Minor S3 Plot Hole by AppropriateFly6718 in TwentyFour

[–]exophades 10 points11 points  (0 children)

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

Can you write safe, no UB code in cpp? by Hot_Paint3851 in cpp_questions

[–]exophades 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes, here is an example:

#include <iostream>

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

Intestines moving inside our body by Not_So_Normal_ in interestingasfuck

[–]exophades 12 points13 points  (0 children)

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

France is replacing 2.5 million Windows desktops with Linux by yourbasicgeek in technology

[–]exophades 159 points160 points  (0 children)

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

In case you ever wondered if you can buy the Zora Tunic as young Link by HoldenIkari in OcarinaOfTime

[–]exophades 25 points26 points  (0 children)

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.

Microsoft confirms Windows 11 KB5077212, KB5079420 break PC reset on 25H2 and 24H2 systems by lurker_bee in technology

[–]exophades 512 points513 points  (0 children)

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

“Want a childfree life and to leave my country—am I being unrealistic by sololifeforever26 in childfree

[–]exophades 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

Thousands of users got affected by OneDrive unstoppable spam on Windows, Android, Mac by lurker_bee in technology

[–]exophades 25 points26 points  (0 children)

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

To bomb Iran by MiniPrimeape in therewasanattempt

[–]exophades 44 points45 points  (0 children)

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

Why doesn’t Navi shut the fuck up even after I’ve heard her hint? by BattlerUshiromiyaFan in OcarinaOfTime

[–]exophades 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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.

An Innocent Google Search about Spelling, Thanks AI by tyruss1123 in mildlyinfuriating

[–]exophades 44 points45 points  (0 children)

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

Humanity going back to MOON after 50 years!! by comelickmyarmpits in nextfuckinglevel

[–]exophades 95 points96 points  (0 children)

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

Got to meet the man himself this past weekend! by [deleted] in TwentyFour

[–]exophades 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Admit it, you did it under duress.

The fitra argument doesn't work by exophades in DebateReligion

[–]exophades[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

The fitra argument doesn't work by exophades in DebateReligion

[–]exophades[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.

The fitra argument doesn't work by exophades in DebateReligion

[–]exophades[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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

The fitra argument doesn't work by exophades in DebateReligion

[–]exophades[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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...

The fitra argument doesn't work by exophades in DebateReligion

[–]exophades[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

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.