Sign In

God is Blizzard.

Author
Time
I was trolling slashdot, hit another one of their, "bash the pope with a misconstrued he said she said quote" and I came upon the best analogies EVER.

Let me use WoW as an example. Let's say the observable universe is WoW. Even the wisest scholar living _in_ the WoW universe, even with the best gnomish instruments, can only observe and measure things that are _inside_ this universe.

What it _can't_ observe is the universe's creator: Blizzard.

Can such a scholar prove, with only the data in his universe, that Blizzard doesn't exist? No. He just doesn't have the data on which to base such a proof. The best his science can do is state that the universe can be explained well enough without this mystical "Blizzard" entity at the helm.

Same is it with RL science and God. Science _can't_ prove that God doesn't exist. All science can do is explain the universe well enough without needing some "God" entity. But that's all.

No, seriously, I know that we all love to troll and bait the christians. But put your thinking cap for a second and you'll realize the same: if a "creator" exists _outside_ the universe he created (just like Blizzard exists outside the WoW universe), science can't prove or disprove this creator in any form or shape. It just can't get any data from there. At all. Ever.


Kinda makes me wonder how would you explain that kind of things to a Tauren. Or, heck, to a human living 5000 years ago. I can just see it
God: "So I saw that the database was corrupt and..."
Moses: "What's a database, Lord?"
God: "uhh... how do I explain this... uhh, you know there's this data representing your world..."
Moses: "I don't understand, Lord? Like a map or painting?"
God: "No, in a sense it _is_ your world, and everything in it."
Moses: "So the world was corrupt?"
God: "*sigh* Yeah, whatever, the world was corrupt. You all were more corrupt than a senator... err... than a Grand Vizier. Anyway, so our database admin Noah saved the game files on tape and I did a full format."
Moses: "I don't understand, Lord? Database admin? Game files?"
God: "*sigh* Uh, you know, the models and all for these animals and... *sigh* He put one of each animal in a big ark, ok? And then I formatted... (gah, how do I explain a format to this guy)... right, I _flooded_ it all to get rid of the old animals and people."
gtfo
Author
Time
The first one is a correct analogy in the sense that science can't prove if God does or doesn't exist, but at the same time it's completely inane because the burden of proof doesn't rest on scientists who don't believe in God, but on the believers who proclaimed his existence in the first place.

For example, I don't believe in magical mole men who live at the center of the earth and feed on human children; but that doesn't mean I have to prove they don't exist. But, if someone were to claim they saw magical mole men, and started to tell the press, then they would be expected to provide proof of their claim.

All in all, I guess it's a funny analogy, but pointless.

And the second one just wasn't funny. =\
Author
Time
Originally posted by: theredbaron
But burden of proof or not, the point still stands. A human being cannot disprove the existence of a Creator.

Obviously not, but like I said, anyone who doesn't believe in God doesn't have to worry about disproving him. So it's a useless statement. Like, the point is correct, but the point is also irrelevant, so it doesn't really matter whether it's correct or not.
Author
Time
oh god, (no pun intended) here ill save us hours of arguement. no one can prove, or disprove the existance of god. NO ONE. here is why. all the evidence science brings forward can be turned around, e.g. evolution proves god does exist cause life can arise by itself. that statement could be true, OR evolution could be a mechanism that god created to run the universe. back to the blizzard analogy it could be a subroutine, or something like that. As for the evidence brought forward from the bible. well many of those stories can be scientifically proven wrong, but again that doesnt prove that god doesnt exist, all it proves is that the bible is not literal. i remember watching a really interesting show on noahs arch a while ago, and they scientifically proved that there wasnt enough water in the oceans/ground/arctic/atmosphere combined to cause a global flood. what they did theorise was that the flooding of the black sea could have inspired the noahs arch story. or a massive storm that flooded mesopatamia. such a storm is theorectically possible however the ramifications of such an event wouldnt fit very well with the story.

so overall no one can prove one way or the other that god exists, part of having faith means that you believe with no proof. if god was proven to exist well there would be no such thing as faith, it might actually be more harmful to organised religion then helpful. thats a good thing though, i personally beleive that mans worst invention was organised religion. more wars have been fought in the name of god, where both sides thought they had divine support then anything else in history.
Author
Time
Nobody is arguing that it's possible to disprove God, Shim. In fact, everyone agrees that it isn't. The only thing I'm saying is that nobody needs to disprove God, so the whole argument is irrelevant in the first place.

-edit-
Also,
it might actually be more harmful to organised religion then helpful.
I don't agree with this at all. If, say tomorrow, somebody (for the sake of argument) proved that God really does, without doubt, exist. I think everyone would immediately run out and join a church or something. Like, the fear of a real hell would bring everyone to religion. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable, but all churches would definitely see large surges in funds and other stuff like that.

-edit again-

One last thing:
i personally beleive that mans worst invention was organised religion.

