• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:02
CEST 21:02
KST 04:02
  • 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
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed12Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed Who will win EWC 2025? Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Starcraft in widescreen
Tourneys
Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches [Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
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
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Segway man no more. Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 837 users

Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 212

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 210 211 212 213 214 783 Next
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
March 26 2015 21:45 GMT
#4221
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


Blasphemer! Everybody knows that the pursuit of Wigglyjogglies is the path to hell! Help find the Flibberwocky!
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
March 26 2015 21:51 GMT
#4222
Can we find both and chuck whichever god dislikes? I want to hedge my bets
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
March 26 2015 21:56 GMT
#4223
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
March 26 2015 21:58 GMT
#4224
On March 27 2015 05:43 Daumen wrote:
I heard about the theory that Slums exist in a City when its population reaches a high enough number where people dont know each other by name anymore. (not a literal quote, quoted by memory)

Plato came up with it according to the Video where I heard it first, but was it really plato?

Whoever came up with it is dead wrong, though, so does it matter?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
March 26 2015 22:05 GMT
#4225
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!


Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.

I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
March 26 2015 22:16 GMT
#4226
On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!


Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.

I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.

Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
March 26 2015 22:22 GMT
#4227
On March 27 2015 06:58 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 05:43 Daumen wrote:
I heard about the theory that Slums exist in a City when its population reaches a high enough number where people dont know each other by name anymore. (not a literal quote, quoted by memory)

Plato came up with it according to the Video where I heard it first, but was it really plato?

Whoever came up with it is dead wrong, though, so does it matter?

Not knowing a large percentage of your neighbors can't help matters though. Many people with weaker moral compasses will have much less trouble victimizing people they don't know. People will feel more guilty about committing crimes against people they know personally. They're also more likely to help people they know personally.

I don't think that's the sole reason slums exist, but it certainly seems like a contributing factor.
Who called in the fleet?
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-26 22:43:02
March 26 2015 22:36 GMT
#4228
On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!


Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.

I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.

Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.

electromagnetism is a model that describes how things work and a lot of stuff is engineered on principles we know are true. we've also seen evidence for the strong force. i don't think these are "abstract" in the way thieving magpie is using "abstract," since they are models for observable physical phenomena. just go by the popper principle of falsifiable = empirical = not abstract, and conversely, non-falsifiable = abstract. both the dominant models of electromagnetism and the strong force imply numerous physical predictions that are verifiable and falsifiable.
posting on liquid sites in current year
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
March 26 2015 22:38 GMT
#4229
On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!


Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.

I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.

Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.


Which is why I said "derived or observed"

Lots of thing can be observed using a different form of sensing artificial or otherwise. Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.

Unobserbable concepts like the afterlife, or "what if we never" or "if I we did not" etc... Things that cannot be observed or unobserved are in the realm of philosophy until evidence is found that brings it into evidence based discourse.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17976 Posts
March 26 2015 23:17 GMT
#4230
On March 27 2015 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 03:49 puerk wrote:
Thieving Magpie, your whole argument is trivial and wrong.
Trivial because your wanted result is already build into your assumptions.
Wrong because the first assumption you make has 0 support or foundation. You say that "nothing happens" is infinitly unlikely.
The wrongness is categorial: you give no reason to have seemingly constructive process where adding "alternatives" shrinks the possibility that there is no afterlife. In your world someone inventing a new spaggethimonster has actual consequences for the mechanics of the universe as suddenly "no afterlife" became less likely. And in your process you correctly assume there can be in principle infinitely many new believes. But never once do you show a link of "believes being possible to be contrived" to actually lowering the propability that there is no afterlife

You exclude the abscence of believe as "just some other believe" which is the categorial problem that many of atheism critics fall into.


It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!


Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.

I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.

Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.


Which is why I said "derived or observed"

Lots of thing can be observed using a different form of sensing artificial or otherwise. Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.

Unobserbable concepts like the afterlife, or "what if we never" or "if I we did not" etc... Things that cannot be observed or unobserved are in the realm of philosophy until evidence is found that brings it into evidence based discourse.


