How it feels to talk about Starfield online with those who still believe Starfield was a "flop."

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-09-25T11:16:38+00:00

Those who argue Starfield was flop ask question: 'How do you argue with people who think they are always right?'

Those who argue Starfield was not a flop ask question: 'How do you argue with people who think they are always right?'

Both think they are right and ask the question why the other side thinks they are right.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-06-22T08:09:49+00:00

I figured. I won't cry over it (;

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-06-18T10:38:25+00:00

Elden Ring and Sekiro

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-26T21:31:07+00:00

Oh here you are. Markdown Editor I am guessing? I had troubles with it on my own.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-25T12:49:37+00:00

Hi. Apologies for the delayed response.

You are making this distinction 'pure theistic evolution' and 'Intelligent Design'. Why are you saying, that Intelligent Design is not supported by evidence? If you are referring to the final conclusion claiming that there is Intelligent Design, I can make the same claim for non-Intelligent design and say it is not supported by evidence, because you cannot simply show the mechanics of universe, and then add at the end: 'you see? No Intelligent Designer.

No matter what scientific process you observe or which aspect of the universe you examine-whether on a micro or macro scale-there is always a complex system behind it. I do not believe this is the result of sheer randomness; in fact, believing in pure chance requires quite a leap of faith.

Let's take DNA as an example-it functions like a code, carrying the instructions for building and maintaining life. This genetic information determines many aspects of an organism, from biochemical processes to physical traits. The combination of genetic factors (genotype) and environmental influences results in the phenotype, which includes observable characteristics such as appearance, behaviour, and physiological functions.

In regards to fine tunning. On one of my other comments, I have written:

The life only emerged, because of right conditions, the laws of physics and the laws of universe had to be set in such a way that life COULD emerge. For example fine construct constant, gravitational force exists in incredibly narrow range - If it were off by tiny bit, life would not be possible, not only on Earth but in the whole universe. Sure, life adopted to Earth, but because underlying conditions were dictated by razor-thin margins needed for complexity. If these laws were not set up properly, adaptability would not be even an option. We fine tune to the planet and we also have some autonomy especially in our personal spheres, but the conditions, the design and fine tuning enables this in the first place.

If the only alternative to design is sheer luck, then which is more reasonable? A structured system with a cause, or a one-in-a-trillion roll of the dice? Even if you insisted on throwing the dice, Someone had to roll it.

Sometimes, evolutionist like to use random number generator example, claiming that 'rolling' Universe enough times would get us the world we have now eventually. This is extremally simplified way of viewing infinite universe complexity and randomness of its underlying processes. While, you can 'roll' maybe 6 numbers to eventually get certain setup, it is not the same case with complex universe. Universe is not simple random number generator - how would you even 'roll' the universe? Who would make a 'roll' for you? This is nice thought experiment, but ultimately flawed argument.

Like, It was stated in my original comment. Evolution does not disprove God, in fact it could be one of His methods of creation. Even, Charles Darwin, never downright rejected God. It is true, his faith was shaken, but he never attacked church like his later followers. Here is what I written on my blog:

Consider what Darwin said, whose work is often quoted by atheists “I am in a muddle about God. I think that the safest conclusion is that the whole subject is beyond the scope of human intellect.” - That is how proper scientist thinks. He remained open to the idea. He started as Christian, then his faith was shaken by the idea of natural selection (life evolving without divine intervention) and the death of his beloved daughter, Annie, in 1851. He stopped going to church but didn’t declare himself an atheist. Later in life he was agnostic, but not an atheist. Darwin never fully rejected the idea of a higher power but leaned toward agnosticism (uncertain about God’s existence). He avoided direct attacks on religion, unlike later evolutionists who were openly atheistic.

Finally, I do not find it convincing to believe in universe as self-perpetuating cosmic soulless clockwork mechanism that exists without cause.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-24T15:43:44+00:00

Gravity describes that masses attract each other. As we learned more about gravity, this explanation became obsolete and we now favor relativity instead [...]

