Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:You ask those questions as if they actually mean something. You stated something, it is up to you to present evidence to support your statement, not for me to define your position.

And I made no mention of religion. You stated there was evidence for god - I sought clarification as to which one(s).

A)Those questions have much meaning if we are going to engage in an "honest" & "productive" discussion. When both sides have stated their stance on a given idea and the basis for said stance then the parties involved can have a clear discussion that avoids confusion or dishonesty.
The fact that you failed to understand this or to answer an honest question suggests that to me that you do not wish to have a honest discussion on such subject matter.

B) Did not ask you to define my position. Asked you for "your" idea of what / how you define the concept. If we are going to have a discussion on the possibility of the existence of such a thing as God, then it would seem to be obvious that we are both discussing the same "concept".
You see,"I am not" in this thread to have a debate about religion, "I am" in this thread to discuss why I believe in the "possibility" of the existence of a being / entity that fits "my" idea of what is God.

C) Please, you made a direct reference to religion by asking "Which God(s) are being proven?".
Please to understand that God and religion are two different things. God could be seen as a vast and powerful being / entity whose abilities match or exceed an individuals idea of what would constitute a god / divine being.
Religion is a belief system that man creates around the concept of "a" god in order to gain and exercise political power.
Also note that religion and faith are different, this is because faith is merely the belief in something that is commonly believed to be neither provable or disprovable.

Now please excuse me, jasper 76 has replied with a stated position from which we can begin to discuss. Feel free to join in once you are willing to provide a better stance than "you prove your point while I move the goal posts".

jasper76 wrote:Modern science has been at best agnostic on the issue of deities. In terms of results, science has been steadily removing gaps for the God of the Gaps to hide in. If you are religious for scientific reasons, and you want to stay that way, I'd find new reasons, because it's almost inevitable that science will find an adequate explanation that does not require the hand of God.

Ok, You refer to your idea of God as to being the "God of the Gaps".
For clarification, I ask if you are referring to a specific God that requires "leaps of faith" as would be defined by a religion?
Or,
Are you just referring to God as the enigmatic concept?

Also, I ask, ""What is your personal perception of what would be God?".."How do you define the concept?".


You see, I ask this because many people have differing "ideas" and "definitions" of what exactly would be God.
This is why I have no problem believing in the existence of God while simultaneously understanding why others don't. I have my idea as to what defines God "for me" and within that definition I find the existence of god not only possible but likely. I also, accept that others may have different ideas as to what defines God for them and that these differences lead them to have differing conclusions.


Now, I hope you begin to understand the position from which I am discussing. To sum up:
1) I am discussing the scientific possibility of a God entity.
2) I am not discussing any particular religion's deity.
3) The concept of God that I am working from is a transcendent creator being / entity.
3a) Transcendent can mean anything from non-corporeal being of pure energy to an entity whose physical form is so vast that it exceeds the boundaries of the universe.
3b) Creator can mean anything from a being that is capable of terra-forming a planet and then creating life-forms suitable for existence on said world...to... a being capable of creating an environment that both contains the universe and sets the paradigms by which it operates.
and
4) I "do not" expect that anyone else should have to agree with my concept of God, but for the purpose of discussion I do expect others to understand my concept as they would want me to understand theirs.


Now, Working from the concept that I have of God, I believe that as our science and technology advance then we as a species advance from "God is a magical being" to "God is an incredibly advanced being". Also extrapolating from our science that all living things evolve then God as a living being evolved into the advanced being it currently is.
This also means that if a species can remove the possibility of extinction and is able to advance scientifically, then at some point said species "could" evolve into a God being / entity.

Also, that if the barriers to survival and space colonization are removed them man has a near unlimited amount of time to advance and evolve. That as our science advances we not only understand how the universe was made, we step by step learn how to replicate those processes in order to prove our theories.
This means that with a long enough time frame, man will be able to replicate the creation process.

If we get to the point where man can replicate all of the processes that created the universe then we will have proved that the universe "could" have been created by a powerful being/entity (God).