While the absense of evidence is not necessarily always the evidence of absense, I would like to know where the soul resides. Or if you don't need a soul for afterlife, what method of transformation is there from the life to the afterlife?

Because I don't see why "the afterlife" (and with it, God) is given this magical status outside of the known universe, and is categorically unfalsifiable? Why is this an "abstract matter" in a seperate epistemic category from other things like electromagnetism?
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-26 23:25:33
March 26 2015 23:22 GMT
#4231
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.

it's like... how do i know there isn't a parallel universe with me missing one ear, having lost it in an accident a few years back? it's a non-falsifiable proposition, though by the manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics/probablistic phenomena, it's certainly possible and imaginable.
posting on liquid sites in current year
Paljas
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6926 Posts
March 26 2015 23:24 GMT
#4232
Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.

no, it is not
TL+ Member
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-26 23:30:06
March 26 2015 23:27 GMT
#4233
On March 27 2015 08:24 Paljas wrote:
Show nested quote +
Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.

no, it is not

the mathematics that we have, the one that every human professing to use and work with mathematics in the physical, empirical world, is undoubtedly derived at its origin from "real world observations." even though a great proportion of mathematics has developed independently of real world observations, the origin is still the real world.

whether or not pure logic exists and mathematics "exists" without humans having derived it is a metaphysical and ontological question that i personally find worthless, even though my intuition points towards "yes."
posting on liquid sites in current year
SoSexy
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Italy3725 Posts
March 26 2015 23:30 GMT
#4234
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??

Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH
Dating thread on TL LUL
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-26 23:34:42
March 26 2015 23:33 GMT
#4235
On March 27 2015 08:30 SoSexy wrote:
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??

Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH

is it really time sensitive and for a first-come-first-serve rolling acceptance kind of thing? if so, emphasize that and express your sincere concern that his lack of timeliness is hurting your chances. of course your mileage may vary based on his personality, but i don't think being direct should hurt. if not, suck it up because it doesnt matter anyway, as long as he gets it in by his deadline?
posting on liquid sites in current year
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
March 26 2015 23:41 GMT
#4236
On March 27 2015 08:17 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 07:16 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 07:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 06:56 Acrofales wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:29 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:27 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:19 puerk wrote:
On March 27 2015 04:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]

It's not my stance, it's pascal's.

He posits, correctly, that things that can't be proven have no Heirarchy amongst each other.Which is true. He also says proving that something/nothing happens after you die can't be proven one way of another--also true. It is also true that there are infinite possible results from dying since we do not know what actually happens, all possibilities hold similar weight.

He posits that since all that is true--that his wager is irrefutable.
I have been repeatedly saying that that the cost analysis by pascal is wrong. Theists sacrificing aspects of their current life holds very different weight than atheists sacrificing aspects of their current life no matter how large or small that sacrifice is.

I even explicitly state that atheists shouldn't be given that conundrum since it's not the same question as when asked to a theist because the cost of the actions are VERY different.

At which point am I criticizing atheism?


When you give false equivalence.


regarding the bolded:
Nope, the ontological positive statement always is inferior to the negative statement without support. Positing the existence of a green teapot of infinite powers granting you eternal life if you find the Wigglyjoggle has no bearing on reality, imagining the positive does not make the positve as likely as the negative (that has existed through all the history of the universe before a human could make up the claim about all the Wigglyjogglestuff).

You are antrophocentric to a ridiculous degree giving equal weigth to all human phantasies without ever acknowledging that the existence of a before rules them as the non default statements of the universe. It is not canonical to assume that human creativity has to yield insights into the universe. Your position is, that human thought has a value in itself on reality, and therefore every idea has to have the same value as the "non-idea". And that is by all we know about the existance of humanity wrong: the universe doesn't fucking care, what you think about Wigglyjogglies and their existence.


And yet it is still mathematically possible, no matter how unlikely, that when you die God will be standing there asking where your wigglyjoggies are.

