it, but there are still some things that can be known. The thing that we call a "fossil" cannot be the thing we call a "living breathing creature".

 

I think this comparison just goes to even further demonstrate the effectiveness of the distinction between man-made and not man-made. We invented the system of classifying animals by name. If we call something a penguin, theres no possible way we would call it a rhino. Hopefully you are beginning to see the difference between questions that rely only on man-made classifications and questions that are about nature.

 

Again, you're losing the line between pure physical questions and questions that break down due to classification contradiction. If your question was "Could there be an animal that is half-rhino half-penguin?" Then I would say this question could be influenced by observations in the physical world. But the question the way you phrased it "Can a rhino be a penguin?" doesn't even require observation. By calling it "a rhino" you can't call it "a penguin". The fact that you don't even need to think about biology or anything to answer your question should send off a flag that the question is not physical. Now take a look at the other question "Could there be a half-rhino half-penguin?" We could investigate this question by looking at DNA, looking at animals, etc. There is nothing about this question that immediately excludes possibilities due to our classification.

 

Which goes right back to my point that the thing we call "rhino" is not the thing we call "penguin", whether man is around or not...

 

A rock plus a rock is not math.

 

Mathematics might be abstract, but the fact that the thing we represent when we say "one" will always be the same value is not decided by man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A color scheme pattern, where you are only exposed to the outer layer, isn't two-dimensional?

No. If it was truly 2 dimensional, you could not see it. It is a 3D object. All things you can see are three dimensional. There are no two dimensional objects in our space.

 

I still don't see how the surface of something cannot have a triangle on it though. We can simply use color contrast to get around the "small rectangles" problem.

 

What? Color contrast? How is that going to solve anything? You cannot see a line, a true line. All "lines" you see will have some thickness to them. This makes them not an actual line.

 

If it was inspired by something in nature, it has been found in nature. We can't conceptualize things out of the blue - we need some stimuli, physical stimuli, first. Now the concept "label" or "love" are truly abstract ideas in and out, but the concept behind something like a "hole" or a "lie" would still very much so exist without a human definition for them.

 

Again it was interpreted by us and abstracted by us, but none of that matters at all if the rules of that system don't actually depend on nature. Even if the "inspiration" for geometry was a perfectly formed circle floating in the sky, our entire system of mathematics doesn't DEPEND on that at all. The inspiration could have come from literally anywhere, and the source of this inspiration does not have any impact on what we determined to be the rules.

 

And what is your definition of "something that can be detected"? A hole cannot be detected? Animals acknowledge these on a daily basis - some even live in them.

 

No, I wouldn't say that a hole is an object that can be detected. I would say that you can detect shapes of objects, but I would not say "look, I found a hole!" Hell, there technically isn't a "hole" in an object anyway.

 

polesden_wall.jpg

 

Heres a "hole". Now, this object technically isn't even missing anything...the object is one solid uninterrupted surface. The only reason we call it a "hole" is because we choose to interpret this brick wall as something that should be continuous in its lengthwise dimension. When we see a "hole", what we mean is that the object is lacking material in a place that the material is otherwise continuous. The object itself is still one entire solid object with a single surface. It just doesn't "look like it" to us. A hole is completely an interpretation, based on what we have decided objects "should" look like.

 

Yes, it is a lack of an object on an object, which has great relevance to the physical realm. A "hole" would exist without humans just as much as "rock" would exist without humans. We did not invent holes, we just invented the label.

 

See above.

 

 

What I'm getting from that is this: On a nomological level, they are "laws". On an absolute level, they are "theories". That would make much more sense.

 

If you want to completely misuse the word "theory" then sure.

 

But I assure you that no proper scientist uses the word "theory" the way you are thinking about it.

 

The distinction between "law" and "theory" makes perfect sense. Laws are what we believe to be facts. Theories are what we believe to be explanations. For example, gravity is a law. Our current knowledge suggests that the force of gravity should always exist between two objects that have mass (though, massless photons are also affected by it). This is a law, because it tells you what happens. The "theory" of gravitational attraction is what is currently being worked on, to tell us why gravity exists, or how it gets created.

 

Also, compare to biology. There is a law of natural selection that tells us that things that are stronger will stand a better chance of survival. There is a law of genetic variation, telling us that organisms will change over time. These are things that our current knowledge tells us will always happen with life as we know it. Then, we have the theory of evolution. This is a theory just because it explains the process of life coming about on Earth. It is not a theory because we are uncertain. It is a theory because it is an interpretation of factual information. Laws are what we believe to be facts, theories are what we believe to be explanations.