I think everything is based on faith.

Science is based on this fact.

Though many users disagree with me on this point.

Science is based on assumptions. As there is no way to know what matter is made out of. We don't know certain things so we assume certain ideas. Science is based on certain assumptions such as existance. We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program. We assume that certain ideas are available because they simply are.

What about god you might ask?

God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.

We don't really know. Its a mystery of life that will forever be a mystery. Some believe in Pastafarian, I believe in Johvah the god of the christians, jewish and muslim peoples.

The OP needs to work on his idea of why god is real.

It's interesting how the population's views on God have changed so much in the past 100 years. Think about having this conversation in the early 1900s. All the people saying they don't believe in or need God would be ridiculed. Personally, I think people should feel completely free to express their opinions, I just think it's interesting how so much has changed.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think everything is based on faith.

Science is based on this fact.

Though many users disagree with me on this point.

Science is based on assumptions. As there is no way to know what matter is made out of. We don't know certain things so we assume certain ideas. Science is based on certain assumptions such as existance. We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program. We assume that certain ideas are available because they simply are.

What about god you might ask?

God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.

We don't really know. Its a mystery of life that will forever be a mystery. Some believe in Pastafarian, I believe in Johvah the god of the christians, jewish and muslim peoples.

The OP needs to work on his idea of why god is real.

There are so many things that are wrong in this post that I don't even know where to begin...

 Asherian Command wrote:
Science is based on assumptions.

No, that is the exact opposite of what science is based of. Science is based on facts, a fact is something that is verifiable and repeatable through experimentation.

 Asherian Command wrote:

As there is no way to know what matter is made out of.

Matter is made of atoms. Atoms are in turn made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. Protons and Neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons, etc...

We very much know what matter is made out of...

 Asherian Command wrote:

We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program.

No, we know that we exist because we are here and can experience each other and the universe around us and have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would suggest any of the mumbo jumbo that you are sprouting.

 Asherian Command wrote:
God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.

No, this is a false premise. God doesn't exist because there isn't a single shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a being that could be classified as god anywhere in the universe. Just because you can make something up doesn't mean that that something is suddenly real when there is 0 evidence to back up its existence.

 focusedfire wrote:

For clarification, I ask if you are referring to a specific God that requires "leaps of faith" as would be defined by a religion?
Or,
Are you just referring to God as the enigmatic concept?

I am referring to "God" as one or more intelligences responsible for creating the universe. This seems to be the common denominator among most religions, and it fits the description you provided as your concept of God.

 focusedfire wrote:
Now, I hope you begin to understand the position from which I am discussing. To sum up:
1) I am discussing the scientific possibility of a God entity.
2) I am not discussing any particular religion's deity.
3) The concept of God that I am working from is a transcendent creator being / entity.
3a) Transcendent can mean anything from non-corporeal being of pure energy to an entity whose physical form is so vast that it exceeds the boundaries of the universe.
3b) Creator can mean anything from a being that is capable of terra-forming a planet and then creating life-forms suitable for existence on said world...to... a being capable of creating an environment that both contains the universe and sets the paradigms by which it operates.
and
4) I "do not" expect that anyone else should have to agree with my concept of God, but for the purpose of discussion I do expect others to understand my concept as they would want me to understand theirs.


Now, Working from the concept that I have of God, I believe that as our science and technology advance then we as a species advance from "God is a magical being" to "God is an incredibly advanced being". Also extrapolating from our science that all living things evolve then God as a living being evolved into the advanced being it currently is.

Actually, science is painting a picture, which becomes clearer with every major discovery, that there is no creative intelligence behind the universe. If that is upsetting or takes some beauty out of your worldview, that's fine, but it is what it is. Science is a game of facts rather than feelings. I find it a bit surprising that you would classify an intelligence that evolved through natural selection as a God, as it shows a little lack of self-respect IMO since you came into being the exact same way. In any case, science is pointing toward a universe with no creative intelligence behind it, whether evolved or otherwise. Which is not to say that there is no God behind everything, only that it is improbable.

 focusedfire wrote:
A)Those questions have much meaning if we are going to engage in a "honest" & "productive" discussion. When both sides have stated their stance on a given idea and the basis for said stance then the parties involved can have a clear discussion that avoids confusion or dishonesty.
The fact that you failed to understand this or to answer an honest question suggests that to me that you do not wish to have a honest discussion on such subject matter.

