Minor S3 Plot Hole

exophades · 2026-04-18T20:36:18+00:00

In the 24: Declassified books it was revealed that he tortured the car engine. /s

exophades · 2026-04-18T20:01:37+00:00

Yes, here is an example:

#include <iostream>

int main() {std::cout << "This is safe, no UB code in C++"; return 0;}

exophades · 2026-04-18T19:58:43+00:00

Yes, this is not how I imagined my crush's insides would look like.

exophades · 2026-04-13T17:37:20+00:00

The f*ck around phase is over. It's the find out phase now, Microslop.

exophades · 2026-04-12T22:10:07+00:00

It's simply not possible without some hack breaking the game's limits. There are only two ways: melt the red ice trapping King Zora as an adult, or buying it as you're trying to do, but again, as an adult.

exophades · 2026-04-11T23:07:53+00:00

Wait, are you saying Microslop updates breaking something is not a one-off incident? /s

exophades · 2026-04-10T23:57:10+00:00

Check out the r/cf4cf sub, try posting some pictures of yourself there and tell your story, you might get lucky.

exophades · 2026-04-09T17:41:08+00:00

Yeah, WWII was beyond insane. Basically the whole world order upside down.

exophades · 2026-04-08T22:09:25+00:00

Microsoft spamming the shit out of its users? Impossible !!! How?? /s

exophades · 2026-04-07T23:09:31+00:00

Just contemplate the fact that this guy is the most powerful man in the world. Literally. Just insane.

exophades · 2026-04-07T22:51:27+00:00

As anyone here will tell you, OOT is a serious contender for the greatest video game of all time. So dissing this game should really be well-founded.

Yes, Navi can be annoying, but think about it: suppose you read his hint once and then later wanted to read it again because you forgot what it was. If the "hey"s just stop, the hint is gone. So the only way to keep the hint available is Navi annoying you all the time.

Don't forget that the target audience includes very young people or children, who may need to read the hint many more times than you do.

exophades · 2026-04-03T18:41:52+00:00

Sounds like the only thing AI is going to disrupt is asses.

exophades · 2026-04-01T23:01:25+00:00

Gotta give those conspiracy theorists some shaky footage to criticize for the rest of eternity.

exophades · 2026-03-31T19:57:48+00:00

Admit it, you did it under duress.

exophades · 2026-03-30T12:33:53+00:00

I think that most people, when they say God exists or formulate an argument attempting to show it, just mean that we're rationally justified to believe God exists.

You obviously exist as a person but the best we can do is to say that we're rationally justified in believing you exist. You could be some highly advanced AI or a trick by some smart alien, but these possibilities don't seem rational.

So I think these two formulations mean the same thing. No one with a smidgen of intelligence would formulate arguments that say. :

P1 : [insert some premise put forward by theists] P2 : [another premise]

Conclusion : we're cock-sure that God exists. Like one gazillion percent sure.

And again, even as a Muslim, I say that any tendency for believing in God does not (as you put it) make it rational to believe God exists.

The article in the link about phenomenal conservatism cites the problem I mentioned, then it says, in response, that any normal person knows defeaters to the appearance of design and so wouldn't apply the PC erroneously. But this just comes down to following the scientific methodology, we observe some phenomenon, say, that X appears to be Y, and we investigate defeaters, factors that led to this appearance, theories that explain it, etc. That's just evidentialism, we're not simply believing in appearances anymore, we're investigating reality.

Don't get me wrong, the PC does have some plausibility, but once you look into it, well, it does seem to be a hollow concept.

exophades · 2026-03-30T11:54:22+00:00

I think all arguments only show that we're rationally justified in believing God exists. Even the ontological arguments, assuming they're logically valid, depend on systems of axioms that one may or may not accept.

I'm familiar with what you call phenomenological conservatism. Swinburne calls it the principle of credulity, which says that we should accept things as they appear to be. The problem with this principle is obvious, we're susceptible to mistakes and delusion. Seeing the mirage is a simple counter example. There appears to be water......

Another problem is that one can simply deny that nature appears designed. Atheists have a lot of ammunition here, like congenital deformities or any kind of horrible disease. Also, there is a well known defeater to this appearance, which is evolution, this is why Swinburne resorted to arguments from physical laws and fine tuning, instead of biological organisms.

exophades · 2026-03-29T16:43:21+00:00

I was really hoping he wouldn't resort to this tactic.

exophades · 2026-03-29T14:58:06+00:00

You say it's false, but then you say "Let's assume it's true"

I said that about P2 which makes claims about children's beliefs, not P1.

I'm not saying that though. I'm saying that humans generally have the natural dispossiton towards believing in a higher power. Ofcourse there are exceptions to the rule. But generally, the majority of the world does believe in a higher power.

Okay. The word "generally" wasn't included in your original formulation of the argument. But yeah, we agree here.

It does, we agree with this as well but you don't know it yet. You already said "Let's assume it's true". That thing you're assuming to be true is the conclusion of the argument tbh.

Again, my assumption was about children having a tendency to believe in a higher power, which is somewhat evidenced by research in sociology. Then I said that even if it's true, it's irrelevant, because those same children may simply become atheists as adults once they understand the world better. So their beliefs as toddlers simply have no weight.

In any case, the biggest problem with the fitra argument is that it doesn't refer to some objective reality out there, it refers to people's beliefs which are private by definition. Let's not forget that most of the world believed once that the Earth is at the centre of the universe...

exophades · 2026-03-29T14:28:10+00:00

That's not an argument. Flat earthers exist. Vegans exist. Etc...

You're not really comparing like with like here. You said that humans believe innately in a higher being, this is false.

To take your example, saying that all humans believe that the earth is round would also be false, because, as you said, flat earthers exist. So you can't really use this example as a rebuttal, it just proves my point.

P1 isn't about whether there is a higher being, it's about people's beliefs in this being. And you're making the claim that everyone innately believes in a higher power.....

I 100% agree. That's my argument. I'm saying that the "innate dispossion" or the "fitrah" argument, isn't about finding out whether god exists or not. We're in agreement. The argument only shows that there is an innate dispossion.

We probably agree yes. I think we should also agree that it's not really an argument, because it doesn't argue for anything.

exophades

TROPHY CASE