You are trying to speak in absolutes within a philosophical discussion. The infinite possibilities of the unobservable universe are infinite and makes light of absolutist axioms. Because no matter how certain we are of something--we can always be wrong.

And that is why we should not start with the assumption that human ideas have value. Which i have tried to tell you several times already. And you still cling to your certainty that all human ideas have a chance to be real because humans are somehow intimately connected to the inner workings of the universe and can make phantasies true by just inventing them.


If it's impossible to know what happens when we die then all assumptions about the unobservable are valid.

There being an afterlife and there not being an afterlife are equally as likely since we can't really prove it one way or another. That is the realm of philosophy and abstract discourse. Absolutist statements that places value on one unprovable over another is just an inability to communicate about ideas other than their own.


Hrm, are you one of those agnostics who claims you can't know anything ever and therefore any belief has validity. In that case you are a pink elephant. Prove me wrong!


Non-practicing Christian who is unhappy with the logical conclusions which the faith should lead towards, but sadly still believes since that isn't something you turn on and off.

I am willing to discuss abstract things in the abstract and non-abstract things in evidence based discourse. So either we only talk in philosophical abstracts or we only talk in evidence based (derived or observed) discourse. I don't believe in mixing the two.

Okay. But electromagnetism is pretty abstract. And I most definitely have never ever seen the strong force in action. So where does the abstract stop and the non-abstract start? Because to me, there is plenty of evidence for certain abstract concepts.


Which is why I said "derived or observed"

Lots of thing can be observed using a different form of sensing artificial or otherwise. Mathematics, at it's core, is derived from real world observations and then taken to logical extremes.

Unobserbable concepts like the afterlife, or "what if we never" or "if I we did not" etc... Things that cannot be observed or unobserved are in the realm of philosophy until evidence is found that brings it into evidence based discourse.


While the absense of evidence is not necessarily always the evidence of absense, I would like to know where the soul resides. Or if you don't need a soul for afterlife, what method of transformation is there from the life to the afterlife?

Because I don't see why "the afterlife" (and with it, God) is given this magical status outside of the known universe, and is categorically unfalsifiable? Why is this an "abstract matter" in a seperate epistemic category from other things like electromagnetism?


Afterlife =\= god =\= soul

It just the concept of something being present after you die or after life.

Christians say it's A
Non-Christians say it's B
This continues to infinity (or let's say N)

There are N possible predictions for what happens after you die, one of them is that nothing happens.

God is in some of them, not all of them.
The soul is involved in some of them, not all of them.
There are infinite variations and infinite permutations and not all are a collective conclusion.

Example: Calvanist believes it's already predetermined who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. What we do in life has no bearing on it--so lots of them began to practice "atheism" since it didn't matter one way or another. There wasn't an "afterlife" that people went to, there was an afterlife for some and none for others.

The N possibilities could be total, it could be selective, it could require our direct actions, it could require our indirect actions--it's literally just N possible scenarios after you die, one of those scenarios being that nothing happens.

Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
SoSexy
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Italy3725 Posts
March 26 2015 23:43 GMT
#4237
On March 27 2015 08:33 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 08:30 SoSexy wrote:
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??

Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH

is it really time sensitive and for a first-come-first-serve rolling acceptance kind of thing? if so, emphasize that and express your sincere concern that his lack of timeliness is hurting your chances. of course your mileage may vary based on his personality, but i don't think being direct should hurt. if not, suck it up because it doesnt matter anyway, as long as he gets it in by his deadline?


