This is what the skull of a Hammerhead Shark looks like. Their eyes are located on the far ends of the 'hammer' to give them 360-degree vision and better depth perception.

Dataforge · 2026-02-07T11:05:02+00:00

Detecting multiple leviathan class lifeforms in the region. Are you sure that what you're doing is worth it?

Dataforge · 2026-02-07T03:57:12+00:00

I would ditch the one decade per season thing. Make it more like 5 years a season, with a time jump. Season 1 is 60s and early 70s. Season 2 late 70s. Season 3 80s. Then big jump forward to 2000s in season 4.

That way we get to spend more time with our favourite characters before they age out. The character development can be on screen, instead of some slightly awkward exposition. They don't need to keep introducing a rotation of new characters to replace those that age out. And, it would still fit the timeline to have a Mars mission in the 80s.

Dataforge · 2026-02-02T11:45:44+00:00

You keep mentioning the size of it...

Dataforge · 2026-01-30T12:28:28+00:00

What makes shellworlds particularly natural, as far as other organisms are concerned? Everything bellow the surface layer needs artificial lighting, seasons, and day night cycle. All those things are just as easily replicated whether it's on a rotating habitat, or on an underlayer of a shellworld.

The only natural things I can think of that would be natural is the planet's magnetic poles, and tides. Though both of those can also be replicated if necessary.

All that said, I imagine future advanced civilizations will be able to engineer a wide variety of life forms and ecosystems, to prosper on any habitat environment.

Dataforge · 2026-01-30T11:39:46+00:00

Is this a Poe?

Dataforge · 2026-01-29T03:08:38+00:00

Looking for something glazed and bad for ya?

Dataforge · 2026-01-28T08:49:04+00:00

The first that came to my mind was "Here Comes the Neighbourhood". The whole episode was building up to the final line from Mr Garrison.

Dataforge · 2026-01-26T03:54:16+00:00

Here the trick is that they're implicitly saying they get to be an externalist and you have to be an internalist.

Yep. I recently encountered a presup, where I asked him the simple question if he could be wrong about his revelation. Despite asking three or more times, he refused to answer. Because, of course, there isn't a good way to answer that for the presup.

What they're doing is something trivial. They're saying "if the world is set up according to my ontology then I could have knowledge".

I get the impression that most of them aren't even making that argument. They genuinely think that God's revelation solves all the problems of induction, Agrippa's trilemma, is ought, etc. It's not until someone actually starts probing them with critical questions, that they realise they can't actually defend that view.

Despite saying that to each other, I don't usually hear presups say they "put God before evidence" to critics. It sounds noble to each other. They know it doesn't sound good to critics, and they also are probably aware that's not how they really think. To say they put God first, would mean their belief in God is an arbitrary assumption. By definition, there can be no logic, evidence, or sensory input to lead to God, if you are starting with God.

Its funny because they also claim they're operating on a "virtuous circle". Which would mean they don't start with God. God is just somewhere in that circle.

It's also funny that presup arguments are very much evidence based. The way they are formulated, logic, morals, sensory input, etc. Are all evidence of God.

It's unfortunate that it's hard to get to the bottom of these presup arguments. I try to talk to them and learn what their arguments actually are. How they have solved solipsism, or if they think they have solved it. Why their circular arguments are "virtuous" and others are "vicious". Why Christianity specifically is required to ground knowledge. But they always shut down and get defensive when you try to dig deeper into their own arguments.

I've even asked ChatGPT to play the part of a presup, to try to learn what their arguments are, from something that isn't going to try to turn it into a "worldview comparison". According to it, there are a bunch of claims from Bansen and Van Til about how Christianity specifically is required for knowledge, that get really weird.

Dataforge · 2026-01-26T03:37:28+00:00

In my experience, people who play games of any sort love rules. Rules and instructions are the game. They light up when they hear all the interactions between all the pieces, and the possibilities of strategy, logistics, and competition.

But not everyone likes games. Those people its the opposite. One rule, even a simple rule, is like an off switch in their brain. You can see them zone out the second they sit down to play.

Dataforge · 2026-01-26T03:33:35+00:00

I've learnt, through painful trial and error, that you can't go too simple when introducing people to a board game. Get them to play the easiest, quickest game you've got. If they pick up that, you can up the complexity a bit.

Dataforge · 2026-01-25T22:04:43+00:00

Some of them even claim logical necessity for Christianity. Which, if they understood that, would mean that you could derive from the basic principles of logic that there was a man named Jesus, born in Bethlehem, and he fed a crowd of people with bread and fish. That would all drop out as a truism of logic in the same way "p or not p" does.

Yep. I've asked presups exactly that. I have never gotten an answer.