On the contrary. You made a very bold claim with little to no backing - you didn't even begin to put forward anything to support it. My position on the matter is currently immaterial since you have not provided anything material for me to respond to.

B) Did not ask you to define my position. Asked you for "your" idea of what / how you define the concept. If we are going to have a discussion on the possibility of the existence of such a thing as God, then it would seem to be obvious that we are both discussing the same "concept".
You see,"I am not" in this thread to have a debate about religion, "I am" in this thread to discuss why I believe in the "possibility" of the existence of a being / entity that fits "my" idea of what is God.

You asked me to provide you with my position on the subject when I asked you to explain your initial post. Again, my views on god, gods, religion, science, etc are utterly immaterial to answering that. But more on this in reply to your last point...

C) Please, you made a direct reference to religion by asking "Which God(s) are being proven?".
Please to understand that God and religion are two different things. God could be seen as a vast and powerful being / entity whose abilities match or exceed an individuals idea of what would constitute a god / divine being.
Religion is a belief system that man creates around the concept of "a" god in order to gain and exercise political power.
Also note that religion and faith are different, this is because faith is merely the belief in something that is commonly believed to be neither provable or disprovable.

You kind of make the point here that asking about what god(s) are being proven does not require one to be talkimg about religion. As you say, gods are what religions are designed to represent/interface with (although there are a great many examples of gods being made to fit a religion or earthly requirement... perhaps we can move on to discussing that at some point if you elect to actually expand on your initial post).

Feel free to join in once you are willing to provide a better stance than "you prove your point while I move the goal posts".

You see, it could be considered that you asked what my views were rather than respond to my direct question for exactly this reason...

As I believe the rest of your post has already been replied to I will end here.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think everything is based on faith.

Science is based on this fact.

Though many users disagree with me on this point.

Science is based on assumptions. As there is no way to know what matter is made out of. We don't know certain things so we assume certain ideas. Science is based on certain assumptions such as existance. We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program. We assume that certain ideas are available because they simply are.

What about god you might ask?

God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.

We don't really know. Its a mystery of life that will forever be a mystery. Some believe in Pastafarian, I believe in Johvah the god of the christians, jewish and muslim peoples.

The OP needs to work on his idea of why god is real.

There are so many things that are wrong in this post that I don't even know where to begin...

Not really. There are many reasons to believe that faith is connected to science. Science is faith. As assumptions or the 'facts' are human rationality trying to explain the world. They are not the truth. They are a 100% correct. Get it right. Science is based on Assumption. Which is then based on faith. WE assume certain things to be true. Because all science is based on human reasoning. If it was not based on human reasoning then it would be true fact. But we can't say that for its entirety. We only have to go on faith on certain subjects. Like my existence and your existence. we have no idea. We really can't prove we are alive or dead, or that anything could be an elaborate hoax created by our mind. You can't prove it. We assume that we aren't. That's Faith in a nut shell.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Science is based on assumptions.

No, that is the exact opposite of what science is based of. Science is based on facts, a fact is something that is verifiable and repeatable through experimentation.

Check my ideas. As I have explained this before. you are getting this wrong. Ever scientist forgets one thing. Subjectivity and assumptions are science based. Science assumes certain ideas.

 Asherian Command wrote:

As there is no way to know what matter is made out of.

Matter is made of atoms. Atoms are in turn made up of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons. Protons and Neutrons are made up of quarks and gluons, etc...

We very much know what matter is made out of...