Yeah, he is my tutor and trusts me a lot (even said 'you can do them on my behalf, I trust you', but the majority needs to be sent by his e-mail address anyway). It just bothers me that he says 'I'm going to do it tomorrow' and then 15 days pass. I'll just suck it up, I guess.
Dating thread on TL LUL
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-26 23:48:21
March 26 2015 23:43 GMT
#4238
on the other hand, lots of Calvinists worked really hard and tried really hard to seem like one of the Elect, because everyone wants to be the Elect, at least if Max Weber's writing on the protestant work ethic is to be believed as credible.

i personally believe there's no afterlife in the sense of "being" something that can remember the contents of one's life, because i personally believe the experience of consciousness (including memory and such) is an entirely physical phenomena. if you believe consciousness has or requires a metaphysical component, however, it's clear that an afterlife is possible.
On March 27 2015 08:43 SoSexy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 27 2015 08:33 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
On March 27 2015 08:30 SoSexy wrote:
How do I convince my professor in sending my letters of recommendations??

Everytime I ask he's like 'Yep, I'm doing it' 'Gonna do it tomorrow, sorry!' 'I'll do it asap' but somehow 2-3 are still missing after 20 days... ARGH

is it really time sensitive and for a first-come-first-serve rolling acceptance kind of thing? if so, emphasize that and express your sincere concern that his lack of timeliness is hurting your chances. of course your mileage may vary based on his personality, but i don't think being direct should hurt. if not, suck it up because it doesnt matter anyway, as long as he gets it in by his deadline?


Yeah, he is my tutor and trusts me a lot (even said 'you can do them on my behalf, I trust you', but the majority needs to be sent by his e-mail address anyway). It just bothers me that he says 'I'm going to do it tomorrow' and then 15 days pass. I'll just suck it up, I guess.

if you really start to doubt whether he'll actually finish it by the deadline, maybe you can write a version yourself just to hold onto and send on the deadline just in case. sounds like a hassle, but i imagine it's an exercise that will help you in your thinking about how to present yourself in interviews and such in the future, and it should take the edge off your annoyance at him.
posting on liquid sites in current year
SoSexy
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Italy3725 Posts
March 26 2015 23:50 GMT
#4239
Thanks Tuna. I guess I just can't get over the fact that some people can't even lose 3 minutes of their time with the wages they get :O
Dating thread on TL LUL
SpiritoftheTunA
Profile Blog Joined August 2006
United States20903 Posts
March 26 2015 23:52 GMT
#4240
yea sry i feel you on the annoyance for sure, i'm super conscious of keeping promises and being on time and stuff
posting on liquid sites in current year
Prev 1 210 211 212 213 214 783 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
16:00
Warm Up Cup 3
uThermal519
IndyStarCraft 234
TKL 225
SteadfastSC179
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
uThermal 519
IndyStarCraft 234
mcanning 226
TKL 225
SteadfastSC 179
UpATreeSC 132
BRAT_OK 114
MindelVK 33
ZombieGrub14
StarCraft: Brood War
EffOrt 1525
Larva 949
Stork 890
Barracks 271
Aegong 57
Shinee 53
sSak 53
Jaeyun 44
Rock 30
Terrorterran 26
[ Show more ]
scan(afreeca) 18
Hm[arnc] 5
Bale 5
sas.Sziky 1
Dota 2
qojqva5568
Pyrionflax43
LuMiX0
League of Legends
Grubby3145
Dendi1071
Counter-Strike
apEX1190
sgares737
pashabiceps601
Stewie2K246
byalli178
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King71
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu268
Other Games
FrodaN2901
summit1g1810
ArmadaUGS118
Skadoodle102
Trikslyr82
mouzStarbuck22
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3140
StarCraft 2
angryscii 26
Other Games
BasetradeTV26
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• HeavenSC 30
• davetesta21
• Adnapsc2 13
• IndyKCrew
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• 80smullet 22
• Michael_bg 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota2934
League of Legends
• Jankos1347
• TFBlade892
Other Games
• imaqtpie1688
• Shiphtur336
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
14h 58m
OSC
17h 58m
WardiTV European League
20h 58m
Fjant vs Babymarine
Mixu vs HiGhDrA
Gerald vs ArT
goblin vs MaNa
Jumy vs YoungYakov
Replay Cast
1d 4h
Epic.LAN
1d 16h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CSO Contender
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
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
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
Esports World Cup
5 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
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
IEM Cologne 2025
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.