It is a fact to be dealt with. I was happily carrying on at the same pace I always had been when what was for me quite abruptly the thread was locked. If you are trying to imply that it is somehow a failing of my argument that I do not spend all of my time in this forum, I seriously question you.
It only took you around one or two days to respond before that, so why did it suddenly take five days this time?
It is quite possible that something came up, but not likely given what I know so far. (likely from my point of view, that is)
By that line of reasoning, If I disagree with the records of history and say Caesar did not cross the Rubicon in 49 BC, then it didn't happen, and the whole history of Rome after becoming an Empire is a fake.
Exactly; you pointed out the problem yourself there. Now apply this to what you said earlier.
When did you encounter a situation which left you with no explanation except for the purple dragon? Why is he the only explanation?
You are finding the flaws in your argument for me.
Here is my situation (I will not even bother with the point of its truth or falsehood): I
saw and
met a big purple dragon one day and he told me all this himself, and just like you, I can find no other good explanation. And of course, the situation cannot be reproduced.
(sorry, but you had some fun at my expense at the very beginning of that language argument, so I must now return the favor
)
And again I ask, if you created the purple dragon, the dragon created God, and God created you and the rest of the world, where does this circle ever begin? It is a logical impossibility.
Well, god created everything but had to go back in time to create me so that I could create the purple dragon who in turn created him; sure it sounds like a logical impossibility, but god transcends all science and is not subject to any limitations like logic, so he can be perfectly illogical if he feels like it.
(actually, I think this particular chain is possible in the quantum mechanics rules)
Now I am not trying to mock your beliefs here, but mock your arguments rather.
Perhaps we need an adjudicator if a consensus is to be reached, but that does not somehow mysteriously make having the last word equate to winning an argument.
Alright, but this adjudicator needs to be both completely impartial and knowledgeable on the subject, and also needs to give reasons why he is favoring one guy over the other; on a game forum on the internet, this is a bit hard to find.
I would say that the winning conditions are met if one guy admits defeat (of course, this is quite rare) or if one guy bails out and stops posting. The latter condition is for the reason I stated earlier; people should not be able to quickly bug out when they are losing.
*cough*So tell me a mystery story in C++*cough*
*cough*Go on, try it*cough*
*cough*Can't do it, can you?*cough*
Sure I could, if I knew the C++ syntax. (you may need to add a few extra core commands but that's about it) I can give you some basic ideas without turning them into the exact C++ commands though. There are actually a number of ways to do this. One I can think of it to give it all the natural physics laws, drop some input into it (the matter/energy), give some initial conditions, and let things progress. You can have a class or something with the definitions for a general human with several modifyable attributes. Then you define the scene in terms of those physics equations and let your pawns run in there. It would be just as meaningful as a conventional novel if you are used to it.
Nope, it was sarcastic; if you couldn't pick that up, tough beans for your communication skills. And really, do you honestly mean to tell me that you didn't detect even a hint of mockery in the question? 
Actually, the statement you quoted there
was also sarcastic, but you didn't seem to detect that either, so "tough beans" for your communication skills as well.
I certainly detected mockery there, but that does not necessarily mean sarcasm.
I think that CP's position arises from his prestanding, axiomatic commitment to the idea that all the universe is ultimately reducible to mathematics. I've never seen him justify that in any way, but he does insist upon it. That's why he has such an odd view of things like this.
um...yeah, of course that is my "axiomatic commitment." In fact, this is precisely what the "axiomatic commitment" of all of science is. My justification for this, as is that of any scientist, that I want to certainly
try to reduce it into the simple form of math before giving up on method; if it somehow fails then other alternatives can be considered, but so far it has worked just wonderfully, and if it works the way it is supposed to, the results will be better than with any other method.
And I think that your position arises from your prestanding, axiomatic commitment to the idea that all the universe is ultimately not comprehensible to humans and a magic man exists to ensure just this. I've never seen you justify that in any way, but you do insist upon it. That's why you have such an odd view of things like this.
Poll