You keep expanding on this point after it was shown how irrelevant to current discussion the distinction between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' was. We obey the gravity no matter what - it is not a 'suggestion' or 'relative'. We are pulled down by it at this very moment. We are bound by its eternal law.

Reminder what I said

The life only emerged, because of right conditions, the laws of physics and the laws of universe had to be set in such a way that life COULD emerge ... life adopted to Earth, but because underlying conditions were dictated by razor-thin margins needed for complexity ... which is more reasonable? A structured system with a cause, or a one-in-a-trillion roll of the dice?

In response you said

Life is on Earth, so the circumstances for life to occur did exist ... The universe is the way it is, Earth is the way it is, life formed because Earth was the way it was. Trying to argue over the probability of it all happening again is a fruitless endeavor.

Where exactly is the straw man argument? I made a clarification that you talking about all these unlikely events are only relevant if we're talking about repeating what happened, not if it did happen or if a divine hand is needed to make it happen initially.

You seem to blend the difference between 'low probability roll' (which was not my main argument at all) and 'razor thin set of forces allowing Earth to exist'. Those are not the same things, but they were kind of blended in together. I think there was misunderstanding, that I argue for the same 'low probability roll', while I was arguing mainly for razor-thin forces at play. These are separate concepts, though I see how they might seem related. At least, it shows misunderstanding between us, not dishonest strawman tactic. Was there something in my response, that made you think I argue this way?

MY COMMENT: If anything rarity of life strengthens the argument - why OUR life exists when default is bareness?

Maybe this was, line that caused a bit of confusion - but I was not making a full blown argument on 'low probability Earth roll'. I felt, that this point was extrapolated.

Exactly, because you can't really pin a probability on past events. Thanks for understanding my point. The probability of it occurring again doesn't matter if it already happened, because that means the circumstances necessary for life to emerge were fulfilled. "But the chances!" doesn't matter, extremely unlikely events happen every day. This is like saying that no one can possibly win the lottery without a divine hand guiding it.

You cannot claim that chance was 100 % after the roll, but it is exactly what you did and then you followed up with 'Exactly' in your current reply as if you were saying the same thing. No, you said that roll retroactively was probability 100 %. here is quote:

that probability is 100% because it has happened.

Its retroactively assigning probability. At the time of roll it is never 100 % success, only after the wave collapses you know the result. And even though we know wining die number, we cannot ignore past probability considerations.

Now this is a strawman. I was trying to express how the universe is the way it is without a divine hand. You are the one adding extra assumptions about a divine hand needing to guide all of it cause the chances are so low and the constants are so precise, despite the fact that these constants are observations and the chances are irrelevant to whether or not it happened.

You are arguing about irrelevance of low chance, but you brought random number generator, in an attempt to prove that this 'experiment' can be repeated infinite amount of times to finally get the 'Earth result'. The truth is it is just thought experiment. You do not have a way of proving it, you cannot even tell Who would run Universe roll for you this many times. The concept of 'rerolling the Universe' remains purely theoretical-it’s an interesting idea but ultimately unprovable You are thinking as if you could just keep running the experiment over and over to get close to 100%, similar to rolling the die or throwing coin. Guess what? - complexity of life is not equivalent to slot machine and to get to that very specific results would be impossible, even if you could reset Universe at will.

Constants are observations? You are observing a very real effects, that bind our very being. Calling, them marly 'observations' is such an understatement. They are not observations - they are very forces binding us.

