Messages

187

General Discussion / Re: Villagecraft Weekly- vc's newspaper!

« on: 28 October 2020, 07:03:27 PM »

Lmao this is great

188

General Discussion / Re: Next Event! October Community Showcase - Sheep Central

« on: 21 October 2020, 08:49:51 PM »

Could you tell who the flag carrier was? It would be cool if it was their hat while they carried it, so it's really visible

189

General Discussion / Re: Next Event! October Community Showcase - Sheep Central

« on: 21 October 2020, 05:07:48 PM »

How did capture the flag work exactly? Sounds cool

190

Rules | Info | Support / Re: List of VillageCraft Staff Members

« on: 15 October 2020, 05:24:59 PM »

-Cleaned up former staff list info, possibly missed some.
-Added Auxiliary Staff category to correctly reflect what role some members occupy sometimes.

191

General Discussion / Server is whitelisted while we update to 1.16.3

« on: 8 October 2020, 01:44:53 PM »

Please hold tight as we get everything ready!

Welcome to 1.16! http://www.villagecraft-server.com/forum/index.php?topic=5181.0

192

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul

« on: 5 October 2020, 03:16:31 PM »

So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.

Established scientific theories were what I meant when it comes to theoretical evidence, sorry for not being clearer on that. Regarding the definition of God, let's use the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on God as a baseline:

"In monotheistic thought, God is conceived of as the supreme being, creator deity, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. These attributes are used either in way of analogy or are taken literally. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). Incorporeality and corporeality of God are related to conceptions of transcendence (being outside nature) and immanence (being in nature) of God, with positions of synthesis such as the 'immanent transcendence'"

For the sake of this discussion, I feel like it'd be best if we prioritized discussing the likelihood of the existence of a god in general before potentially discussing why or why not it would be more likely for God as defined in the Islamic faith in particular to exist as opposed to the view presented in other faiths. That way, it'd help keep the conversation more grounded/clear-cut and less likely to descend into multiple Inception-esque levels of discussion deviating from the original topic.

Ok, you want to discuss the likelyhood that a single generic god exists. I posit that there is a low likelyhood, given so many years of this claim going on and no evidence to support it. Where's the evidence? We've had thousands of years now, why is there nothing concrete we can point to? Why is it that the best anyone can do is provide subjective notions and/or worse; faith - the belief in something without proof.

How can this god be omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) all at the same time? This seems to be self-contradictory. Take an innocent, disadvantaged African child with aggressive bone cancer as our example. I suppose this god put this into motion then. Paraphrasing Epicurus, Hume, Heinlein, Hawking, etc:
Is it willing to give this child a fair chance at life, but not able? Then it is not omnipotent.
Is it able, but not willing? Then it is not omnibenevolent.
Is it both able and willing? Then why do innocent African children die of aggressive bone cancer? Why is there so much unnecessary evil?
Or is this god neither able nor willing? Then it's not a god, is it? Certainly not one to revere.

So, I don't really like the idea of this thing existing, but since you want to discuss the likelihood, I still say I want to hear reasoning or evidence for why I should even consider it likely.

Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.

That is a potential way of looking at it, especially considering the small handful of places in the universe that astronomers have deemed "habitable" if life were to develop on them the same way it did on Earth. However, how replicable do you think the conditions of our little corner of the universe are such that the chance of life developing in a parallel way to our own somewhere else is farily high? Do you also think it's likely that such reactions have already occurred (or are already on the verge of happening) in the universe? I'm all for being open to the possibility, though I also think that with the odds of it being able to occur concurrently elsewhere in the universe, it may have been likely that we would've seen either the remnants of past life or some form of life altogether on at least one of these planets. This is obviously not factoring in that life could be developing an entirely different way on some far away planet (societies filled with amoeba colonies??), and I look forward to Pope Francis baptizing our new alien conquerors when they do eventually show themselves at our doorsteps.

