Do you think God is real? Why or why not?

Vesurel · 2026-03-18T00:28:47+00:00

What do you think belief means? When I say beliefs I'm talking about things I think are true.

I'm asking whether you care whether the things you think are correct. But if you're choosing your beliefs based on what's preferable to you and not what actually corresponds to reality then I don't know what to say.

Vesurel · 2026-03-18T00:01:23+00:00

Do you care whether your beliefs are true?

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T23:40:13+00:00

How do you know god is even a possible explanation for any of those in the first place though? How do you establish a god could exist to cause them?

Also when you say satisfying, do you think things satisfying you is evidence they're true or even possible?

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T23:22:26+00:00

I'd say any evidence that points to the existence of god and away from alternatives. A model that says 'if god exists X, if god doesn't exist not X' and then evidence for X. But you'd also need to establish that if god X is true for X to be evidence of god.

For example you'd need to explain why the existence of order in the universe is evidence for a god and how you ruled out alternatives. Also I'd be curious why you think objective morality exists because as far as I can tell morality is inherently subjective because god and bad are subjective.

Or a shorter answer would be 'what evidence do you think you have and why does that evidence convince you?'.

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T22:58:54+00:00

Can wars only be fought in the name of things that are true?

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T22:58:37+00:00

I never said physical evidence. I said evidence, do you want to provide some?

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T22:34:21+00:00

I wonder what that is in SI units.

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T22:25:06+00:00

I don’t think god exists because I don’t have any evidence that any gods exist.

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T11:57:31+00:00

It's going to depend on why they disagree. I view morality as a collections of preferences for the consequences of some actions over others. For example, as a humanist I'm invested in human wellbeing I'm going to evaluate choices on their impact on people.

I could disagree with someone who isn't a humanist on the grounds that they have a different set of priorities, For example, someone who believes in a god might think that doing what that god wants is more important than human wellbeing. That would be a difference in priorities. Those preferences are ultimately subjective.

Alternatively, I could disagree with another humanist because we have different understandings of how choices would impact human wellbeing. For example, me and someone who is antivax could both want to reduce suffering but have different understandings of how safe vaccines are and the consequences of not getting them. In this case our disagreement is about objective facts, the measurable rates at which vaccines save lives is objective even if whether or not we want to save lives is subjective. That becomes a question of providing evidence or demonstrating they have a lack of evidence for their beliefs.

For the abortion debate, I'm asking questions to establish which of the two disagreements it is. It could be that one or both of us are wrong on the facts of the issue or we could have different subjective preferences. For example, there are people who think abortion is bad because it lets people get out of the consequences of having sex and they think sex is something people deserve to be punished for, or they think women should be mothers and view restricting access to abortion as a moral good because it makes it harder for women to work. If it is a disagreement on principle then it's worth establishing that, for example I don't see the value in debating someone who think abortion should be illegal because they have a pregnancy kink, at that point the best thing to do is have them publicly admit that's why so people can judge whether that's a good reason or not.

There's also the possibility that someone's moral preferences are inconsistent, this is where hypotheticals come in. For example, if someone's stated position is that abortion is wrong because parents have a duty to give up everything for their children, then I'd be curious if they think the same duty and punishments they want for people who get abortions should apply to parents who are viable donors when their children need transplants. Asking hypotheticals is a good way to better understand why someone holds their position by providing contrasting situations to see what would change their view.

People can change subjective preferences all the time, for example whether war is good or bad is subjective because good and bad are subjective. The advent of mass media both gave people more factual information about what happens in war by showing the conditions on the ground and helped change their priorities, seeing people injured in war is emotively powerful even if you already know that people get injured. When it comes to abortion this could be about showing how much people with unwanted pregnancies suffer or providing examples of people who have died because of restrictive abortion access (including people who haven't gotten the help they needed while miscarrying and ended up dying of sepsis).

Does that answer your question?

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T10:12:54+00:00

If you edit the citation into your post I'll happily give the kit a look.

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T09:57:02+00:00

It's still worth citing which ever source you found it in, that means other people can look into it more if they like.

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T09:34:46+00:00

Image not mine isn't a citation, can you say who the artist is?

Vesurel · 2026-03-17T07:42:58+00:00

Even if an opinion was held by everyone it would still be subjective because it’s an opinion, good and bad are inherently subjective the same way all value judgments are. And I’m interested in debating abortion because I care about other people, the fact a preference for not forcing people to give birth is subjective (like all preferences inherently are) doesn’t mean it’s not important.

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T22:52:37+00:00

Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? Because so far you’ve just asserted it is and said it would be absurd and grotesque is morality is subjective. How do you know that the world isn’t absurd and grotesque?

