|
On August 17 2014 02:03 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2014 03:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Without any spoilers (I'm still playing the game on-and-off and enjoying myself), why do people hate the ending of Mass Effect 3 so much? Because the original ending was rushed and not done properly. This was confusing and angering and a lot of people started complaining about all sorts of good and bad things. But you (and I) played the full version with the patched ending, which changed the endgame cinematic considerably, leading us to search the internet for why everybody hated it. On a separate note, I was disappointed with the lack of a final bossfight.
I played a torrented version that I downloaded on March 7, the day after the game premiered. I'm disconnected from Origin (the game politely informs me this everytime I log in) and have never gotten any DLC's or anything. I know for a fact I didn't have the extended cut.
The original ending, as it was, was pretty good in my eyes.
I think the length of the mission made up for it, although I do agree that + Show Spoiler + should have been a much longer and climactic fight than seemingly just another goon with a special name.
|
Mosquitos are eating me alive. Whats a good anti itch cream?
|
|
|
|
|
What are some razors I could buy that are not a rip off and will actually give me a decent shave rather than a bunch of cuts?
|
I've been using a single Gilette Mach 3 for nearly a year and it hasn't failed me yet.
|
How does one shave a mustache without cutting themselves?
What is McDonald's Special Sauce on their Big Mac?
|
On August 17 2014 08:55 3FFA wrote:
How does one shave a mustache without cutting themselves?
I use Gillette Fusion Pro Glide and have been for years. I have only cut myself shaving twice since I started using those razors. In fact Ever since I started using vibrating razor blades my shaving injuries have gone down to virtually non existent.
|
On August 17 2014 03:56 Simberto wrote:
Does pure maths count? I am not certain if mathematic proofs count as evidence, as they are merely logically deducting from given axioms and not based on any observation.
Also, if you want to get literal, definitive comes from definition, and a definition by definition does not need any evidence as it is merely describing the meaning of a word, which without this definition would not have any meaning whatsoever.
Cart before the horse. Root words dictate origin, not meaning.
Math, for example, comes together from axioms or real world things. I have an apple, I have another apple, now I have apples. Using those root axioms as their link to truths, math uses "logic" to tether it's proofs to evidence by implicitly saying "assuming all those other things are true, this line of logic should work."
However, let's continue this fun tangent game. Definition comes from define, which breaks down to the prefix de- and the adjective fine meaning granular. Define is the putting back together of a whole that has been deconstructed or made fine or granular. By undoing it's deconstruction you get the totality of the original object/idea in essence defining it.
|
On August 17 2014 08:55 3FFA wrote:
What is McDonald's Special Sauce on their Big Mac?
The combined spit of any fry cook who is a different color than you
|
On August 17 2014 11:58 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2014 08:55 3FFA wrote:
What is McDonald's Special Sauce on their Big Mac? The combined spit of any fry cook who is a different color than you
You poor naive man who thinks it's only spit!
|
did the christian god really murder 42 children (e: with bears) for making fun of a bald guy?
|
On August 17 2014 17:10 ComaDose wrote:
did the christian god really murder 42 children (e: with bears) for making fun of a bald guy?
no, u cant murder someone if you dont exist
|
On August 17 2014 17:10 ComaDose wrote:
did the christian god really murder 42 children (e: with bears) for making fun of a bald guy?
It was 2 children.
They made fun of one of the prophets/judges (I can't remember which) and he was like "be gone with you" and then a bear came out of nowhere and ate them.
|
|
|
On August 17 2014 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How is it possible to say something is definitive without evidence?
x is self-evident (or axiomatic)
|
On August 18 2014 08:38 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2014 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How is it possible to say something is definitive without evidence? x is self-evident (or axiomatic)
Would "Self-explanatory" mean the same thing?
|
On August 18 2014 09:40 Advantageous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 08:38 Blisse wrote:On August 17 2014 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How is it possible to say something is definitive without evidence? x is self-evident (or axiomatic) Would "Self-explanatory" mean the same thing?
Anything can be an axiom since, by their nature, they are suppositions you use as the jumping off point of an argument.
But does that make them automatically true?
For example, if we assume the bible is true, then logically God is real.
It doesn't work right? Axioms are just that, their axioms derived from suppositions.
|
On August 17 2014 17:10 ComaDose wrote:
did the christian god really murder 42 children (e: with bears) for making fun of a bald guy?
Well, a few points. One, probably the word means "young men" of military age, so not exactly "kids."
Secondly, outside of a few fundamentalists, most Christians don't think every Old Testament story is the exact truth about God or people. The concept is called "progressive revelation." You start with very primitive notions of God, and God spends the Old Testament hammering ideas into the people Israel about what God is: forgiving, just, omnipotent, one, etcetera. In the Christian thinking, all of this is to lead up to the definitive revelation in Jesus.
Whether/how progressive revelation continues is a major point of debate. But most folks don't think Abraham had all the answers, he just represented a step from mesopotamian polytheism toward ethical monotheism (although he himself wasn't probably all the way there). So most Christians would not try to rationalize the murder of children or the annihilation of populations the way Amalek is destroyed by Israel (later prophets are pretty harsh in what they say about war crimes). They would say that this description helps us to understand how God gradually became known to a nation that was originally just one of many primitive, bloodthirsty tribes, and became the origin of ethics as we understand it.
|
On August 18 2014 10:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 09:40 Advantageous wrote:On August 18 2014 08:38 Blisse wrote:On August 17 2014 03:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How is it possible to say something is definitive without evidence? x is self-evident (or axiomatic) Would "Self-explanatory" mean the same thing? Anything can be an axiom since, by their nature, they are suppositions you use as the jumping off point of an argument. But does that make them automatically true? For example, if we assume the bible is true, then logically God is real. It doesn't work right? Axioms are just that, their axioms derived from suppositions.
That is not how axioms work.
An axiom is in the basis of a logical discussion, and within that discussion by definition true. How close the results of that discussion are to observable reality depends on how good you were at choosing your axioms, but within the discussion the axiom is still always true, even if the result is not related to reality in any way. That just means that your axioms do not describe the real world, but some other, theoretical world that is based upon those axioms.
Your example, on the other hand, provides a much larger problem, and that is that for a set of axioms to make sense, they need to not be contradict each other. Otherwise you can derive anything from them, and thus not have any reasonable results. If your axiom is "Everything in the bible is true", then you actually have a lot of axioms, one for every few sentences in the bible. At least some of them are going to contradict each other, meaning that you would not be able to construct a logical thesis on that framework.
If you took only select quotes from the bible as axioms, making sure there are no contradictions, you could build a logical framework thereupon, which would describe a world in which these sentences are unquestionably true. Within that reasoning, the axioms are true.
Thus, an axiom inside its own theory does not need proof, and thus is true without evidence.
For a different answer to your original question, tautologies would also qualify. The statement:
A tautology is a tautology.
Would qualify as true without evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
