• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:14
CEST 23:14
KST 06:14
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202545RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL20 Preliminary Maps BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 623 users

Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 26

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 24 25 26 27 28 41 Next All
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:03:00
May 08 2010 19:57 GMT
#501
Just to briefly outline a point Gnosis, there appears, hopefully for fairly self-explanatory reasons a problematic hypocrisy in holding the position "I don't believe the universe exists necessarily"

Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'.

Unless you can outline specifically why it must be that God is of such a different nature to the universe, in a way which does not presuppose his existence , then holding the two positions I would argue is not justifiable.
Adonai bless
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
May 08 2010 19:58 GMT
#502
On May 09 2010 04:55 chessmaster wrote:
you were talking about kalam as it related to craig that is where


I can see the confusion, but where did I say that it proved God?


but eve n in the sense of a cause the same logic applies ,,
it merely becomes a semantic debate at this point

you can call it first cause or you can call it god .. they essentially perform the same function in your argument


Yes, we both agree on that...
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
May 08 2010 20:01 GMT
#503
Btw please take my question as simply resulting from enjoyment of discussion on these things. Seems like you may be being bombarded and I'm not trying to add to that.
Adonai bless
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:04:16
May 08 2010 20:01 GMT
#504
On May 09 2010 04:57 XeliN wrote:
Just to briefly surmise a point Gnosis, there appears, hopefully for fairly self-explanatory reasons a problematic hypocrisy in holding the position "I don't believe the universe exists necessarily"

Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'.

Unless you can outline specifically why it must be that God is of such a different nature to the universe, in a way which does not presuppose his existence , then holding the two positions I would argue is not justifiable.


Well it would be what I said in a previous response. As I understand it, the universe came into being (or existence) at a certain point (13.7 billion years ago?) And because it came into existence, it therefore isn't necessary. There are some other things I want to say, but don't know quite how, so I'll wait until you reply to say them.

On May 09 2010 05:01 XeliN wrote:
Btw please take my question as simply resulting from enjoyment of discussion on these things. Seems like you may be being bombarded and I'm not trying to add to that.


No no, it's fine. It's just that for some reason it's been assumed that I'm some theist apologist, looking to defeat every position contrary to mine. I should have hoped my discussion with Miramax "proved" the opposite, I'm really only asking questions because I sincerely want to learn. Apparently some people won't allow for that.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
chessmaster
Profile Joined November 2009
United States268 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:14:29
May 08 2010 20:11 GMT
#505
lOvOlUNiMEDiA United States. May 09 2010 04:04. Posts 369 PM Profile Quote #
The universe neither comes in nor goes out of existence. To ask for a cause of the universe is, I think, as incoherent as asking why there is something rather than nothing.



this is exactly correct..... one of the three basic questions

ontological .. epistemological ... materialistic .. each has its own basic question as it relates to existence and our ability to perceive it...... to suppose why we are even here or why the universe needs a cause it to ask exactly this question
the beauty of a move is not in its appearance but the thought behind it ... nimzovitch
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
May 08 2010 20:12 GMT
#506
Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.

In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.

There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.

I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point
Adonai bless
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:20:41
May 08 2010 20:18 GMT
#507
On May 09 2010 05:12 XeliN wrote:
Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.

In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.

There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.

I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point


I as understand what you are saying, then we should include the "singularity" (or whatever it is) as part of the universe, and hence we can suggest that this exists necessarily, such that the universe itself exists necessarily. I don't really see what I could disagree with there. If this singularity is a point of breakdown, such that we're dealing with metaphysical claims, then I don't see how I could deny that this, as well as or in place of god, could exist of its own necessity.

Is that what you meant?

And for you, chessmaster... I'm still looking through Oppy / Mackie / Taylor / Morriston to see where you're coming from. I hadn't read them before in relation to the Kalam, so at least thanks for that.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
chessmaster
Profile Joined November 2009
United States268 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:17:12
May 08 2010 20:24 GMT
#508
xelin this is essentially correct .. you can define simply as a unified field of the 5 basic physical forces in nature and the 3 spacial dimensions unified with time as they already are( maybe 6 in the case of anti gravity or the cosmological constant) 5 has a nice radial symmetry to it however

gravity
strong and weak nuclear forces
electricity
magnetism
(cosmological constant ... anti gravity)
space
time

all of these combine to form one force... this is my god.... it is subject to the same values
that craig would logically attempt to use to prove the existence of god based on causality