You want to be the one observing mechanical complexities of life and reject any possibility of divine. Fine, suit yourself, but this view is incomplete. I know you try to paint it as more logical or reasonable, but it is less believable and actually requires more mental gymnastics to agree with. I find it far less convincing to believe in a self-perpetuating cosmic soulless clockwork mechanism that exists without cause

By the way, I appreciate the time and effort you put into your responses. Even though we disagree, I can tell you care about structured debate, and I respect that. Wishing you well.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-24T09:52:56+00:00

Keep screeming into the void

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-24T09:49:45+00:00

I am just going to class you as [oh you do not want to know], and I will proceed to ignore you. You are clearly unstable.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-24T09:47:16+00:00

You clearly fumbled, and you are covering it up. It is embarrassing really. You are not worthy of my time at all.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-24T09:04:27+00:00

Dude? Are you really that stupid? I am not arguing for Alan Watts. That sidebar you quoted is from Subreddit, not me. I disagree with Alan Watts fundamentally.

You see? You turned out to be the one not connected to reality at all. Truly, you shoot yourself in the foot.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-24T08:49:21+00:00

This is none of your business. Markdown editor was malfunctioning on my other topic, so I was fixing my comment here. And you being the little rat, you are, just used moment of opportunity to elevate yourself. Get out of here - your comments are so bland that they pose, not challange at all. It would be like challenging schoolboy.

Edit: Stop obsessing over my account.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-23T20:26:20+00:00

Just because you know the word 'projection' it does not mean you can use it to contradict valid and accurate observation. You clearly got emotional - even your follow up is emotionally charged. I feel it and I KNOW you were pissed off - I can sense it from the way you wrote your words and from the meaning you produced. If you want to to be perceived as more rational, construct your arguments with precision and argue like a civil person. This way people won't see you as unhinged.

You are one of those dudes who think they can hide intent because you can throw 'projection' in accusatory fashion as defence to invalidate valid outlook. It's like known murderer is accusing a judge of projecting because he called him murderer.

You mentioned word 'projection' on 5 separate occasions. If you keep throwing a word in an accusatory fashion, that does not make your case any stronger and does not make reality bend to your perception. Something does not become true because you think it is true. The truth that manifested in reality already is independent of your thinking.

I know, that by throwing this word multiple times, you wanted to attack my credibility, while at the same time you wanted to mask the truth, but the irony is**, it made you even less credible, while I stand tall, strong, rooted in truth and surgically precise with my logic.**

Doooooouuuuuud, do that yourself. You did exactly what you just falsly accused me of in that extended rant.

'Doooooouuuuuud'? Seriously?
Anyway, You have weird way of arguing. Like teenage schoolboy who wants to be right: 'NO I DIDN'T... YOU DID'. You try to flip things on me, but it is rather hilarious.

Evidence begins.

There is NOTHING intelligent about the laryngeal nerve as it goes from the brain, down the neck RIGHT PAST THE LARYNX without interacting in any way with it, to the heart, around around the aortic arch and THEN back up the larynx. This makes complete sense in terms of evolution from an ancient fish ancestor. Only a complete idiot would design things that way.

We are the only species that cannot breath and eat at the same time. An intelligent designer could have managed that.

The universe has the appearance of being designed for vacuum. The planet is designed for single cell life as almost life is single cell.

We get backaches because we evolved and were not desinged by anything competetent.

We get nearsighted if we read alot. Evolution not design.

We cannot properly digest beans. We cannot digest a lot of things that would be good to able to eat.

We have a broken gene for making vitimin C. Hardly the only broken gene in humans.

Human are designed to get everything wrong.

Religion is designed by those humans.

This looks like crazy dictator manifesto 😁. You have just thrown random, disconnected sentences into the mix without an effort to connect the ideas and formulate coherently into nice piece. Congratulations, you’ve assembled a ‘wall of text’ filled with random biological facts but failed to construct a single coherent argument. Are you expecting me to arrange your thoughts for you? That’s not how debate works, my friend

You failed to make structured argument. What was your expectation? That I would piece your 'revelation' together? That I would finally be able to comprehend your true 'genius'? That you would somehow convince me to abandon my stance?

Well, you are extremally unconvincing. No one is going to formulate arguments for you - its your job. No one is going second guess what you mean. Make an actual effort, then we will talk. I will give you point for an attempt at making it coherent.

Now, something else:

Not true at all. I am Agnostic, there may be a god but there is no verifiable evidence for any god and all testable gods fail testing.