You realize I am getting at the smallest detail. That we do not know exactly the detail. We suppose and we assume certain things, but we can never truly know. I used matter because most normal people don't know anything smaller than atoms. Smaller than quarks and gluons. Keep going until you get to something so small that the human eye just has to assume its there. Science is based on assumptions, that are assumed facts. Such as our existence. We assume that the theories are correct as they are theories. Not laws. We assume that laws are correct. Those are assumptions. As a simple math error which is entirely possible from a human perspective could show that all of our science would be incorrect. I am not joking here. There are some things we have to assume are correct or otherwise we wouldn't get anywhere. As human error can happen. Humanity is perfect and as such, all logic from the human race is incorrect.

 Asherian Command wrote:

We assume that we exist and are not in some sort of coma, or dead or hooked up to a computer program.

No, we know that we exist because we are here and can experience each other and the universe around us and have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that would suggest any of the mumbo jumbo that you are sprouting.

Actually wrong. We don't know. We can't know. Knowing is in a higher state of being than we can accomplish. We can never truely know anything. We only think we now.

 Asherian Command wrote:
God exists because It simply is and will be here. Can we prove he exists? Not really. Can we not prove he exists? Not really. There is no definitive answer. We can't really say God Exists, we can say, we think, or he or it might exist.

No, this is a false premise. God doesn't exist because there isn't a single shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a being that could be classified as god anywhere in the universe. Just because you can make something up doesn't mean that that something is suddenly real when there is 0 evidence to back up its existence.

If there isn't a shred for evidence on either side? Then is it not reasonably to conclude that there is a possibilty for it's existance? I mean we said the same thing about certain elements of matter. We said that it was impossible to go into space. We said AI was impossible to make. Now it does. Now we know certain objects exist that before we threw out the idea of.

God is an abstract concept that is outside the realm of science. Because we have no idea how to prove it.

That red is very painful for color blind people to read.

Also, you're still wrong. The reason why the "assumptions" we make in science aren't faith is because when something occurs to show us they're wrong, we change them to fit the new evidence.

The only thing that happens when you do that with faith is that the person gets angry and the "fact" becomes selectively allegory.

Asherian, just because they are your "ideas" as you put it, doesn't make them right.

It makes it drivel from someone who clearly has no clue to what science is.

 daedalus wrote:
That red is very painful for color blind people to read.

Also, you're still wrong. The reason why the "assumptions" we make in science aren't faith is because when something occurs to show us they're wrong, we change them to fit the new evidence.

The only thing that happens when you do that with faith is that the person gets angry and the "fact" becomes selectively allegory.

Uhuh. So you're telling me that a fact. A Fact is something we assume to be truth. The Evidence does change, but the fact changes as well. But at a small amount is changed.

Read more into science and you will find that science is based with faith. You need to assume some facts and assumptions.

 Soladrin wrote:
Asherian, just because they are your "ideas" as you put it, doesn't make them right.

It makes it drivel from someone who clearly has no clue to what science is.

More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.

 Asherian Command wrote:


More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.

Well, THERE'S your problem... looking for "why is the sky blue" in a "why do we exist" book


That'd be like asking John Madden for advice to fix your sex life, and Dr. Phil for advice on who to pick for your fantasy football team

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:


More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.

Well, THERE'S your problem... looking for "why is the sky blue" in a "why do we exist" book


That'd be like asking John Madden for advice to fix your sex life, and Dr. Phil for advice on who to pick for your fantasy football team

I'm not a scientist go figure. Philosophy talks about that quite often.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
That red is very painful for color blind people to read.

Also, you're still wrong. The reason why the "assumptions" we make in science aren't faith is because when something occurs to show us they're wrong, we change them to fit the new evidence.

The only thing that happens when you do that with faith is that the person gets angry and the "fact" becomes selectively allegory.

Uhuh. So you're telling me that a fact. A Fact is something we assume to be truth. The Evidence does change, but the fact changes as well. But at a small amount is changed.

I... uh, yeah, facts are facts. We've established them to be true. If a fact turns out to be false, then I guess it wasn't a fact, right?

Read more into science and you will find that science is based with faith. You need to assume some facts and assumptions.