although craig does throw a very strange and unrelated argument of intuition in there which never really made much sense in the way of logic to me as it is nothing more than anecdotal in nature and cannot be effectively quantified or objectively reaoned....
.. or you can could choose a string theory approach of unified dimensions to form the unified existence either would sufiice.. neither postulates any previous existences either before or outside this state or the number of times this process occurs


physicists are generally working on understanding how this state caused the big bang by dialing back the clock as close as they can get to the moment of the big bang .. this is what the current particle accelerator or the large hadron collider if you will( L.H.C) is being used for

it is dialing back the clock trying to get as close as it can to how particles behaved after the bigbang by producing temperatures that have not existed since the bigbang occured ,, attempting to view the fields in the most unified state possible,,,,, also they want to observe short lived quantum black holes , strange quarks and other phenomenon that are predicted by the experiment
the beauty of a move is not in its appearance but the thought behind it ... nimzovitch
XeliN
Profile Joined June 2009
United Kingdom1755 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:27:47
May 08 2010 20:26 GMT
#509
I'm not too certain on the physical side of this, but yeah that is my point. There is nothing about the nature of the universe that shows that "It exists neccesarily" is any less of a sound and justifiable assertion than "God exists neccesarily", at least purely from a scientific understanding of the universe.

Although I would assume your belief in god does not rest on this point, and there are a huge number of things that have presumably led you to the belief that God's existence and role in creation is more persuasive, or justifiable, than the notion of the universes necessary existence.

I just wanted to highlight the earlier contradiction.
Adonai bless
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4838 Posts
May 08 2010 20:27 GMT
#510
The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.

For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.
My strategy is to fork people.
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:33:05
May 08 2010 20:30 GMT
#511
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote:
The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.

For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.


I'm not sure, I think that's breaching little more than semantics, and is really dependent upon whether or not you view the universe as created, or eternal (i.e. if there was a point where only god existed, then this comprised "the universe," which had added to it our universe... or something like that).

On May 09 2010 05:26 XeliN wrote:
I'm not too certain on the physical side of this, but yeah that is my point. There is nothing about the nature of the universe that shows that "It exists neccesarily" is any less of a sound and justifiable assertion than "God exists neccesarily", at least purely from a scientific understanding of the universe.

Although I would assume your belief in god does not rest on this point, and there are a huge number of things that have presumably led you to the belief that God's existence and role in creation is more persuasive, or justifiable, than the notion of the universes necessary existence.

I just wanted to highlight the earlier contradiction.


Seems to make sense, I'll have to look into it more.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
chessmaster
Profile Joined November 2009
United States268 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 20:46:17
May 08 2010 20:34 GMT
#512
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote:
The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.

For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.

yeah this argument is used in the debate link provided on the other page ,, another simple logical contradiction




someone else provided it but i found it entertaining .......here i will provide it again


http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Existence-of-God-is-unlikely/1/

this however is autonomous to the point i was making ( i was merely demonstrating the first cause argument does not prove the existence of god logically )it is based on some of the same principals....
this is a debate whether the existence of god is unlikely or likely

as a result some of the ideas are based on more informal logic equations and not a simple direct contradiction proof ... so do not assume all of these arguments relate to the thesis i made

you will probably find it more interesting than the regurgitated position i have been forced to make over and over again until acknowledgment
the beauty of a move is not in its appearance but the thought behind it ... nimzovitch
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4838 Posts
May 08 2010 20:45 GMT
#513
On May 09 2010 05:30 Gnosis wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2010 05:27 Severedevil wrote:
The Universe is, by definition, the set of all things that exist. If time exists, time is part of the universe. If God exists, God is part of the universe.

For this reason, "before" the universe is meaningless, and a deity who is somehow not part of the universe is likewise meaningless.


I'm not sure, I think that's breaching little more than semantics, and is really dependent upon whether or not you view the universe as created, or eternal.

The Kalam fails to define "time" or "the universe", and then plays with those undefined terms. It is a semantic game.

I defined the term that I used. I did not define "time" or "God" since your/WLG's argument is the one predicated on them and therefore defining them is your/WLG's responsibility.