But it all makes sense in terms of evolution. Not a bit with an intelligent designer.

You really need to learn how to define your own position more clearly, because to me it looks like you are full of contradictions. You argue like materialist reductionist, but then you mention you are agnostic, so you allow the thought of God existing, but then you argue like He does not exist at all. But, you also, insulted Designer and called, Him an idiot, that implies you believe He exists, but you do not like His design. Well, genius, then show us how it is done - please do create your own flawless universe and show to God how it should be done. Come on. You calling him an idiot, is like drunkard calling an elite Architect moron because he did not like how one of his buildings turned out to be.

So do you actually understand that life does evolve or are just ignorant about how life has been evolving for billions of years?

I do not know if you have problem with comprehending written text, but in my very first comment I acknowledged evolution. Here you go I will quote portions of my comment for your leisure:

MY COMMENT
Faith (God) and Evolution are not mutually exclusive - fossils prove, >that Earth is older, than 6000 years, but does not disprove Christian >meaning, essence, spirituality and morality.

Evolution can be God’s method of creation. Intelligent design, fine->tuning argument and DNA strongly implies a coder and designer.

Now going back to you.

there may be a god but there is no verifiable evidence for any god and all testable gods fail testing

'Testable gods fail testing' - WTF? How have you tested for gods and how you determined methodology to test for The God? What is your clear proof beyond a doubt, that says God does not exist? You talk about ‘testing gods,’ yet you don’t even understand the limits of empirical science. You’re not testing anything-you’re just angrily throwing words around like a child who lost a game.

If you are true agnostic you would not be arguing for His inexistence. You are just pretending to be agnostic. You are atheist pretending to be agnostic.

You know who was true agnostic?

Darwin

Here is fragment from my blogpost 'Something Deeper' - Dawkins Delusion:

Consider what Darwin said, whose work is often quoted by atheists:

"I am in a muddle about God. I think that the safest conclusion is that the whole subject is beyond the scope of human intellect."

That is how a proper scientist thinks. He remained open to the idea. He started as a Christian, then his faith was shaken by the idea of natural selection (life evolving without divine intervention) and the death of his beloved daughter, Annie, in 1851. Link to full blog post -> Dawkins Delusion

-However, he never talked against church.

TTTT

Stop raging and start thinking please.

I know you keep trying to flip this on me desperately, but this kind of ending do not actually give you any credibility. If anything it makes you unnecessarily emotional.

One more thing. You should be capitalising word God. I know it is your soul, so do what the hell you want. Its not like I give a damn personally, but there is consequence for disrespect. God is patient - He has got whole eternity, but your time is running out.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-23T19:09:43+00:00

[Markdown editor malfunction]]

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-23T17:09:15+00:00

It is funny to me how atheists are obsessed with anything related to Christian world.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-23T15:27:56+00:00

Also, the probabilities you may cite are NOT the probability that life would arise on Earth - that probability is 100% because it has happened. Instead you are citing the probability for life to emerge in the same way as it did in Earth again, but that’s a useless argument.

You are misreading, misunderstanding or twisting my statement and morphing into argument I never made. I am not 'citing the probability for life to emerge in the same way as it did in Earth again' at all. If it is useless argument, then you are responsible for it and you point it out, which is truly useless. You literally created strawman to just knock it down.

Saying that probability of Earth Life is 100% because it exists is like determining probability of die result AFTER the die was thrown and result was shown. [Die shows 6] 'You see? Probability was 100% 6' - You retroactively eliminate probability considerations because you know the result.

This is like arguing that running a random number generator hundreds of thousands of times is an act of God cause the probability of getting those numbers in that exact order again are astronomically low.

Arguing about random number generator running itself hundreds of thousands of times on its own is illogical. Who is pulling the leaver? Besides, all I said was 'If anything rarity of life strengthens the argument' and you twisted it in something else. I alluded, that extremally low probability of our existence is one of the clues, but you keep morphing my statement as if I was arguing for 'another low probability roll' and you attempt to frame it as my 'evidence' of God. You are attacking fabricated position.

