nemesis wrote:
 > Yes, it's pretty much like that,

I find of the games he and I have both played, I liked what he liked and 
disliked what he disliked for the same reasons. They're serious reviews, but 
he tries to tell you the bad stuff without telling you the good stuff for 
the most part.

Check out his review of Batman, or SaintsRow or Prince of Persia. There are 
a few he likes. :-)

> I've seen people saying they play the game in very easy mode just to
> effortlessly enjoy the ride. :)

I usually wind up going thru most games on easy, and even switching into 
godmode at some point, just because I find it pointless to bash my head 
against the same boss more than five or six times.  The nice thing about the 
XBox is when they don't have god mode, they do seem to tone the game down to 
where easy is beatable without being tedious.

(Most recent, trying 4 or 5 times to get thru the endgame of Batman, 
actually killing the bad guy, only to get wiped out by his giant corpse 
sliding across the floor and smashing me against the wall. :-)

I'd love to go thru Serious Sam on god mode, just to look at the levels.

The first couple of Thief games were cool because on the easy mode you 
couldn't even get to the whole level. There were walls where there would be 
doors on the harder levels, which was kind of cool when I realized that.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> This is what I'm saying:
> 
> Assuming that "made man in God's image" is interpreted in a 
> straightforward way. If so, God didn't design the eye.  God didn't 
> design himself - he was always here. And he copied his eye for use with 
> humans. Where did the design of the eye come from? It has always been 
> here. No need for a designer at all.  :-)
> 
> Clearly God is an irreducibly complex system that wasn't designed. Any 
> irreducible thing patterned on God thus came into existence without 
> being designed, just like parents don't "design" their children's eyes.
> 
> Was just a silly passing thought.

Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of course 
even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need 
actual design.  Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how 
such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which 
lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question 
as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would 
call "design".

On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
interpretation of "made in God's image" is.  It seems pretty difficult 
to defend against even simple counter-arguments.  Not that that means 
it's necessarily unpopular though.


>> I don't think many proponents of irreducible complexity would have a 
>> problem with irreducibly complex eternal things.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "external" there, especially w.r.t. God. 
> Plus, "we know it was designed" doesn't imply "it must have been God" 
> either.

By "eternal things" I meant God, or an eternal universe or multiverse 
etc.  Mostly I was pointing out that I had thought the irreducible 
complexity argument only applied to the development of complexity and 
didn't relate to complexity that has "always been there".  At the time I 
thought you were making a different point than it appears you were.

I was never making the argument the "designed" implies "designed by 
God".  As far as I'm aware this implications isn't generally (well, 
generally publicly) endorsed by irreducible complexity proponents.  This 
was made quite explicit as part of the whole (largely unsuccessful) 
attempt to avoid the separation of church and state issues that would 
otherwise keep intelligent design out of public textbooks as I 
understand it.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of course 
> even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would need 
> actual design.

Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be imperfect, 
right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections added in. ;-)

> Unless of course you hold that God would just "know" how 
> such eyes were made and wouldn't need to actually "design" them, which 
> lease you right into the rather odd (and sort of useless imho) question 
> as to what degree an all-knowing entity could perform something we would 
> call "design".

Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical contradictions.

> On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
> interpretation of "made in God's image" is. 

I would think it's actually pretty common. Depictions of God, Jesus, Angels, 
etc all wind up being human-like. Certainly in the religions where the gods 
have dog-heads or something it gets mentioned often enough you'd think you'd 
notice.

> I was never making the argument the "designed" implies "designed by 
> God".  As far as I'm aware this implications isn't generally (well, 
> generally publicly) endorsed by irreducible complexity proponents.

Actually, yeah, it is, but they tried to cover it with a snow-job. :-)

I've been amused several times by pointing out that naturally-evolved aliens 
could have designed irreducibly-complex humans just as easily as God could, 
and been answered with "But there's no evidence of aliens!!"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical 
> contradictions.

I'm not sure it's so much contradictions in this particular case as it 
is the generally difficulty linguistically describing (or even 
comprehending) something that's supposed to be infinite in the sense 
that God is.  Overall though, yeah, I agree that it's generally pretty 
difficult to precisely define something like that without causing some 
logical problem or another.

I think the same principal is actually true of physics as well (for 
instance as it applies to the origin of the universe), although in that 
case there's the advantage of having a more or less well-defined way of 
definitively detecting such contradictions, which probably makes them 
easier to remove.


>> On a related issue, I wonder just how common that particular 
>> interpretation of "made in God's image" is. 
> 
> I would think it's actually pretty common. Depictions of God, Jesus, 
> Angels, etc all wind up being human-like. Certainly in the religions 
> where the gods have dog-heads or something it gets mentioned often 
> enough you'd think you'd notice.
> 

It's mostly that I've never the description be so, well, anatomical.  I 
mean, how many people would really argue that God has a functioning 
digestive tract?  It's possible people would I suppose, but I've rarely 
even heard the view the human similarity to God was physical at all, let 
alone that it extended to the function and structure of individual organs.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:43:45 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,  
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And  
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the  
> God didn't create those systems.
>
> So doesn't
> 1) God has always existed
> 2) God made Man in his Image
> 3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't  
> need to be designed?
>
>

"Image" does not mean "clone". An image is not a copy, but rather  
something that _looks_like_ something else. For example photographs, and  
statues. Neither a photograph nor a statue can see with their eyes.  
Effectively an image uses less dimensions than the original. So we are 3  
or 4 dimensional images of the multidimensional Creator. We don't even  
know what other dimensions are like, scientists are still speculating  
about nth dimensions. So our DNA is not necessarily clone of God's DNA,  
but a method of reproducing and image representing only 3 dimensions of  
features of God.

