It's a fun varient idea but it creates to many issues with color identity. If you have no idea who their commander is you can't tell if they are playing legal cards or not.
Potential cheat is a non-issue. In tournaments, decks should be registered. In casual games, well yeah, apart from social consequences and maybe shame, there aren't actual regulations.. but you can already cheat with deck building on so many levels. For example, are you sure everyone you play has a 100 cards deck?
I used to have my buttcrack exposed a lot when I was 14 years old and some people laughed behind my back. I understand why they did this because it is quite frankly not fun at all to see. But hey, maybe it's just me and I'm thick-skinned. This is totally in their control (he wasn't making fun of some people with terrible acne or visible handicaps) and there are many things you can do not to have your buttcrack exposed. Let's hope these players will be more self-conscious of their image, for themselves and others sitting behind them.
Did they just say Magic-league is having an effect this tournament?
I am surprised people are still able to play with 3rd party programs other than MTGO.
Considering torrent-hosting websites are still around, this isn't so surprising.
I recently pulled a foil Thoughtseize at the prerelease and was so excited at my luck. Thoughtseize is an amazing card, and definently holds a place as one of the money cards in Theros, but why is the reprint so low?
Before Thoughtseize was reprinted it was at a happy $57, that's very far from the current $23.
I guess my question is, why are some reprints a lot lower than others? Is it because Theros is such a good set and will be opened a lot more?
Reprinted at rare, rather than mythic. A lot of thoughtseize will be opened from now on.
The thing about the knowledge of the past is that you can't change it. If you know that an event is going to happen in the future (and you know for a certainty that it will happen because you are omniscient), then that means that you can't change it either. There is nothing that could happen differently (just like knowing the past doesn't mean you can change it), and that's what determinism is.
If your "choices" are made before you are presented with a situation, doesn't that imply that you could not possibly react in any other way? The "path" eliminates all other "possible" actions and marks the actions that you will do in your life as the only possibility. Is this really a choice when you choose wear a purple dress instead of a pink dress on your prom if it couldn't have happened any other way?
Isn't a deferral to intuition one of the issues skeptics often have with theists?
Well, yes. But an intuition is a good reason to believe in something. The challenge is transforming this intuition or belief into a convincing argument that the skeptics will have more difficulty not believing in something, or that not believing in something is more absurd than believing in it.
I am unaware of a single shred of hard evidence to back the idea of Free Will. Which reasons are you referring to?
He said the are reasons to believe in FW, I don't think he said there is any evidence. Your intuition will suggest that you indeed make choices, and that you are free to make or not those choices or nay other choice, much like my intuition would tell me that there is such as thing as "myself."
If one concludes that a being is omnipotent but not the cause for its own existence, one has to review his concept of omnipotence. If one believes that a being is omnipotent and in fact is not because he is not the cause of his own existence, then that belief is erroneous and one must look further.
The concept of God looks to break that cycle, so you don't look further ad infinitum. The being that is responsible for its own creation by its omnipotence is what you call God. The being that you think is God is irrelevant, the being that must be God is what's relevant. As such, that the AI would conclude we are omnipotent is irrelevant, because we are not (we are not the cause of our own existence). That we would conclude that what we call God erroneously because we think he is God is also irrelevant, because we have not looked far enough.
God is not the one creating the universe you live in and you think is omnipotent, God is the one that is omnipotent and is the cause of everything, including himself.
The problem is that while all of these observations are true, none are particularly relevant. Yes, we have a finite number of choices, and yes, our choices are motivated by something. None of this calls into question our free will, and in fact plays into the very idea of free will.
I wanted to be sure you agreed with my assertions before I continued, relevance will come.
If every choice you make is a finite number of choice, then the total number of choices in your life is also finite. A finite number added or multiplied any number of times never equals infinity. And that is so for every other beings who have limited choices.
Therefore, it would be possible for someone, given that he sees our first confrontation to reality, to note what possible actions are possible and needed by us. After each action is completed, a new confrontation with reality occurs and other actions or choices are needed (but they are still as limited as other choices, only your choice of actions are different based on the specificity of the situation and possibly your personality [because our actions are not random]), and so on until you die.
So I reassert, someone could write a tree of possible actions for your first confrontation with reality and so on with each new confrontation, depending on what you did first, all of them leading to "you die" at the end. No matter how complex such a thing might be to construct, it is still possible to make it.
If such a tree exists, then your life determines a path in that tree, where all your actions are marked. It would then be possible for an omniscient being to know which path is yours, and it would be impossible for that being to be wrong (because omniscience duh).
Now, you might argue that a being with omniscience does not exist. What I say to you is, what's the difference? The simple possibility that someone can predict your life because it follows a path undermines free will in my opinion.
You are saying that we're not really in control, that our choices aren't real, that there were never really multiple options, that our choices were determined before they were made. In doing so, you are asking us to make the additional assumption that this is true, and you are asking this without providing any evidence or argument that the assumption that you are asking us to add on is necessarily superior.
If I were to say that your choices are limited by what is needed and what is possible, would you agree?
First, what is needed; if you ever feel thirst, you may quench that thirst, or you may not. If you do, you can do it in a great many ways, but all of them involve the consumption of a liquid of some sort and if you do not quench your thirst in a certain amount of time, you will inevitably die.
Second, what is possible. We have seen that ignoring what you need is not possible, or at least, it is not possible to do inevitably. You can also never make the choice of flying, or go to India by swimming (well, you can, but it is impossible to swim there, your death is inevitable).
If you agree that our choices are limited, would you agree that we have a finite number of choice (quenching your thirst can be done in many ways, but there isn't an infinity of choices) when we are faced with any situation where we make a choice? If not, what makes our choice unlimited or what makes them infinite?