Finding and designating potentially habitable moons and planets in the universe is a very new exercise. Astronomers have only been doing it for a few years now. The list is only dozens long so far, but the mathematical potential for habitable places in the universe is essentially infinite when you consider the size of it. It's certainly possible that lifeforms and civilizations have already come and gone countless times, or that plenty are just growing now alongside us at various stages. There could be life elsewhere in our solar system, in the soils of Mars or the atmosphere of Venus, or elsewhere for all we know. Unfortunately the Solar System is massive, and the universe beyond it is almost incomprehensibly massive, so the chances of us detecting life with our technology are unlikely at this stage. Regardless, we have evidence of rudimentary protein synthesis in certain conditions, so just on the basis of chemistry and physics, these things could certainly occur in countless places in the universe. It makes extraterrestrial life seem likely. Finding it is the incredibly hard part.

But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."

Oh no no, I'm fully aware of that. I was trying to follow the "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true" format. I was proposing that since there may not be a likelihood of everything coming to develop by chance in the universe, perhaps there was some outside input that went into it. Given my personal worldview ("According to my personal worldview" could've prefaced the sentence better than "I believe it does", as the latter is less subjective), I personally see it as said input being limited to one God (perhaps we can discuss this in conjunction with the belief system laid out in other faiths at a future date), but following the "A is false so therefore B is true" format is not my intention.

Proposing an outside (all-powerful incorporeal) input is interesting, but I see no evidence or necessity for one. It's a curious concept, but I can't put belief into it. Since you do seem to believe in this outside input, why do you think it's the case? And perhaps more importantly, why specifically one god? Why not 2 or 43? That's the problem with these claims, they seem equally as (in)plausible as just about any random claim I can make up. Can you establish why you at least find it likely?

You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.

Let's go back to the Wikipedia definition and replace the word "supernatural" with "incorporeal". I'm not sure if we can strictly say that existence is limited to things that exist "naturally" within the bounds of natural universal space-time. Technically speaking, abstract objects (like numbers and the concept of something like fairness/justice) are something most philosophers tend to agree exist, even though they're not concrete objects physically represented by a collection of matter. To go off of this, to find empirical, solid evidence of a deity existing using nothing but that of which is from the natural world would be inherently paradoxical and categorize a god as a physical entity, which does not fit the definition of God we're using. So I was most definitely flawed when I initially claimed that I had evidence of the existence of God when that's something that can't necessarily be done using strictly material evidence in isolation.

Thanks for the welcome back. I don't think I'll ever be as active as I once was, but it certainly doesn't hurt to pay VC a visit every once in a while. If it weren't for Scroogles, I would've never been fortunate enough to find VC and join the community as I did.

Fine, incorporeal, tho it seems largely synonymous with supernatural in this case. We only have evidence of things that exist "naturally". Everything is made of matter and energy by our observations. And yes, we can think of and assign descriptors and concepts like numbers and justice, but they aren't agents intervening in the natural world like the god claim. If they were, we could measure it - and to the best of our knowledge, that means it would exist in the natural universe. So, does your god intervene? Do you have evidence - what is it? Do you just find it likely - why?

Cheers

193

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul

« on: 2 October 2020, 11:55:40 AM »

imagine only believing in one god

this post was brought to you by pagan gang

Polytheist! Burn the witch!

194

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul

« on: 2 October 2020, 12:53:18 AM »

Hey Ender, welcome back after a nice hiatus. I hope you've been well. I gladly accept your invitation to a friendly discussion.

Last time we talked, a problem frequently occurred, and I think solving it now is a good idea. If one of us wants to know what the other thinks, knows, or believes, let's ask one another. Let's avoid assumptions to avoid strawmanning eachother. And, to add to it, let's try to read, understand, and consider eachother's messages in full when we respond. We can agree, or disagree, and we can do it honourably.

So,

One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.

I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.

As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.

In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.

I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.

So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.

With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.

Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?

Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.

But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."


So, before we move on, let's settle some definitions.
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.

The other word is "God" as you use it. Please define it so I know what you mean.

Welcome back, and cheers!

195

General Discussion / Re: Next Event! Create A Village Build Comp!