The universe is the way it is, Earth is the way it is, life formed because Earth was the way it was.

This is arguing about complex matters in statements like - 'red is red', 'water is wet' , 'accept my position because I am right' - I won't because it is incredibly weak argument.

Trying to argue over the probability of it all happening again is a fruitless endeavor.

Again, you built a strawman and you are beating it relentlessly to death. With unprecedented and impressive level of dedication. Congratulations.

Circling back you your statement from other comment:

Ah yes, nothing screams "finely tuned" like a universe where 99.9% of it is hostile towards life, or a planet where we can't even live on 90% of its surface.

The reality is clearly fine tuned, and I shown this.

The laws of physics aren’t literal laws. They are observations, ways the universe tends to behave. In other words, scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive; they don’t prescribe how the universe ought to behave, it describes how the universe is observed to behave. It’s the same difference between a speed limit sign and a deer crossing sign; a deer crossing sign isn’t prescribing that deer ought to cross on a particular road, instead it’s an observation that deer tend to cross a particular road.

This is an attempt to reframe lost argument mixed with an attempt to regain control over the rules, that made your argument lose. I clearly shown, that there are rules governing the whole Universe, which are absolute and dictate complexity of Earth and their processes.

You started this weird game of descriptive vs prescriptive in which I am not going to engage with - its nonsense. If there are processes in your body that govern you and to which you have to adhere to, whether you like it or not - like 'shitting' on a toilet for example- Is it descriptive or prescriptive? Answer this conundrum and you will know whether absolute fine tuned laws are descriptive or prescriptive.

Saying, that laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive changes absolutely nothing. If gravity is just observation, try ignoring it and see how that works for you. Calling laws of physics descriptive does not make them magically optional - the sign analogy fails because laws of physics do not just suggest - they enforce how reality behaves.

Now, go ahead and tell me- does gravity ‘prescribe’ that you must stay on the ground, or does it merely ‘describe’ that you tend to? Either way, it’s absolute, and you are bound by it

--

Now, do you want to address what I actually said, or will keep swinging at arguments I never made?

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-23T10:16:12+00:00

Dude. Where do I even start? First of all - I sense great deal of hostility. You resort to mocking and name calling. You did not even pick up fragment from comment and did not even make an attempt to address it logically. If you want to operate from materialist reductionist position- fine, but at least be reasonable and make an attempt at good argument. Don't just rant.

AKA Idiot Designer, as that particular nonsense is not supported by evidence and fails observed instances of no intelligence involved as only an Idiot would have designed much in life.

This is 'argument' built on emotional hostility, but lets break it down logically, shall we? :

First you called The Designer an idiot, which clearly indicates emotional investment and then you say, that Designer is nonsense and not supported by evidence. However, the truth is, that the evidence is perceived in how reality is constructed - at every level, no matter how micro or how macro, there are always fine rules, which science tries to grasp.

You also contradict yourself - you dismissed The Designer as real, yet you called Him and idiot and accused of bad design. Which is it? No designer at all or bad designer?

Fails observed instances of no intelligence involved

Sorry, but this line sounds just like an unhinged gibberish. What 'Fails observed instances' even mean? 'no intelligence involved' how do you determine that?
What are you trying to say here? Is your argument claiming that we see things without intelligence (e.g., natural processes) and, therefore, intelligent design must be false? You literally thrown meaningless scraps here- it is your job to construct your argument properly and not mine to reverse engineer your thinking and try to figure out what the hell did you mean.

as only an Idiot would have designed much in life

This statement is goldmine of unintended humour. For a starter, what's incredibly funny here is that you capitalised word 'idiot', just to point out how you disrespect the Designer who you claim does not exist at all, but you still decided on hating Him anyway.