 

We weren't talking about the words. I know when I call something a fossil, I'm calling it dead. This is speaking about the abstract labels of the ideas though. Now, what about the concept behind these labels? An organism that can function biologically is not the same as an organism that expired, this is a truth in nature, not just in the man made realm. In other words, take the labels out and you will still reach the fact that the thing we call a "fossil" cannot do the thing we call "breathing".

 

I would not say this re-worded question is impossible. Your previous conjecture seemed to be similar to "Can a dead thing be living?" I would say it was impossible because there would be no way for us to call something dead and living at the same time...

 

If your question is "Can this pile of dinosaur bones start breathing?" I would say that it is not impossible, in the absolute sense. Again...how could we ever call it truly impossible? What is our knowledge from? We have arrived at the assumption that bones cannot breathe because we have looked at tons and tons of bones, and none of them were ever breathing. It is logical then, to submit that this stack of bones is nothing special and will probably not spring to life.

 

But, take a look at that knowledge again. You didn't get any sort of absolute knowledge. All you did was draw a rational conclusion based on observations and inductive reasoning. Return again to my example of a 6-sided cube sitting on a table. You see only 5 numbers, and can make a perfectly logical conclusion about what number was on the final side. But, if you never ever got to see what was on the final side, would you ever say "It is impossible for the last side to be anything but a 2!"?

 

I would hope you wouldn't say this, because it is entirely possible that the final side has a picture of a monkey on it, with no numbers what so ever. Us examining the physical world is not much different from this example. We never get to actually look behind the curtain and say "Hey bro, did I get this right??" We just have to draw as many logical conclusions as we can.

 

I don't see how you got any negativity out of that. "Cold hard truth" is just a fancy way of saying "absolute objective fact" not "fact that makes me feel uneasy about life". I also never said this should halt our pursuit of knowledge. In fact, I just mentioned that.

 

Yeah the only reason I actually touched on it is because I took it to mean "fact that makes me feel uneasy"

 

I never said that. Read my point again. Nomological ("scientific" works too now that you put it that way) knowledge is what we should be working from, naturally. Absolute knowledge is essentially impossible to obtain because we can only gather information through our limited subjective perception. We don't know a world without us, so we're always making that one universal assumption and so there is always a little asterisk attached to the claim when you say something like "law" or "fact". In a different plane of existence, the laws we know of could be completely backwards and gravity could cause things to rise instead of fall.

 

Okay, and? Does this affect whether we can call physical events absolutely impossible?

 

How...? Or are you still working off that base assumption that anything is possible?

 

If I knew how to create a quantum observation tool that does not de-quantize the phenomenon, I would be a nobel prize candidate. We just haven't reached this state of knowledge in our technology. I can't tell you how to eliminate the quantum observer effect because the tool hasn't been invented yet.

 

Return to my gold mining example. Do you think ancient miners hundreds of years ago could have ever imagined what kind of invention would let you see below the ground before you break the surface?

 

If we went back in time and were to label a "cow" a "dog" and a "dog" a "cow", there would be no problem. However, it is still physically impossible for the thing we call a "cow" to be the same thing we call a "dog". Nature dictates and governs this fact.

 

Either way, I think you missed my point about everything being abstract in one way or another. "Possibility" is an abstract concept, so it's quite redundant to say "only abstract concepts can be impossible".

 

This is an entirely valid point...but my interpretation of what you just said seems to help what I am saying. Theres no possibility or impossibility in nature. We made up that concept. The only things that can be impossible are other things we made up.

 

Where did math originate from? Do you think that some invisible sentient floating mass of energy existing in purgatory could conceptualize math on its own? Actually, that sounds pretty interesting. Would that floating energy be able to conceptualize anything aside from "I am"?

 

From what I have heard, the concept of "one" is thought to originate with the singular conciousness that you experience and reflect upon. Once man was able to recognize himself as "one", he started to see other "ones" in nature. To my understanding, this applies to all somewhat intelligent life.

 

We might not know everything about it, but there are still some things that can be known.

 

I completely disagree with this. The only thing science takes as a "known" is that the images that are being seen by us are reality. I wouldn't say that we have absolute knowledge that bones are dead, that gravity will always happen, that energy must be conserved, etc. Again, most of these are extremely extremely logical, predictable, and consistent conclusions. But even if we reach a conclusion that holds true for a billion years, the billionth-and-one year might shed completely new light on a subject. There's absolutely no telling what we might end up being wrong about, no matter how certain our current scientific understanding of the world is. We can never reach an absolutely certain scientific understanding.

 

Which goes right back to my point that the thing we call "rhino" is not the thing we call "penguin", whether man is around or not...