« on: 26 September 2020, 02:17:19 PM »

Count me in!

196

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Hotels closed in other countries?

« on: 24 September 2020, 08:51:32 PM »

It's fascinating what a small worldview the US has.

Haha, funny you say this, oh self-aware one. Don't be the rest of the world's stereotype of people from the US. There's a whole world beyond your borders

197

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Hotels closed in other countries?

« on: 24 September 2020, 06:31:13 PM »

It seems hotels are open in Canada, with ramped up cleaning and disinfecting protocols.

198

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the SimplePets Plugin

« on: 18 September 2020, 10:05:36 PM »

It says that pets will not be allowed "in other worlds". Will pets be present in the End and Nether?

I assume that it would be fine, as those are "dimensions," not "worlds," correct?

*Technically* "dimension" and "world" are interchangeable in MC, but yeah, I'd say the Nether and the End count as extensions of the overworld.

How about "Pets will only be allowed in the Overworld, Nether, and End"?

Fair enough.

To make it easier to fit into the current wording:

Pets will not be allowed:
-During CM run events in the overworld, unless otherwise stated.
-In worlds other than the Overworld, Nether, and End.

199

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the SimplePets Plugin

« on: 17 September 2020, 09:27:10 AM »

It says that pets will not be allowed "in other worlds". Will pets be present in the End and Nether?

200

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Phosphine detected in Venus's atmosphere

« on: 15 September 2020, 11:16:17 AM »

It has been hypothesized for some time now that Venus may have life in its atmosphere, and this paper makes that idea even more viable and interesting. This is cool as hell. Thanks so much for sharing this.


Here's the sounds of Venus if anyone is interested:


00:33 - Landing

00:41 - Camera lens cap being ejected off

01:00 - 02:09 - Drilling

02:14 - The drill system had a special series of tubes that used Venus' surface pressure to operate the mechanism for retrieving the soil sample, this is the seals being popped off to allow the pressure to rush in.

02:40 - Soil being injected into chamber

201

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Let's Get to Know Each Other! #2

« on: 14 September 2020, 12:43:12 AM »

Hmm, probably like Ireland or some sort of nordic country. I'm a slut for cold, rainy weather and a beautiful countryside.

For the next poster: Tea or coffee? Or maybe neither. Why?

I like both, and tend to drink coffee more in the summer and when I'm working mornings. In the winter, I'm a tea whore. Earl Grey, chocolate mint, and maple are the best types by far, or anything fresh from the garden. Always a splash or 3 of milk, no sugar needed.

For the next poster: If you had the opportunity to go to Mars and must stay for at least 6 months, would you take the opportunity?

202

General Discussion / Re: Starting Next Month! The VillageCraft Community Showcase!

« on: 14 September 2020, 12:39:02 AM »

Bumping to see if we have any interested in showcasing in October! I have had a few inquires but nothing concrete

I've been working on Valace Canals a lot, and I can possibly showcase it in October. Honestly, I'd like to get more work done on it before a showcase, but if nobody else comes thru, we can consider Valace the backup if you like. Up to you. Probably still try to get another village on the docket instead lol

203

General Discussion / Re: Server Economy Discussion

« on: 12 September 2020, 12:59:17 PM »

I have no idea if this will actually happen, but a balance decrease could be done in a couple ways.

1. X% (75%?) decrease for everyone.

2. Bring any balance over $X ($1,000,000?) down to X. All balances under X are not changed.

3. Reset all balances to X, so everyone is on the same level.

204

General Discussion / Re: Server Economy Discussion

« on: 11 September 2020, 04:41:44 PM »

Why would the dynamic market make it harder to make money?

205

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul

« on: 9 September 2020, 11:20:40 AM »

Sometimes I think "will this thread ever die?" and then I remember Gerritt exists.

Damn right

However in an attempt to revive the discussion- seeing as ender has not shown up yet- I think a fun question to be posed is: Can it be empirically proven within a reasonable doubt that a god does or does not exist?