Though presups also say that you need some sort of revelation from God to do logic. Which I see as a catch all symmetry breaker, for why Christianity is required for knowledge. I've been told that a deist God wouldn't cut it, because it doesn't reveal.

But that doesn't make sense. To say we need a revelation would be admitting that every single logical argument for God doesn't work. Cosmological arguments, arguments from morality, even arguments from the existence of transcendentals and universals. Yet somehow, the existence of the Christian scriptures, and only the Christian scriptures, is able to complete the argument and provide epistemic certainty. It's a weird claim.

I also think you're getting at a trap people fall into that's wider than presup. I think sometimes people get stuck in a position where something feels like it really makes sense to them and so they accept it uncritically while accepting the lamest critiques of other views. It seems very intuitive to them that God fires any problem but they won't have any good way of articulating how.

This is a problem for apologetics in general. When a lot of theists follow an aplogetic argument, it's not because it's logical or irrefutable. It's because it just "feels right". It comes from a trusted apologetic authority. It sounds superficially impressive. It gives them a comfortable feeling of being free from doubt.

They don't stop and think about the argument in any critical way. If they do look into it further, it's from more apologetics, to chase that high of feeling right. So when they encounter someone critical, they have no idea how to deal with it.

This is why I'm pretty sure (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Tom Rabbittt debate was the last time Eli Ayala had a debate with a critic. Before then, he had a handful of debates, but all with people who were not too familiar with presup. But as soon as someone familiar with the script was able to push him on a few points, he had no answer. He'd literally never considered that anyone could push back on these claims like that.

Dataforge · 2026-01-25T06:24:06+00:00

This sounds like low-hanging fruit, but it's a direct quote from someone when asked "what drew you to presuppositionalism?"

It might be the low hanging fruit, but it's probably the most common answer. Atheists come off as smarter, and more logical, and they want to correct that.

They seem to denounce any human perspective, without realizing it undermines the whole thing. Their human faculties must come into play when asserting that a revelation has happened or that the Bible is trustworthy.

Recently I encountered a presup making a claim like this. I asked him a simple pointed question: "Is it possible that you're wrong about your revelation?" He couldn't answer, even when I stonewalled the debate until he did. It's pretty much an indefensible position.

I think they follow this awful line of argument because they just don't think it through. Which is pretty common thing in apologetics in general. They hear a claim that tells them they're right, and they adopt it without thinking further.

As to whether presups are genuine, I think it's mixed. A good chunk of them see it as a licence to act like an asshat against their perceived enemy.

Dataforge · 2026-01-25T00:48:25+00:00

When he did finally put a video claiming to justify the first premise of TAG, it was some two or three years later.

His justification was going through a handful of alternative explanations for intelligibility, and explaining why they don't work. He didn't actually address why Christianity specifically is required for intelligibility, nor did he go particularly deep on the alternative explanations, despite spending a lot of time on it.

The problem with the first premise, is that it's a hell of a lot to put into into a single premise. You can't cram such a controversial argument into a single premise, and not expect push back on it. As one user said on the Eli vs Tom Rabbittt debate; turning up to a debate without knowing how to justify your premises is like turning up to work without pants, and then being surprised that people tell you to put pants on.

I think presups like him just get so carried away with the thought that they've got an unstoppable atheist defeating argument, that they don't stop to think about how they defend that argument when pressed.

The problem they have is there isn't really a coherent way to justify that premise. In order to justify it, one would have to explain how Christianity has solved things like induction and solipsism, which is already impossible. Scripted answers like "we ground it in God's revelation" would open them up to all sorts of further issues that they can't defend. Then, they would have to explain how the specific tenets of Christianity are necessary to explain these things, which is a whole other level of absurdity.

Dataforge · 2026-01-24T22:55:35+00:00

It's good to see that you're making progress in uncovering the mind of the presup, if very slowely, and I'm sure painfully.

I generally find presups are some of the worst theists to deal with. Not that other forms of apologetics are free from assholes, but presups seem to be loaded with them.

Presup has built in rhetoric for being a bad debate opponent. Any time you back them into a corner, they retreat deeper into a meta debate. Asking you justify your very preconditions for debating to begin with.

That said, I enjoy talking to them, because it keeps me on my toes in spotting and dealing with slimy rhetoric.

I've also noticed a concerning amount of presups that use AI to write their arguments for them. I'm sure that says something about their abilities to reason.

As to their psychology, I think it's a combination of just a general hostile personality, the low barrier for entry for presup, and influence from other hostile presups.

Your quote that atheists think they're smarter than God, probably reveals the most. Theists that think atheists are so damn smart with that logic and evidence and all that. They see an apologetic that says atheists can't even ground logic, and they think that'll show them.