I don't know, man. I think nuclear missles or guns or something would be way up above organized religion. Like, at least organized religion has given some people hope of an afterlife, and an overall more optimistic view on life. Not to mention all the missionary services that have distributed food and built houses for thousands (probably millions, actually) of people.
Author
Time
well i donno thats all stuff of the 20st century, religion was the cause of the crusades, and all of the wars through the middle ages, and the dark ages. look even in the 20th century. the hollocaste was caused by a difference in religion. SO many of the problems with the arab nations involve religious problems and difference in opinions on different traditions. well this may seem a little harsh but hope of an afterlife has also lead to many many more deaths in war, look at suicide bomber. look at crusaders so many of who went to war int he middle east cause they had commited sins and still wanted to go to heaven.

and as for your first point, it is irrelevent, i agree with you, thats what i was getting at, cause faith is not determined by proof of one thing or another. either you have faith or you dont.
Author
Time
It's not that I didn't understand it it's just that I didn't read it.
Author
Time
Shim, I know I've already debated with you on this point in another thread, and so I won't bring up that particular argument again. I just want to say that I do believe that organized religion has done more harm than good, overall. It also served as a guiding light through the Dark Ages, until the Renaissance came along. There are hundreds of millions of people that would definitely disagree with you, myself included. Religion doesn't started wars; a few screwed-up higher-echelon people with a skewed perception of said religion start wars.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Aw man...

When I read the title to this thread, I was hoping it was somebody saying that Blizzard was now God because they had just announced Starcraft 2 or World of Starcraft or something.

Still, the original poster is right. It's impossible for any human to prove or disprove the existence of God.

4

Author
Time
Maybe you need to be an engineer or compuer programmer to appreciate the second quote... oh well.
gtfo
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
...World of Starcraft or something...


Don't even get me started on this one. I've sat down with friends and had hours upon hours of pure geekery discussing how awesome that game would be.
For as much as some people claim to hate what Star Wars has become, they sure seem incapable of shutting up about it.
Author
Time
So what are you saying? Are we part of a simulation game played by pseudo-gods?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Yep, we're all part of a game called world of mancraft.

and world of starcraft would SUCK, the game by definition is not supposed to be single player. Furthermore the whole world of starcraft thing is blown out of proportion. That wasn't a press release by blizzard, it was by vivendi, their parent company. The whole "all our games will be mmog" was about vivendi's games, not blizzards. Blizzard has said as much in a recent release.
gtfo
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Skipper
and world of starcraft would SUCK, the game by definition is not supposed to be single player. Furthermore the whole world of starcraft thing is blown out of proportion. That wasn't a press release by blizzard, it was by vivendi, their parent company. The whole "all our games will be mmog" was about vivendi's games, not blizzards. Blizzard has said as much in a recent release.


What?
For as much as some people claim to hate what Star Wars has become, they sure seem incapable of shutting up about it.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Why would a world of Starcraft suck?


Best as I could understand from that response was that they think “World of Starcraft” would bite because the original was a single player game and an MMO would not be.

Which begs the question: Do they know there was just “Warcraft” long before there was a "World of"?

And there was a reference to some press release I guess, which I must never have read (nor would I have been looking for it for that matter), that I guess they must think we got the idea for a “World of Starcraft”. Personally, I think the idea for “World of Starcraft” simultaneously popped into a million people's heads the second ”World of Warcraft” was announced.
For as much as some people claim to hate what Star Wars has become, they sure seem incapable of shutting up about it.
Author
Time
Um, Starcraft had a good single player mode, but it hasn't lasted 8 years on that mode alone, I assure you! Multiplayer was the original game's life's blood, just like any good RTS.

4

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Um, Starcraft had a good single player mode, but it hasn't lasted 8 years on that mode alone, I assure you! Multiplayer was the original game's life's blood, just like any good RTS.


Don't remind me... I'm convinced I've lost precious years off of my life due to the lack of sleep caused by weekend Starcraft LAN-party benders.
For as much as some people claim to hate what Star Wars has become, they sure seem incapable of shutting up about it.
Author
Time
The problem with world of starcraft is that it doesn't really work. The reason that warcraft works is because the entire warcraft universe is based around great beings performing great deeds. You could commonly tip the entire scale of battle with a single unit if you were good enough. The armies were always smaller and warcraft 3 had the heros. Starcraft had them too, but a hero didn't win you a game and a single marine rarely made a difference against a good player. Yhe entire premise of starcraft was HORDES, BILLIONS of beings in combat. You can't do that in an MMO. I mean, a single orc running around rampant is believable. But a single space marine facing the hordes of the zerg? A mighty zergling taking on the protoss race? 40 zealots pwning the zerg hive world? The problem with starcraft is that it doesn't fit into the MMO genre. It makes a swell multiplayer game, that's why blizzard was making ghost (discontinued, the bastard had better not be PS3 exclusive. Wii plz!!) online multiplayer. To make starcraft about a single person takes away a lot of the magic of the EPIC nature of starcraft. I paraphrase head designer whatsisface (google it, im too lazy) "Blizzard's game division is seperate from Vivendi. Any announcements about game design are not our policy, we do not have planned, nor are planning any more MMOs."

I adore starcraft, but I feel anything that makes be a single player within the UNIVERSE is just not going to be fun anymore. WOOT! IMMA PAYING 15 BUCKS A MONTH TO BE A COG IN THE MACHINE!!

Sure I can see myself playing a cool zealot, but again, the suspension of disbelief is just too ridiculously big. A multiplayer game where you play a single character in a battle fine (ie ghost). But not on an RPG scale.
gtfo
Author
Time
I see what you're saying, but an MMO Starcraft doesn't necisarily mean an RPG. It could be an MMO action game like Planetside.

4

Author
Time
Hmmm, but even then, how would you script battles? I mean warcraft can barely handle 40 person raids. Starcraft is all about WAR on a scale we've can't even dream of. As far as action MMOs go, I'll be happy sticking with huxley .
gtfo