Yes, yes you do. A lot of times they're referred to as "models". The reason they're not "faith" though is because they change as new evidence proves them wrong.

Let me try this. Here's an example:
Science: The earth spins around the sun. Every astrological model pre-discovering this out was the opposite. It was an assumption we made. After we figured the truth out, we changed our models. The assumptions change based upon knowledge.

Faith: The world is 6000 years old. After we figured the truth out, the earth is still 6000 years old.

There are assumptions made in both, yes, but the difference is the purpose and lifespan of those assumptions. THAT'S why science isn't faith.

 Soladrin wrote:
Asherian, just because they are your "ideas" as you put it, doesn't make them right.

It makes it drivel from someone who clearly has no clue to what science is.

More like thats what my philisophy book keeps saying that science isn't really known by anyone because we are human and we don't know anything. don't ask.

That sounds like sophistry to me.

Yes in a way we can't be sure of anything at all. We don't know what the origin of the universe is.

We also don't need to know where the universe came from in order to know (To our best ability at this current time, subject to change) that gravity has a constant effect. If at some point that changes (Which it very well may, who knows?) we will have to update our facts to reflect that change in knowledge.

A fact is what we, to our ability, know.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Yes in a way we can't be sure of anything at all. We don't know what the origin of the universe is.

We also don't need to know where the universe came from in order to know (To our best ability at this current time, subject to change) that gravity has a constant effect. If at some point that changes (Which it very well may, who knows?) we will have to update our facts to reflect that change in knowledge.

A fact is what we, to our ability, know.

Where I personally think that science CAN fall into that "faith" category is when we say "Gravity equals X" (obviously X being whatever mathematical equation spells out the force/effect of gravity on earth). Which is all well and good, but then they say, "using this same formula, we *know* that Mars has this much gravity compared to Earth's X, and Neptune has this other rate compared to ours" And yet, we've not been there to be able to physically measure this.

Obviously, where science differs from religion and faith, is if we DO end up setting foot on those planets, and it turns out the "Earth gravity formula" doesn't actually work, then new theories will be worked out, and the Truth of "Martian Gravity" or the Effect of Gravity on Uranus will come out and become better known.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Yes in a way we can't be sure of anything at all. We don't know what the origin of the universe is.

We also don't need to know where the universe came from in order to know (To our best ability at this current time, subject to change) that gravity has a constant effect. If at some point that changes (Which it very well may, who knows?) we will have to update our facts to reflect that change in knowledge.

A fact is what we, to our ability, know.

Where I personally think that science CAN fall into that "faith" category is when we say "Gravity equals X" (obviously X being whatever mathematical equation spells out the force/effect of gravity on earth). Which is all well and good, but then they say, "using this same formula, we *know* that Mars has this much gravity compared to Earth's X, and Neptune has this other rate compared to ours" And yet, we've not been there to be able to physically measure this.

Obviously, where science differs from religion and faith, is if we DO end up setting foot on those planets, and it turns out the "Earth gravity formula" doesn't actually work, then new theories will be worked out, and the Truth of "Martian Gravity" or the Effect of Gravity on Uranus will come out and become better known.

Uhuh, but we've now had our measuring tapes on multiple planetoids, including mars, and the theory still stands.

Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

“Large licks: 423. Small licks: 752.”

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_licks_does_it_take_to_get_to_the_tootsie_roll_center_of_a_tootsie_pop

I fething laughed.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

“Large licks: 423. Small licks: 752.”

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07/someone-figured-out-how-many-licks-it-takes-to-get-to-the-center-of-a-tootsie-pop/

Someone needs a life. Hahaha

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

“Large licks: 423. Small licks: 752.”

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07/someone-figured-out-how-many-licks-it-takes-to-get-to-the-center-of-a-tootsie-pop/

Science. BAM!

 daedalus wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

“Large licks: 423. Small licks: 752.”

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07/someone-figured-out-how-many-licks-it-takes-to-get-to-the-center-of-a-tootsie-pop/

Science. BAM!

Thats simple math mathematics not really science.