 

And your point is complete crap, because theres no similarity or difference between things unless we are there to decide it. Judging things by "are these the same?" is able to create impossibility because we decided they arent the same.

 

Hell, a rhino and a penguin are made up entirely of the same chemical compounds. Maybe they'd look the same to somebody else. And they are definitely both made up of protons, electons, and neutrons. Who gets to decide what is the same and what isn't if we aren't around? This decision would take intelligent arbitration, and is not a "natural" property of the things.

 

Mathematics might be abstract, but the fact that the thing we represent when we say "one" will always be the same value is not decided by man.

 

Show me what is meant by "one" then. Don't show me an example of "one". Show me what is the universal, undeniable, non-abstract meaning of "one".


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn these are deep posts! this is why I hate coming into a deep conversation late 'cause then I don't know where to begin. Anyways my personal beliefs on religion are that I don't believe in a god/creator, I always wonder why people choose the particular religion over another, I also wonder why out of all the religions in the world people think that the one they are is correct, and finally I don't agree with Pascal in Pascal's Wager.

 

There isn't much of a difference between atheists and Christians, Christians don't believe in any god except for Christ, only atheists take it one step further and don't believe in any gods.

 

 

^ just my views.


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn these are deep posts! this is why I hate coming into a deep conversation late 'cause then I don't know where to begin. Anyways my personal beliefs on religion are that I don't believe in a god/creator, I always wonder why people choose the particular religion over another, I also wonder why out of all the religions in the world people think that the one they are is correct, and finally I don't agree with Pascal in Pascal's Wager.

 

There isn't much of a difference between atheists and Christians, Christians don't believe in any god except for Christ, only atheists take it one step further and don't believe in any gods.

 

 

^ just my views.

 

To fill you in, the discussion I am having with CGF stemmed from me defending atheists who use the flying spagetti monster as a comparison to a god. CGF was thinking that atheists use this comparison to say that it is impossible for a god to exist, when in reality the actual use of the FSM is just saying that if we have no evidence for something then we don't have a reason to believe it. He said it would be impossible for there to be a FSM, and my defense is that we don't really know what is impossible about the physical world.

 

However, he also said that some atheists compare god to a 4-sided triangle. I said this is a faulty comparison because we know for certainty that a 4-sided triangle cannot exist, because a triangle is something that is a man-made concept and we have complete knowledge of how a triangle "works"


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems more like a theology thread then a religion thread.


kaisershami.png

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked... Your daily life is your temple and your religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

To fill you in, the discussion I am having with CGF stemmed from me defending atheists who use the flying spagetti monster as a comparison to a god. CGF was thinking that atheists use this comparison to say that it is impossible for a god to exist, when in reality the actual use of the FSM is just saying that if we have no evidence for something then we don't have a reason to believe it. He said it would be impossible for there to be a FSM, and my defense is that we don't really know what is impossible about the physical world.

 

However, he also said that some atheists compare god to a 4-sided triangle. I said this is a faulty comparison because we know for certainty that a 4-sided triangle cannot exist, because a triangle is something that is a man-made concept and we have complete knowledge of how a triangle "works"

 

I'll talk about the second thing you said, I completely agree. At first it seems like an okay comparison but if you think about it it implies some things that are not acceptable.

 

 

Now this is directed at CGF (might have already been asked) what make it so the FSM can't exist and other gods could?


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the supposed "teachings" of FSM but I don't think CGF is saying that FSM can't exist.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about the supposed "teachings" of FSM but I don't think CGF is saying that FSM can't exist.

 

That was pretty much his original point:

 

Watch this video for more discussion about "belief" that atheists have:

 

Which is entirely fine, but how many atheists actually leave it at a lack of belief? How many go around asserting that "God = Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, invisible lizardmen running the Illuminati, four-sided triangles, etc." (hint: "I declare god fictional")? Please, I see just as many passionate atheists reciprocating religious people's unfounded claims with more unfounded claims. Did I mention I love it when an atheist argues in intricate detail how modest their belief is?

 

The argument isn't "Heres a fictional character, I'll equate God to the FSM because I declare they both do not exist."

 

The argument is that we have just as much evidence for a god as we do a FSM. It isn't saying that "the FSM is impossible and god is also impossible".


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then we get into the historical accuracy of the bible, which is an interesting enough topic in itself.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then we get into the historical accuracy of the bible, which is an interesting enough topic in itself.

 

What do you mean? You mean the Bible, because it exists, can be seen as evidence for God? There are also writings about the FSM...