You're not answering the question, you're just re-asserting your original statement. Once existence is given, why does the creator need to continue to exist? I can certainly conceive of a creative force that ceases to exist after creating. It is not inherently contradictory.
That is because if you cannot admit that something which gives existence to everything and is the reason for its own existence cannot not exist, then I don't know what to do. His essence is existence, that he ceases to exist or that he ever not existed is contradictory. Try imagining someone who is both single and married or a square with three angles. If you want proof, I cannot give it to you, but admitting that he can cease to exist would mean that he is not the cause of all existence, including his own and as such, he would not be God.
Hundred of years ago when someone couldn't explain weather phenomenon or what that big bright ball in the sky was and etc, it was perfectly reasonable to believe in a "God". Primitive beings demanded explanations to what they could not explain and adopted primitive ideology as a result. It's the 21rst century however and with all of our advancements; our further understanding of science and the universe, believing in some all knowing, all seeing god is just plain silly. When the odds of a creature similar to my Thundermaw Hellkite existing on a distant planet are better than your "God" existing, yet you continue believing in said "God", you know ****'s still all kinds of ****ed up. I suspect it'll take some time before this whole religion fad starts to die down.
The idea of a creator is not at odds with science, in the sense that they don't contradict each other. Dogmas are, however.
Potential cheat is a non-issue. In tournaments, decks should be registered. In casual games, well yeah, apart from social consequences and maybe shame, there aren't actual regulations.. but you can already cheat with deck building on so many levels. For example, are you sure everyone you play has a 100 cards deck?
Anyways, my 2 cents.
Considering torrent-hosting websites are still around, this isn't so surprising.
Reprinted at rare, rather than mythic. A lot of thoughtseize will be opened from now on.
The thing about the knowledge of the past is that you can't change it. If you know that an event is going to happen in the future (and you know for a certainty that it will happen because you are omniscient), then that means that you can't change it either. There is nothing that could happen differently (just like knowing the past doesn't mean you can change it), and that's what determinism is.
If your "choices" are made before you are presented with a situation, doesn't that imply that you could not possibly react in any other way? The "path" eliminates all other "possible" actions and marks the actions that you will do in your life as the only possibility. Is this really a choice when you choose wear a purple dress instead of a pink dress on your prom if it couldn't have happened any other way?
Well, yes. But an intuition is a good reason to believe in something. The challenge is transforming this intuition or belief into a convincing argument that the skeptics will have more difficulty not believing in something, or that not believing in something is more absurd than believing in it.
He said the are reasons to believe in FW, I don't think he said there is any evidence. Your intuition will suggest that you indeed make choices, and that you are free to make or not those choices or nay other choice, much like my intuition would tell me that there is such as thing as "myself."
The concept of God looks to break that cycle, so you don't look further ad infinitum. The being that is responsible for its own creation by its omnipotence is what you call God. The being that you think is God is irrelevant, the being that must be God is what's relevant. As such, that the AI would conclude we are omnipotent is irrelevant, because we are not (we are not the cause of our own existence). That we would conclude that what we call God erroneously because we think he is God is also irrelevant, because we have not looked far enough.
God is not the one creating the universe you live in and you think is omnipotent, God is the one that is omnipotent and is the cause of everything, including himself.
I wanted to be sure you agreed with my assertions before I continued, relevance will come.
If every choice you make is a finite number of choice, then the total number of choices in your life is also finite. A finite number added or multiplied any number of times never equals infinity. And that is so for every other beings who have limited choices.
Therefore, it would be possible for someone, given that he sees our first confrontation to reality, to note what possible actions are possible and needed by us. After each action is completed, a new confrontation with reality occurs and other actions or choices are needed (but they are still as limited as other choices, only your choice of actions are different based on the specificity of the situation and possibly your personality [because our actions are not random]), and so on until you die.
So I reassert, someone could write a tree of possible actions for your first confrontation with reality and so on with each new confrontation, depending on what you did first, all of them leading to "you die" at the end. No matter how complex such a thing might be to construct, it is still possible to make it.
If such a tree exists, then your life determines a path in that tree, where all your actions are marked. It would then be possible for an omniscient being to know which path is yours, and it would be impossible for that being to be wrong (because omniscience duh).
Now, you might argue that a being with omniscience does not exist. What I say to you is, what's the difference? The simple possibility that someone can predict your life because it follows a path undermines free will in my opinion.
If I were to say that your choices are limited by what is needed and what is possible, would you agree?
First, what is needed; if you ever feel thirst, you may quench that thirst, or you may not. If you do, you can do it in a great many ways, but all of them involve the consumption of a liquid of some sort and if you do not quench your thirst in a certain amount of time, you will inevitably die.
Second, what is possible. We have seen that ignoring what you need is not possible, or at least, it is not possible to do inevitably. You can also never make the choice of flying, or go to India by swimming (well, you can, but it is impossible to swim there, your death is inevitable).
If you agree that our choices are limited, would you agree that we have a finite number of choice (quenching your thirst can be done in many ways, but there isn't an infinity of choices) when we are faced with any situation where we make a choice? If not, what makes our choice unlimited or what makes them infinite?
Well, I don't understand why people are racists, but it's more than just skin color. There's a great deal of culture involved.
I can only imagine...
"-Kids, do you know who built the pyramids?
-My dad told me it was slaves.
-Why yes... Alien slaves!"
That is because if you cannot admit that something which gives existence to everything and is the reason for its own existence cannot not exist, then I don't know what to do. His essence is existence, that he ceases to exist or that he ever not existed is contradictory. Try imagining someone who is both single and married or a square with three angles. If you want proof, I cannot give it to you, but admitting that he can cease to exist would mean that he is not the cause of all existence, including his own and as such, he would not be God.
The idea of a creator is not at odds with science, in the sense that they don't contradict each other. Dogmas are, however.