If you want to use a different definition of the universe, present it.
My strategy is to fork people.
LegendaryZ
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
United States1583 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:16:42
May 08 2010 20:47 GMT
#514
My only problem with these videos is that a lot of it essentially runs under the assumption that if something is logically impossible, it is indeed impossible. The reason I have a problem with this is that it assumes that our logic is absolute, which it isn't. While I do believe there is an underlying logic to the way this universe functions, I do not believe we can assume our understanding of it is indeed correct or valid. This is why I feel that we need to be able to have an open mind. It's perfectly fine to approach things with skepticism, but more often than not, we have a tendency to approach things with cynicism.

This really isn't meant to be a defense of God, religion, etc. or anything else, but rather a call to accept that perhaps we may not know as much as we believe we do. And so long as we argue on the basis of something we do not know or understand to be irrefutably true, what makes an atheist any different from a theist? The truth is we're arguing with eachother along two completely different lines of thought. The theist will argue on possibility whereas the atheist's argument is completely about probability simply because he cannot make any definitive statement as to what exactly is impossible.

So where is the big conflict here? If anything, exploring science has completely blown my mind and shown me that things that I would have considered logically impossible before are indeed possible and that there is seemingly no end to the depth of knowledge in this universe that we've yet to unlock and who knows what the next door to discovery will reveal?

Critical thinking and reasoning are certainly important skills to apply in our everyday lives much like Newtonian physics is consistent enough to have real-world applications, but their relevance sharply drops when it comes to discussions of absolute truth because we simply have no fundamental knowledge of absolute truth beyond our shared human experience on which to base any discussions (and in the case of Newtonian physics, we've since learned that the nature of the universe is quite different from what Newton envisioned...).

I feel in many ways science has made me more open to the possibility of religion than anything, which is why I am always saddened when religious zealots wage their wars against scientific progress. My belief is that if one has true faith in his religion, he need not fear the potential of scientific knowledge debunking it because you would have enough faith to believe it won't happen since science only seeks to uncover truth rather than impose it. Besides, if your religion can somehow be proven wrong beyond any doubt, wouldn't you want to know anyway? Why do people fear knowledge?
chessmaster
Profile Joined November 2009
United States268 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:10:06
May 08 2010 20:50 GMT
#515
yeah man i have demonstrated many times over and over again with different languag how the values of that arguments violates itself

we cannot even agree that is someone tries to use logic than they are not exempt from the logic they attempt to use

he keeps saying he does not understand ,,,
however because he is providing much more difficult concepts than those in his model

i can deduce he is intentionally not understanding them for whatever reason


or does not actually understand the values of his own model and is just throwing out terms


the terms are based on values,, the contradiction proof is nothing more than simple math

i am in know way attempting to insult you , but i am really starting to think you might not understand the very model you are using
..... the logical debunk is very straightforward and uses the very concepts used in your model,,,, therefore i can assume if you do not honestly understand my reply , you honestly do not understand your model... if i also assume i am correctly communicating it( which i am)

he claims a logical reason for his god not to need a cause and i applied the same values or equalities to the unified state of the universe ,, but fro some reason he does not understand what this implies
i am really trying to put it as simply as i can but the 5 or 10 times i have tried i honestly have done it as conclusively as i am able , ..... if you cannot understand the linguistic values and their implications , i assume you probably would not understand the mathematical ones if i were to demonstrate the contradiction in these terms
the beauty of a move is not in its appearance but the thought behind it ... nimzovitch
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:17:34
May 08 2010 21:14 GMT
#516
Chessmaster, are you willing to take it to PM's? I'll have to re-read all your responses, because I am seriously having trouble understanding you. I just don't want to go over all of it again in thread, misunderstand what you're saying, have four other people jump in at the same time, etc. etc.

If not, I'll do it in thread, but I don't think it would be appropriate.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
chessmaster
Profile Joined November 2009
United States268 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:20:04
May 08 2010 21:19 GMT
#517
i am essentially saying the same thing every one else is......just in a different way ..

yeah i have provided enough information for you to educate your self at this point
the beauty of a move is not in its appearance but the thought behind it ... nimzovitch
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:22:42
May 08 2010 21:21 GMT
#518
On May 09 2010 06:19 chessmaster wrote:
i am essentially saying the same thing every one else is......just in a different way .. in a more mathematical way
using words as values

yeah i have provided enough information for you to educate your self at this point


No, you're saying more than they have. You're going deeper than they have. The problem with your replies is that you're assuming I know more than I do, merely because I'm familiar with "complex models" (a safe but not always accurate induction. I am not formally educated in this area, so while I do have fairly good knowledge of the subject, it's not where it should be, nor is it complete). If you don't want to continue, that's fine. Well, maybe I'll look through all your replies again later on, but right now, I need to read up to see what your presuppositions are.
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
chessmaster
Profile Joined November 2009
United States268 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-05-08 21:39:06
May 08 2010 21:24 GMT
#519
ok here is a post you claim to follow,, this i hope at least will clarify some things then i am goona take a nap
i will equate my words ( values ) to the ones he uses at the end in very simple form

XeliN United Kingdom. May 09 2010 05:12. Posts 831 PM Profile Quote #

Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.