BTW, a multidimensional being would need only one multidimensional eye to  
be able to see all around, even if it is on the front of the head :)

Since we do not know everything about all dimensions that exist, we cannot  
know how the universe started because we do not have enough information.

Heh. Maybe someday someone will write an AI program that comes to the  
conclusion that humans don't exist!

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>  > Yes, it's pretty much like that,
>
> I find of the games he and I have both played, I liked what he liked and
> disliked what he disliked for the same reasons. They're serious reviews, but
> he tries to tell you the bad stuff without telling you the good stuff for
> the most part.

Truly threw away the good stuff:
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054652777.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054646278.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054637903.jpg
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/107/1076575/god-of-war-iii-20100310054725807.jpg
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/cofjnrbthc/04-colossus-of-rhodes.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/cbucjcdtpn/11-exploring-the-isle.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/lurqbwlurv/12-the-isle-of-creation.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-ii-ost/hptfiuchdw/18-crossing-the-lowlands.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-original-soundtrack/qzedfjrkwa/15-the-great-sword-bridge-of-athena.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-original-soundtrack/jwrqjsfzag/11-athens-rooftops-fighting.mp3
http://208.53.138.111/soundtracks/god-of-war-original-soundtrack/lbtsxmnvxc/21-the-architect-s-mysteries.mp3


In any case, my point for bringing up God of War in a kinda off-topic manner is
because it features a mortal bringing death to the Gods of Olympus and the end
of myths.  I interpret it as the ultimate allegory for atheism, nihilism and
hedonism.  Like Kratos himself puts it:  "I have lived in the shadows of the
Gods for long enough!"  And they say videogames are just mindless fun. :P

anyway, I saw it as kinda fitting here, I guess...

Post a reply to this message

On 20-4-2010 6:02, Darren New wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of 
>> course even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would 
>> need actual design.
> 
> Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
> Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be 
> imperfect, right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections 
> added in. ;-)

You mean imperfections like letting the light pass through a layer of 
vasculature and horizontal cells before reaching the photosensitive cells?

IIRC the octopus eye is much better designed than a human one and many a 
vertebrate eye is more sensitive than ours but that is probably not the 
point you are making.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Truly threw away the good stuff:

I think he focuses on gameplay and leaves media to last. But those are some 
sweet snaps. :-)

> In any case, my point for bringing up God of War in a kinda off-topic manner is
> because it features a mortal bringing death to the Gods of Olympus and the end
> of myths.  I interpret it as the ultimate allegory for atheism, nihilism and
> hedonism.  Like Kratos himself puts it:  "I have lived in the shadows of the
> Gods for long enough!"  And they say videogames are just mindless fun. :P

I suppose, yes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical 
>> contradictions.
> 
> I'm not sure it's so much contradictions in this particular case as it 
> is the generally difficulty linguistically describing (or even 
> comprehending) something that's supposed to be infinite in the sense 
> that God is. 

Yet oddly enough, many will be happy to tell you exactly what this infinite 
incomprehensible entity wants from you personally. ;-)

> I think the same principal is actually true of physics as well (for 
> instance as it applies to the origin of the universe), although in that 
> case there's the advantage of having a more or less well-defined way of 
> definitively detecting such contradictions, which probably makes them 
> easier to remove.

Certainly. Plus the ability to say "We don't know yet, or maybe never."

> It's mostly that I've never the description be so, well, anatomical.

I'm certainly taking it to extremes, yes. :-)

> I mean, how many people would really argue that God has a functioning 
> digestive tract?  It's possible people would I suppose, but I've rarely 
> even heard the view the human similarity to God was physical at all, let 
> alone that it extended to the function and structure of individual organs.

You never heard the argument over whether angels have navels and such?

I think the general idea is that God is human-like, until it became 
scientifically obvious that was absurd.  I mean, most every other God is 
human-like (certainly all the major ones), God has a face (as in, "look upon 
the face of God") and a back to be turned, etc...


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 20-4-2010 6:02, Darren New wrote:
>> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>> Ahh, I did not understand that was the point you were making.  Of 
>>> course even so then there's still cephalopod eyes and such that would 
>>> need actual design.
>>
>> Nah. They're obviously inferior to the eyes God made in His own image. 
>> Otherwise, God's eyes wouldn't be the best, and God would thus be 
>> imperfect, right? Hence, they're merely God's eyes with imperfections 
>> added in. ;-)
> 
> You mean imperfections like letting the light pass through a layer of 
> vasculature and horizontal cells before reaching the photosensitive cells?

Yes, exactly.

> IIRC the octopus eye is much better designed than a human one 

... so to speak.

> and many a 
> vertebrate eye is more sensitive than ours but that is probably not the 
> point you are making.

Right.

Altho "Mr. Deity" had a funny line...

Skeptic: "If you're trying to use intelligent design to reveal yourself, why 
would you put a blind spot in the eye?"

Deity: "Where else would I put a blind spot?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message