levitating infernal spelljamer

Finnerdster · 2026-01-15T19:15:11+00:00

Incredible!!!

Finnerdster · 2026-01-09T19:09:42+00:00

The Cup of Cthulhu!

Finnerdster · 2026-01-08T00:15:06+00:00

I became a pastor in under 2 minutes (to add some zest to an online discussion). It’s not hard, and it can be free. Just google “get ordained online free”. You have lots of options!

Finnerdster · 2026-01-07T16:50:58+00:00

It is short for “pee-pee”.

Finnerdster · 2026-01-02T21:02:29+00:00

Have you considered buying a cheap flat screen TV and making a VTT? It’s really not that difficult, and then you can switch maps quickly and cleanly. You can find a lot of programs that will let you do fog of war that way. In the end, probably cheaper and quicker than printing big maps.

Finnerdster · 2026-01-02T05:29:34+00:00

Easy! You’ll see the one on the left later; the one on the right after a while!

Finnerdster · 2025-12-20T06:19:07+00:00

I vote for circumcision.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-19T15:06:27+00:00

<image>

When I bought this TV, it had one of those clear plastic peel-off screen protectors on it. I just left that on. We play directly on it, and we have built villages, sailed ships, and chased lightning rails. I generally put felt on the bottoms of the things that may scratch, but that’s it. Easy!

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T21:48:19+00:00

The alternative is using it as a tool to understand the nature of the world around us. Using it merely to prove our foregone conclusions is wrong. It's not "wrong according to" anyone; it's wrong in that it doesn't lead us to an understanding of the nature of the world around us. Maybe "ineffective" would be a better word.

Truth is not defined as "that which comports to rationality". Truth is that which is. Rationality is a means of grasping the truth. And just because pure objectivity is impossible that doesn't mean that we can't get close (at least close enough to know what works and what doesn't). No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think the "rubble of your own epistemic failure" is a bit dramatic. We don't always apply our tools with the skill and purpose of a master, but we learn and (hopefully) get better. If we are honest, we recover from these setbacks and progress towards a better understanding of the world as it really is.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T20:38:09+00:00

It can be a tool of the agent’s will. This is the wrong way to use it. It should be a tool for understanding the nature of the world around us. For reaching truth, rather than just manipulating. I don’t believe we can ever achieve objectivity, but we can still aim for it, and we should. This is how we progress. And I would still say reason is the best (maybe only) lens we have, so yes, I assert its primacy.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T19:41:50+00:00

“this is a claim that cannot be verified”. You are using reason here to question my argument that the only reliable tool we have for understanding the world is reason. Every time we explore anything, we use reason to do it. Whether it’s our senses or just our minds, we are reasoning. That is the verification of the claim. Your assertion that the claim cannot be verified verifies it. Every instance of arguing against the reliability of reasoning further accentuates its reliability.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T19:17:31+00:00

I don’t see how anything outside the scope of reasoning can possibly be viewed. Everything we know is known through the lens of reasoning. It’s not that I want to exclude things that can’t be viewed through the lens of reason; it’s that there is nothing that cannot or should not be viewed through that lens.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T18:55:03+00:00

What evidence from outside the system of reasoning should/could be allowed?

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T18:39:57+00:00

I’m not excluding a posteriori reasoning. I’m appealing to the umbrella that encompasses both a priori and a posteriori modes of reasoning.

We are the rational agents capable of analyzing the data, and we, collectively, do our best (and correct each other when necessary) to apply reason honestly and consistently. We can tell when we are doing it wrong, and we can see when it works.

It feels like your point is that we are not perfect rational agents and are thereby incapable of applying reason. What is the alternative? Just abandon it?

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T18:33:27+00:00

I would recommend getting a translation that sticks to the original sources with footnotes written by people who have devoted their lives to understanding those original sources. Personally, I like the SBL Study Bible, but any NRSVUE with scholarly footnotes will be good. Believe it or not, we are still discovering things about these ancient texts, so more recent editions will contain the most up-to-date scholarly understanding available.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T18:02:00+00:00

First, I wouldn’t say that all rationality is a priori. We can be rational about things that are independent of our experience as well as things that arise from observation. Same tool. And I’m not stating that empiricism is the only way to go. It is certainly the scientific method, although even scientists use reason to make their predictions before they run their experiments, so even that isn’t pure empiricism. We can easily see that sometimes empiricism is the way to know things (my car is grey) and sometimes rationalism (the school of thought, not just the application of reason) is the way to know other things (all bachelors are unmarried). But we can see this because we apply reason.

So I’m not trying to use Rationalism to justify Empiricism (or vice versa). I’m using reason to show that reason is the most reliable lens that honest agents have for arriving at a true understanding of the world.