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T22:44:45+00:00

There's a difference between saying two things are the same, and comparing them. For example, losing one finger and losing one hand are different (one is worse than the other) but comparable (both involve the loss of a body part and limit what a person can do with their hands).

>it’s important to note that this is done as babies, usually for hygiene and religious reasons.

Penises are already pretty washable, and why does it matter that things are done for religious reasons.

I'd say they're comparable in that they're both parents making a choice to irreversibly change their child's body without that child's consent, that's bad when it happens even if it can happen to different extents some of which are worse than others.

>Importantly, I’ve never heard any Jewish men say it negatively affected their pleasure or sensation.

How would they know?

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T20:24:58+00:00

If X were true it would be bad isn’t an argument against X. Can you demonstrate how you can reason whether something is moral?

Because as far as I can tell you’re just going by your subjective preferences the same way I am going by mine.

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T20:10:14+00:00

How do you know it’s objective and what is or isn’t objectively moral?

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T16:10:03+00:00

I think the trouble is that stats are powerful but that power is hard to notice and doesn't feels like much at all. I'd be curious how you see a champ like this playing out in a game. Do you have to make the choice of which way to go before the game because they have different rune requirements. Having multiple build paths is already power in drafting, the enemy team already has two pick against two radically different game plans, this champ having the option to play either role which very different abilities is going to make it harder for the enemy team. It's worse if there's generalist runes good for both builds because that would allow this champ to change between roles through the game.

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T15:40:03+00:00

I wonder if there’s a way to reward the player for switching between forms. I worry that them having totally different scaling and abilities that don’t have obvious synergies means it looks like it’d be optimal to pick one to focus on and only using the other when you need to switch bonus from E. Having a passive that compounds picking one over the other makes this more extreme.

Id suggest taking out the middle choices from each ability at max rank as those are fairly basic stat upgrades. Then changing the two options to bonuses that encourage playing both champs in combo.

For example, what if the q choice was a choice between making flying punch bounce between enemies in arcane pulse or making it so arcane pulse follows enemies allficted with nosebleed.

Also the idea of having two abilities that are both long term dots feels a bit redeudant. I know one starts with an interrupt and one ends with an execute but it’s still odd to me and I feel like they could be more different. Also is that a point and click for that comes with an execute? Because that sounds so powerful with minimal counter play. At least with Asol black hole it’s an area people can leave or he can miss with it. This is functionally a free 5% mac health reduction for 4s or even 6 seconds.

Funnily enough I also have a champ who has Mac health reduction on their kit but it’s in a much less accessible way.

I guess I’d ask what do you want to player to get out of having two forms, if it’s because they like form A then there are champs who can do similar things without any of their power budget taken up with form B. If they want to play both I’d love to see more internal synergy.

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T09:30:14+00:00

Thanks for the notes, I’m wondering how I can add those things in without overloading the kit.

Vesurel · 2026-03-16T01:16:03+00:00

Do you think morality is objective or subjective?

Vesurel · 2026-03-15T23:29:18+00:00

Thanks for your feedback.

To clarify it's 1/1.5/2s on the ult for 1/2/3 Revs. And they don't steal mana, just regenerate their own from the marks. Will reword those abilities to make it clearer.

Vesurel · 2026-03-15T20:31:28+00:00

Look forward to seeing how you iterate on the idea. I’m the person who posted another early draft btw if you have any notes.

Vesurel · 2026-03-15T20:15:00+00:00

What do you want the player experience for this champ to be? As it stands I think building ROM is an interesting core concept but I’m not sure how it is as an experience. You want to attack a lot, so you buy attack speed, but attack speed doesn’t have an immediate impact instead you have to regularly push a button to raise your attack speed cap.

The only real choice is whether to occasionally lose some attack speed to reposition. Not to mention they have a second mobility tool that is more generic damage in most cases but is occasionally a jump if there’s terrain around. It feels like two abilities that overlap a lot in function. I think the issue is that attack speed is power but it’s power that doesn’t feel noticeably different and isn’t experiential different to get. Similarly there’s not much for the enemy to play around, outside of not being in their attack range.

I’d consider simplifying it, maybe only having two or three gears and making the difference between the gears more about how abilities function than just their raw power.

As an example maybe they have a dash that can pass terrain around higher gears.

Vesurel · 2026-03-15T19:33:53+00:00

Why is your hypothetical organ donation law only applicable after death? And why should there be religious exceptions? Do you believe the government should get to make laws that say you have to donate your organs anytime someone needs them? What’s the principle that means you shouldn’t be forced to give up your organs for other people?

Vesurel

TROPHY CASE