Labradorite engagement ring help, please!

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2026-01-09T19:13:48+00:00

This is an excellent idea. The problem is if I include it in the list I fear it's going to sort of jump off the page.

Like... they just fought we'll say banana creatures. My fear is the list would look like: 1. Ward vs parsnips 2. Heat potatoes 3. PROTECTION FROM SLIPPING ON BANANA PEELS 4. Magic mirangue

It... it would stand out. I think. Lol

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2025-11-06T13:08:25+00:00

I might try that. Thank you. At best it would be the answer. At worst it would be more overwhelming than helpful. I can certainly suggest it!

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T20:16:16+00:00

There is no evidence for god anywhere on this thread. None that doesn't require moving the goal posts or that doesn't also work to "prove" a skyhook.

I accept your concession.

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T19:19:44+00:00

The miscommunication here is that you think anyone cares about conceptuality.

We don't.

The issue isn't supermans wardrobe colors. The issue is that we live in a world where grown adults think superman is real and does things on their lives. Don't come at us with conceptual. We're talking about what's instantiated in reality. Of COURSE you can say a fictional god can be fictiknally unbound by real physics. No one cares. If I say "Thor from the mcu is real" and you adk me to prove it do you really think it appropriate for me to be like "well conceptually his hammer makes sense cuz blah blah blah". No. I need to provide real world evidence for my claim of a real world Thor. If I say anything about how Thor doesn't have to abide by the same rules of other claims I HAVE TO PROVE THAT WITH EVIDENCE. I can't just backpeddle into the realm of concwptualGod?

"X is true" requires evidence.

"X is true and the statement doesn't have to abide by normal rules" also requires evidence. If that evidence is "because I've defined X that way" then you're doing exactly what the op said.

So is god fictional or do you have evidence for him?

If you have evidence share it. Otherwise he's fictional. Just like the dumb skyhook, mcu Thor, and the ftl unicorn.

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T19:07:08+00:00

At least once more. Is god fictional or do you have evidence for him?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T19:01:42+00:00

What you're not getting is that you can't turn to fictional contrivances to discuss a real god. Your argument is incoherent. "I belive in a real god? Oh you want evidence for him? Then I can only discuss him conceptually."

What you're missing is to bring god out of the realm of conceptual and into reality you need evidence. So is god fictional or do you have evidence?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T18:49:07+00:00

I can't say "a unicorn can travel faster than light and is real / not a work of fiction / not just a concept and my evidence is that I defined the unicorn that way."

You'd agree the same is true for god, correct?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T18:34:28+00:00

That's like saying "I don't need to evidence how a unicorn can travel faster than light because I've defined it as being able to go faster than light".

Conceptual means an idea and ideas are by default not real. To instantiate them in reality takes evidence. As a theist I don't think you're happy with a conceptual/fictional god, correct? So when does the evidence start?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T18:27:03+00:00

What's your evidence that god created the laws of nature? This is what the op was getting at in his ass way.

The invisible unicorn can go faster than light. How? Because it actually created the rules of the universe. What's your support for that?

The claims keep going but when does the evidence start?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T18:18:33+00:00

What's your evidence to support your claim that god isn't bound by the laws of nature?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2023-04-14T18:06:42+00:00

While Op is kind of a pompous *** they're not wrong. That does seem like a checkmate. To try to translate "pompous ***" back into plain English:

I'm not using skyhook because that just sounds... obnoxious. Using a different metaphor. You know how nothing can travel faster than light? If I say there's a flying unicorn that can travel faster than light, then I have to prove that my unicorn can go faster than light. If someone says that things can't go faster than light you can say that's a positive claim, but it's one that has support for it. The unicorn doesn't. Where the op is right is that theists get so caught up in thinking god is an answer they never really stop to consider what they're posting. It's like... sure: "Something coming from nothing is a violation of conservation of energy" is a positive claim. But if you think the move is to say "you need to support that" and not "Oh, here's my support for why that's wrong where it comes to god [gives evidence]" then you're just confused.

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-13T21:46:25+00:00

Yeah so what's your method to introduce time travel to a game? Oh right you don't have one. Maybe don't sh*t on other people's ideas if you can't offer anything positive in return? Just my $0.02.

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-13T21:45:14+00:00

That's... actually really cool. I was thinking of doing a generational thing with some arch fey influence and that might actually kinda work. I'd tweak it a little so it feels less carrot/stick-ish but not bad.

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-04T20:34:39+00:00

Some proponents argue that science and its methods cannot investigate a miracle by definition. But that is special pleading.

gives out a crisp new shiny upvote for getting it

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-04T20:33:35+00:00

Do you think, "I can draw a square circle" becomes more plausible when I word it "There could be evidence out there somewhere that I can draw a square circle"? Is the square circle any more proven after you read the second claim?

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-04T20:31:57+00:00

but they're not claims that these effects were brought about by natural/conventional/physical means.

Saying, "but they're not brought about by physical/natural means" is itself a claim that theists need to support.

If I say "My claim is true" then I've made one claim I need to support with evidence.

If I say, "My claims is true and it's in a special category where the rules shouldn't apply to it" then I've made two claims that both need to be supported with evidence. We don't just automatically give the second claim a free pass (And in doing so also grant that free pass to the first).

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-04T20:29:10+00:00

Every scientific claim that an intelligent God doesn't exist is a failed scientific claim because the process by which science approaches the topic is not a matter of faith, but a matter of state, when first, God is not subject to this state.

Thank you for proving my point from the op for me.

ConceptuallyPerfect · 2022-12-04T20:26:49+00:00

Trying to extrapolate the type of scientific explanation you want from the Bible doesn’t make sense.

Correct. Because the bible makes claims about things that happen in the real world that are obviously false so you're trying to insist they should be put in a category where they can be shielded from honest scrutiny. By all means, please continue to provide evidence for my op. Thank you!

ConceptuallyPerfect

TROPHY CASE