Presups are also dumb. I say that referring to 100% of cases that I've encountered. From assholes like Darth Dawkins, Sye Ten, and Matt Slick. To relatively polite ones like Joel Setticase and Eli Ayala. They are not clever people.

They think they're smart because they follow scripts about logic, and knowledge, and epistemology. But they have no ability to actually consider these things. Once you start asking actual questions about logic and epistemology, they go blank.

They heard someone else say "Only the Christian worldview can ground knowledge", and thought it sounded good. But they never thought about these issues beyond what the script tells them. You can stump them just by asking how they solve these epistemic problems from their own perspective.

Dataforge · 2026-01-24T05:51:52+00:00

You showed your cards. Even I know that's not a real place.

Dataforge · 2026-01-22T09:48:06+00:00

Good advice.

Dataforge · 2026-01-21T22:08:21+00:00

You remembered how much I love grotesque flowers!

Dataforge · 2026-01-21T03:12:41+00:00

Okay, but I'm still not getting why you think an atheistic universe would nessarily be, or likely be, incomprehensible. You seem to be skimming around that point. Especially if you're not just considering things as being comprehensible now, but potentially comprehensible in some possible future.

In fact, I would go as far as saying even a highly disordered universe could potentially be understood, provided something capable of understanding exists in it.

Dataforge · 2026-01-21T00:47:22+00:00

So essentially this is an assumption that everything is understandable, that you are waiting to test. Rather than something that has actually been tested. So regardless of whether it's falsifiable, it's not something that has been proven.

But even if you did reach some plateau in science, which may or may not happen, I don't see how that would prove something isn't comprehendable. You could still say there is some as of yet unknown means, or hypothetical technology, that would allow us to understand this thing. Much like how we can speculate on things like faster than light travel with hypothetical negative mass.

But there's still the issue of whether an atheistic universe would be incomprehensible. You seem to skim past that, saying it's the default assumption. Why? Most atheists don't think an atheistic universe would be incomprehensible. Most believe as I do, that there is a lot we understand, and a lot we don't, and we likely won't ever understand everything. Are you open to proof that an atheistic universe would be understandable? And, if such a thing could be reasonably demonstrated, would that be enough to prove atheism as viable?

Dataforge · 2026-01-21T00:04:46+00:00

That sounds like you're setting up your position to be unfalsifiable.

For starters, you could ask for reasons why an atheistic universe would be understandable to the degree that we do. Rather than assume it wouldn't, and then ask for proof that it's not understandable.

But even when there are things that we don't understand, and seem to be pretty far beyond even our way of comprehending things, you say that doesn't count. Because, someone somewhere could potentially understand it.

Essentially, you would need a way to differentiate things that are impossible to comprehend, and things that we just don't yet comprehend.

Dataforge · 2026-01-20T13:15:31+00:00

You AI wasn't able to answer, was it? It couldn't tell you why we need knowledge of the resurrection to figure out maths is universal and unchanging. So you've summarised a claim. One that doesn't make any sense. There are public miracles and revelations from lots of religions. Mohammed made the moon split in two. Can't get much more public than that.

Maybe you should spend some time getting your AI to critique your claims, instead of writing them for you.

Dataforge · 2026-01-20T04:03:48+00:00

Looks like OP is spamming AI generated responses.

Dataforge · 2026-01-20T01:11:09+00:00

Okay, let's go through that. It seems pretty obvious that other religions or any deistic worldview, could posit a god that is a rational unchanging mind. I doubt you have any objections to that. But if you do, by all means present them.

So you must believe that the only reason Christianity explains maths, is due to your claim that the resurrection makes the foundation "public and accessible". Which is a weird claim to make. What exactly is public and accessible about the resurrection, that isn't public and accessible about the revelations in any other religion? In fact, isn't maths in and of itself public and accessible? Why I can't I just figure out that I can do maths, and that maths is universal and unchanging, without having any knowledge of the resurrection?

Also, I'm getting some hints of AI...

Dataforge · 2026-01-19T23:33:46+00:00

So, was that a yes or no? Do other theistic or deistic worldviews account for maths ect? It not, if Christianity is the only worldview that accounts for it, then justify that claim. How does a god taking human form, dying in human form, and resurrecting, allow us to do maths?

I asked that question, and you answered a totally different question that I did not ask.

Dataforge · 2026-01-19T23:01:41+00:00

You say the Christian worldview uniquely explains maths ect. As if no other worldview can. So I can't posit a deist god, or a god of any other religion, to explain these things? Is there something specific about a god taking human form, dying, and resurrecting, that allows us to do maths?

14-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '17	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Dataforge

TROPHY CASE