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe there is substantial enough evidence of devine intervention for me to personally believe a god exists, but I do not deny how other people's lives have been enriched as a result of this belief, however fallacious I personally think that belief is.

 

So long as religious belief doesn't infringe on my rights, each to their own.

 

I partially agree with you. One question though..

 

Were do those rights come from if not (for this example) God? Just some food for thought.

 

I would argue that those rights come from human ideals.


Dheginsea.png

 

I once met a man named Jesus at a Home Depot. Is this the Messiah returned at last?

 

And i once beat someone named Jesus in a chess game. Does that mean I'm smarter than the messiah?

BOW TO THE NEW MESSIAH

 

 

Maybe a president who didn't believe our soldiers were going to heaven, might be a little less willing to get them killed. ~ Bill Maher

Barrows drops: 2 Karil's Coifs (on double drop day)

92,150th person to 99 defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

 

How do we know that the writings of the FSM are false? All we know is that somebody wrote them.

 

Which is the same thing that is true about the Bible.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

 

How do we know that the writings of the FSM are false? All we know is that somebody wrote them.

 

Which is the same thing that is true about the Bible.

Because it's well documented that they were written as a parody. Don't be ridiculous.

 

If the bible and FSM truly had equal proof of exactly who by and for what they were written Christianity would be nonexistent.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

 

How do we know that the writings of the FSM are false? All we know is that somebody wrote them.

 

Which is the same thing that is true about the Bible.

Because it's well documented that they were written as a parody. Don't be ridiculous.

 

If the bible and FSM truly had equal proof of exactly who by and for what they were written Christianity would be nonexistent.

 

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

 

Also, the Bible comes from a time where there were less people keeping accurate historical records, and these records are more likely to have been lost, so that means that the lack of record makes the Bible MORE likely?


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know this thread was still alive. The last I saw of it was...a month ago?

 

Because it's well documented that they were written as a parody. Don't be ridiculous.

 

I do agree with you on this statement alone, simply because it was spontaneously created for the sole purpose of protesting against the very fabric of Religion in...2005? I think? (Don't take my word for that) I do know it was fabricated as part of the Parody church, though. I know that history well. :P

 

If the bible and FSM truly had equal proof of exactly who by and for what they were written Christianity would be nonexistent.

 

I guess this logic could be used for every holy book/deity out there. Zeus and the Greek Gods, the Bhgavad Gita, which I like to note is far older than the bible, and African religions as well.

 

What we know is the time of which the Bible was written and why they were written the way they were. The New Testament, for example, was put together significantly after the Jeshua figure died by followers of his supposed disciples. Over those generations things could have been misinterpreted or even exaggerated for more people to come in and believe in the faith. King James screwed the entire Bible up and even mistranslated some parts, and we also know that there are no known original Bible's, only reprints of reprints.

 

But Christianity, like any other Religion, is followed because there are believers, whose beliefs are stemmed from many different reasons--fear, loneliness, because you were born in that specific region that teaches about Yahweh--and those believers have these values because it will comfort them or because they need an explanation.

 

So in basic response to your last statement, I think it would still be followed because people could use the excuse of Divine inspiration for the Bible, which is the main excuse I receive a lot of the time and people know that pastafarianism was invented not-too-long ago as an example to the contra-Gods (or at least that was its original intent). The fact is, though, that neither/nor of them in the end cannot be refuted under any means, as the fact remains that both the Bible and the FSM are human made creations.

 

I probably rambled somewhere, so I hope some of this is relevant (and cogent--I'm tired) somewhere.


Hoping to get a new Signature (with matching avatar) soon. :D

 

In the meantime...Steam username: )I'll rewrite it later (add me if you want)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We have proof that Christan writers witnessed god creating the universe and god creating Adam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We don't have proof that nobody witnessed the events described. We have proof that some guy wrote it down.

 

Which is the same thing we know about the Bible.


Myweponsgood.gif

Need assistance in any of these skills? PM me in game, my private chat is always ON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We don't have proof that nobody witnessed the events described. We have proof that some guy wrote it down.

 

Which is the same thing we know about the Bible.

 

Uhh seeing as the creator of the writings admitted he created them in 2005 and could not possibly have been alive at the beginning of the universe...yeah, we do.

 

Which is not the same thing we know about the bible.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

You're not being concise, you're being dense. The FSM is a parody because it was created as such, this is well documented.

Created in 2005 by Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson, it was originally intended as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools. In an open letter sent to the Kansas State Board of Education, Henderson parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing belief in a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs. Henderson further called for his "Pastafarian" (portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian) theory of creation to be allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution. He explained that since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to an unspecified "Intelligent Designer", any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.