And a ton of patience.

Mathematics is science dude

 Asherian Command wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, we can measure the gravity of faraway stars and other stellar phenomena by how much they bend the light that passes them. So far, the formula works on everything.

Except how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop.

“Large licks: 423. Small licks: 752.”

http://uproxx.com/webculture/2013/07/someone-figured-out-how-many-licks-it-takes-to-get-to-the-center-of-a-tootsie-pop/

Science. BAM!

Thats simple math mathematics not really science.

And a ton of patience.

hold on, wet licks? dry licks? do we allow time for the residual saliva to disolve some of the sugar, or does the next lick come immediately as the previous finishes? is that particular tongue rougher than usual? Is it a longer tonuge licking it (like I've seen people can touch their nose or chin), or do they struggle to get past their own lips? Was it humid or dry? I demand answers!

 poda_t wrote:
hold on, wet licks? dry licks? do we allow time for the residual saliva to disolve some of the sugar, or does the next lick come immediately as the previous finishes? is that particular tongue rougher than usual? Is it a longer tonuge licking it (like I've seen people can touch their nose or chin), or do they struggle to get past their own lips? Was it humid or dry? I demand answers!

They covered it!

There are many factors that would go into how many licks it takes such as:acidity of salivacoarseness of the tonguehow much amylase (enzymes) you have in your mouthDepends on how you lick it, below are some results Large licks:423 Small licks:752 There are several factors, needless to say, even if it's the same person counting, the # of licks will differ at each attempt. If you wanted to look at it semi-scientifically, the number of licks needed depend on these factors: * Pressure per square inch the tongue is applied to the surface of the tootsie pop (TP) * The average amount of square inch in contact between tongue and TP * At what measurement from the center of the stick of the TP at which you declare that you have reached the center of the TP. * The rotation factor of the TP - if the eater continues to lick one specific portion only to reach the center faster - or if licks are distributed evenly around the outer surface area of TP. And to a lesser extent: * Ambient temperature * Use of teeth / or lack of teeth of eater * Hunger of TP eater * Boredom of TP eater * Age of TP Lost count of licksRan out of timeAmount of saliva in the mouthThe lollipop expiredThe temptation was to great and you bite down and took a biteTongue size 1, 2, 3, CRUNCH! The world may never know…

Asherian Command is using the philosophy of Solipsism. It is a lovely idea that we cannot independently verify the evidence of our senses without using our senses. Thus, we could be quite mad and you all could be figments of someone's imagination.

It is an unassailable stance. It also doesn't change anything about our world, unless you choose to take it to the logical extreme and begin treating people as products of your imagination with no inherent worth.

Actually, it is totally appropriate for a thread dedicated to the god of unknowable numbers of birds.

Heh. Well, that is totally becoming a faction in my next RPG. Their emblem will be an optical illusion showing some number of birds.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Asherian Command is using the philosophy of Solipsism. It is a lovely idea that we cannot independently verify the evidence of our senses without using our senses. Thus, we could be quite mad and you all could be figments of someone's imagination.

It is an unassailable stance. It also doesn't change anything about our world, unless you choose to take it to the logical extreme and begin treating people as products of your imagination with no inherent worth.

Actually, it is totally appropriate for a thread dedicated to the god of unknowable numbers of birds.

Heh. Well, that is totally becoming a faction in my next RPG. Their emblem will be an optical illusion showing some number of birds.

Will they all be illusionists?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Asherian Command is using the philosophy of Solipsism. It is a lovely idea that we cannot independently verify the evidence of our senses without using our senses. Thus, we could be quite mad and you all could be figments of someone's imagination.

It is an unassailable stance. It also doesn't change anything about our world, unless you choose to take it to the logical extreme and begin treating people as products of your imagination with no inherent worth.

Actually, it is totally appropriate for a thread dedicated to the god of unknowable numbers of birds.

Heh. Well, that is totally becoming a faction in my next RPG. Their emblem will be an optical illusion showing some number of birds.

Basically.

Well it does sound like Grade A bs.