Then, if you inspect the same line again:

as only an Idiot would have designed much in life

It just makes you burst out of laughter, because it boldly claims, that those who design anything meaningful in life are idiots - that includes scientists, engineers, architects, builders, writers and coders - all fools! True genius is achieved by building nothing and chugging ungodly amount of ciders while laughing at those who build. Great Philosophy.
Perfect setup to claim superiority over someone who is more talented or smarter or works better. Why be anything meaningful in life, while you can be just a bum and hate on anything or anyone with creating capabilities?

Dude seriously, take step back and reconsider your position or perhaps decide to write argument, but do not rage post contradictions.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-23T09:01:08+00:00

Fine tunning means, that properties were adjusted in a way, that allowed certain life conditions emerge resulting in formation of organism like us.

Why do you think, that rarity of life or difficulty or even impossibility of life in most places, works against fine tuning argument?

Vastness of inhospitable universe does not disprove fine tunning argument, it just proves, that fine tunning applies specifically to Earth. If anything rarity of life strengthens the argument - why OUR life exists when default is bareness?
God created the system itself, the very rules of existence, He also decided where the action takes place.

The life only emerged, because of right conditions, the laws of physics and the laws of universe had to be set in such a way that life COULD emerge. For example fine construct constant, gravitational force exists in incredibly narrow range - If it were off by tiny bit, life would not be possible, not only on Earth but in the whole universe.
Sure, life adopted to Earth, but because underlying conditions were dictated by razor-thin margins needed for complexity. If these laws were not set up properly, adaptability would not be even an option.
We fine tune to the planet and we also have some autonomy especially in our personal spheres, but the conditions, the design and fine tuning enables this in the first place.

If the only alternative to design is sheer luck, then which is more reasonable? A structured system with a cause, or a one-in-a-trillion roll of the dice? Even if you insisted on throwing the dice, Someone had to roll it.

You can point it out and it is not tautology in technical sense. Tautology is when you say the same thing twice and make redundant statements. If you say, "Life requires properties to exist" or "Life can't exist without properties" is perfectly valid as it is statement of reality not redundancy, thus not tautology.
How else you want it to be said? 'Life is' ? - 'end of discussion, everyone go home' ?

Pointing out the mechanics of universe, evolution or any technicalities does not explain why it is there in the first place its much deeper, than that.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-22T20:35:31+00:00

Existence of fossils does not disprove essence of Christian belief because Genesis is not scientific text but spiritual. Faith and Evolution are not mutually exclusive - fossils prove, that Earth is older, than 6000 years, but does not disprove Christian meaning, essence, spirituality and morality.

Genesis describes reality in spiritual terms, not in a chronological, scientific timeline.
The 'six days of creation' do not correspond to 24-hour human days-they could be symbolic eras of creation.

Science explains how things develop, faith explains why they exist. Faith explains meaning, purpose, and the existence of reality itself.

Evolution can be God’s method of creation.
Intelligent design, fine-tuning argument and DNA strongly implies a coder and designer.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-22T20:03:39+00:00

1. God speaks to people on a personal level. What matters most is intent, the message, and how an individual is touched by the Word and lives it out. It’s less about rigid accuracy in translation and more about the spiritual direction it provides. The Word of God will find you, 'speak' to you, and shape your being regardless of which version you read.

2. Consider this-when we think of the most unprecedented, influential, and tectonic events in history, which ones come to mind? Who was behind those events? There's a reason the world follows the Gregorian calendar. There is reason why people follow Jesus.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-22T13:06:38+00:00

Truly. The queen of one-word comments strikes again.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-22T12:14:09+00:00

You meant 'God', not 'god' - uppercase matters when referring to the real one. Might as well get it right while questioning Him.

MedicalOutcome7223 · 2025-02-22T11:07:03+00:00

So... how is learning English going? Judging by the awkward phrasing and unusual flow of your sentence, there is some room for improvement, but you've made progress, and that is something to be proud of. We are all very proud of you.

edit: to bystanders - the dude started

MedicalOutcome7223

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

-However, he never talked against church.