In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.

There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.

I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point




this post from xelin essentially says the same thing you say you understand, so if i can relate my values with his you should be able to grasp them


his term dual position = my term contradiction

his term universe incorporates pre and post bigbang= the same as mine does with unified field and post bigbang

since this equality has been shown to exist outside of time t ....he unified field is enternal and thus does not require a cause ... i.e as he said the universe did not spring into being from nothingness .. ok follow me so far ? as of now i have equated every term he used valuewise ...with every one i used


, so now using purely your own logic ,
it can be shown that the universe does not require a cause== hence contradiction = his term once again dual position
you claimed god was outside of time and its rules of causation ... i apply the same value to the universes unified forces and pre-big bang state...... he applies it to pre and post big bang which is really saying the same thing

so we can conclude according to your own logic god is not needed for a cause as the universe is its own cause ( once again the universe did not spring from nothing xelins terms you claim to understand) , just as you claim god is his own cause ,,, you follow ?


while we are saying slightly different things the essential values are the same and can be interchangable
the beauty of a move is not in its appearance but the thought behind it ... nimzovitch
Gnosis
Profile Joined December 2008
Scotland912 Posts
May 08 2010 21:37 GMT
#520
On May 09 2010 06:24 chessmaster wrote:

XeliN United Kingdom. May 09 2010 05:12. Posts 831 PM Profile Quote #
Ah I see, well then we skip into physics for which I'm woefully unarmed, but as I understand it and please anyone who knows more correct anything I assert which is wrong, the universe did not "spring into being" in the sense of nothingness --> universe. To make a probably poor comparison, I am a human being who "came into being" at a certain point, but it would be ludicrous I would hope to say that because of this I came from nothing.

In the same way just because we have an identifiable starting point for the expanding universe as we understand and experience it today, it does not follow that it must have come from nothingness and therefore must have been caused by an external being.

There is a problem with "Universe" however, in that the universe as we understand and experience it today certainly did have a cause, yet I would like to expand the term universe to not simply refer to anything during and post bigbang. If we can grant this then once again, the hypocrisy in the dual positions of "God must be neccesary" and "The universe must not neccesary" remains.

I'm finding it quite hard to explain precisely what I mean in defining "universe" beyond simply BigBang plus, having little to no knowledge of physics, but hopefully you can understand my point




this post from xelin essentially says the same thing you say you understand

his term dual position = my term contradiction

his term universe incorporates pre and post bigbang= the same as mine does with unified field

since this equality has been shown to exist outside time , using purely your own logic ,
it cn be shown that the universe does not require a cause== hence contradiction


You are saying, then, that the universe is eternal in the sense that it existed in one state (singularity) which moved to a different state, the expanded universe we experienced today, correct? So you are making a metaphysical claim, rather than a scientific one, for the former state?
"Reason is flawless, de jure, but reasoners are not, de facto." – Peter Kreeft
Prev 1 24 25 26 27 28 41 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 12h 46m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .280
Nathanias 219
BRAT_OK 48
ForJumy 31
MindelVK 0
StarCraft: Brood War
Sexy 26
Bale 7
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1131
Foxcn315
Super Smash Bros
AZ_Axe81
Liquid`Ken10
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu489
Other Games
tarik_tv7131
summit1g4062
Grubby3592
FrodaN1518
C9.Mang0180
Sick41
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV16
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 21 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta74
• StrangeGG 64
• HeavenSC 41
• poizon28 39
• musti20045 37
• Migwel
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 43
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22653
League of Legends
• Doublelift2157
• TFBlade832
Other Games
• imaqtpie1275
• Shiphtur408
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
12h 46m
Reynor vs Zoun
Solar vs SHIN
Classic vs ShoWTimE
Cure vs Rogue
Esports World Cup
1d 13h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.