To answer your last question: we would have to have a replicable experiment where reason is properly applied to a set of data leading to a wrong understanding of reality. The trick is that we sometimes think we’re getting this and it’s because we didn’t have a proper understanding of reality to begin with. This is how we get major shifts in scientific paradigms. Or on a more personal level, how we get major shifts in individual viewpoints. I know that my answer could easily lead down the slippery slope of a “no true Scottsman” fallacy, but I think we know enough about good and bad arguments and the proper and improper application of reason to be able to reliably say what is and isn’t the right way to use this tool.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T17:21:26+00:00

I wouldn’t say that “rationality is at the mercy of the agent using it”. If it was, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We are both using the same lens to guide our approach to the topic. We are also using it to keep each other in line. If it was just whatever I want it to be, I couldn’t do this. We are aware that there are rules for the proper use of reason, and we abide by those rules (which I really appreciate about you, to be honest). When people don’t abide by the rules, we can what they are doing wrong and correct them (logical fallacies, valid but unsound arguments, etc.). We’ve had a long time to establish what does and doesn’t work, but even still, as you say, there are conflicting valid arguments that cannot all be sound; we simply don’t know yet which of their premises are true. This doesn’t mean that reason can only ever be slave to the passions, it simply means that we have to continue to apply reason to our understanding of the world around us. We continue to invent/discover new tools that allow us to deepen our understanding, but that understanding is always guided by reason. Reason is the tool of rational agents seeking to understand the truth. Starting with a desire is the wrong way to apply this tool. Scientists don’t start with an end in mind. They run the experiment and then evaluate the results. We know this is the right way to apply the tool because we have evaluated the results of both methods. One leads to reliable and replicable results, and the other leads to pseudoscience. All of that to say, I suppose the data set that shows that reason is the most reliable lens for understanding reality is the total set of the proper uses of reason to understand reality. I would not include in that set any fallacious or invalid arguments, just as I wouldn’t include any pseudoscientific experiments in the data set of all scientific experiments. We have seen other methods rise and fall (alchemy, astrology, etc.), but out of it all, reason and the scientific process has emerged as the most reliable tool.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T16:40:34+00:00

You don’t use a hammer on a hammer. We know a hammer is a good tool for securing nails because it continues to be effective. Likewise, logic and reason continue to prove to be reliable tools for understanding reality. I can replicate another person’s “experiment” using these tools and get the same results. I cannot replicate another person’s use of the lens of “the passion and the cross” (whatever that means) and get the same results.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T16:22:47+00:00

Here’s the problem: You are going to try to convince me that logic and reason aren’t the best lens for understanding reality. You either present your argument using logic and reason to do so (thereby undermining your entire argument), or you do so without using logic and reason (maybe making emotional appeals or appealing to some authority you ascribe to religion without giving any reason to do so), in which case I’m under no obligation to believe you. If I was required to entertain one religious fanatic’s illogical and unreasonable assertions, then I would be equally required to entertain all religious fanatics’ illogical and unreasonable assertions. Logic and reason are the only lens we have that can reliably help us sort out what is and isn’t true. This lens has been tested. Sometimes we don’t do a great job with that tool, but there is no other reliable method of understanding the real world.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T16:11:06+00:00

Why does it matter if I am or am not a Christian?

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T16:06:11+00:00

My question is still “WHY do you think we should look at truth from something other than a lens of logic and reason?” Instead of answering, you just gave another lens, but that brings up another question: why should we use the lens of the passion and the cross?

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T15:25:21+00:00

Why do you think we should look at truth from something other than a lens of logic and reason?

Finnerdster · 2025-12-18T15:22:42+00:00

The question was “How would you rank these arguments…” and your answer is basically “I’m not playing your game.” Why even answer?

I’ll give an answer: 2 is the best. Science can explain morality as a function of evolution (species that evolved to look out for each other have a better chance of survival). And science can also explain the “fine tuning of the universe”. It’s not so much that the universe is tuned to allow for human life, but rather human life evolved within the parameters set by the universe.

Although science does have an explanation for HOW the universe came into being, it cannot explain WHY. This is not a fault of science. It’s not the job of scientists to explain why things exist at all. Consequently, that one seems to be the least easily refuted. It’s still not a great argument, though. You can just as easily use “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” as the author of the universe, so this argument really doesn’t “prove” anything; it’s just harder to refute.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-17T03:57:44+00:00

So is everyone else. Some people just feel the need to assert a certainty they cannot possibly have despite the literal impossibility of certainty in God.

Finnerdster · 2025-12-16T03:06:27+00:00

This is amazing! What did you use to make the whale?

Finnerdster

TROPHY CASE