Generically, the answer is "no". Can we prove "a god" exists? No. Can we prove "a god" doesn't exist? No.

However, it may be possible to disprove a specific god that has more details behind it by finding contradictory or false claims attached to it. Furthermore, when twisting or changing the usual the definition of "god" it may be possible to attach a specific meaning to it and then prove it is real, like saying "god is water", then providing evidence of water. Lastly, it may be possible to prove a specific god exists with sufficient evidence, and I always await the presentation of that evidence.

For these reasons, whenever I discuss this sort of stuff with a theist, I request a definition of their god so that we can determine what we're actually talking about.

206

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the NEW GODS Plugin

« on: 9 September 2020, 11:00:45 AM »

This has received Staff consent and can move on to an official parliament vote.

207

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: #PrayforIstanbul

« on: 5 September 2020, 02:45:53 AM »

I'm down

208

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the NEW GODS Plugin

« on: 4 September 2020, 05:27:08 PM »

I guess there no more discussion so we can move this proposal to the next stage

Shall I pass this on to staff for staff consent?

209

Ban/Punishment Appeals / Re: Ban pardoned from my record please

« on: 3 September 2020, 09:53:59 PM »

Verdict:
Appeal Won - Offense is PARDONED, the Staff registry will reflect this.

210

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the SimplePets Plugin

« on: 3 September 2020, 09:46:27 PM »

Pets will not be allowed:
-During PVP

I need to ask:
Why not?
Would this lead to a punishment if you start PVP with a pet around?
What if you have a pet while you get PVP attacked?
How do we control this?
How do staff enforce this?
Should this actually be limited?

I don't know exactly what the answer to any of these are, and I'm wondering if they should be allowed during PVP?

I think this is more in relation to arena PVP as they get in the way but I can clarify
I personally think it shouldn't matter in regards to if you are attacked or are attacking.

I am also open to suggestions

Most reasonable solutions to allow players to self regulate and agree to disable pets before pvp matches in arenas. In the outlands, I cant see them being much of a problem, there is no need to consider fairness in outside-of-arena pvp.

I like this solution, and in this case we could just remove mention of pvp from the text.

211

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: Suggestion! Brewery Plugin

« on: 3 September 2020, 04:56:00 PM »

I love this idea

212

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the SimplePets Plugin

« on: 3 September 2020, 04:55:23 PM »

I am fully in favour of this addition to the server! I just need to address something mentioned in the OP:

Pets will not be allowed:
-During PVP

I need to ask:
Why not?
Would this lead to a punishment if you start PVP with a pet around?
What if you have a pet while you get PVP attacked?
How do we control this?
How do staff enforce this?
Should this actually be limited?

I don't know exactly what the answer to any of these are, and I'm wondering if they should be allowed during PVP?

213

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of the NEW GODS Plugin

« on: 1 September 2020, 08:39:26 PM »

This plugin also features marriage, right? Would we disable it, using the other plugin for that?

214

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: Suggestion! A Gods Plugin

« on: 28 August 2020, 08:19:19 PM »

I'd have fun with this, seeing it come back, I approve both as a staff member and a player. I already know what I will make

215

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: Suggestion for a pet plugin!

« on: 14 August 2020, 09:45:10 PM »

This is a great suggestion, and I like the suggestion of tiers - some for anyone, some for donors.

216

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: PARLIAMENT VOTE #22: Adding the Plugin, Marriage Master

« on: 12 August 2020, 02:38:17 PM »

It looks like this is an overwhelming unanimous consensus, which is a great goal to strive for, and perhaps evidence that the deliberation process works well. This vote can come to a successful close!

217

Parliament | Suggestions / Re: MP Motion to Start a Vote: DISCUSSION of Marriage Master Plugin

« on: 8 August 2020, 12:07:45 PM »

Perfect! I love the wording and I think all the wording is excellent in including a bit of what everyone wanted. If anyone else has any more ideas please feel free to bring them before this moves to a vote!

Okay, that version of the wording has staff consent and can go to a vote as you please!