quote:

---

Originally written by Iffy will bring you warm fuzziness.:

The limit is that of the limit of the imagination (and skill) of the entire Spiderweb community.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Fear, Favor, and a Few More:

Randomizer is a tester, but I think this is no terrible reveal. Boat movement really works identically to non-boat movement: you can click to move several spaces at once, or you can use the keyboard to move one space at a time. To get out of a boat requires clicking on it to spit your party back onto adjacent land.

---

quote:

---

False. Absence of evidence is some of the strongest evidence of absence we can possibly have! The above makes for a cute slogan but it is not logically sound. You also have to keep in mind the difference between ordinary claims and extraordinary claims. Not having positive evidence that my aunt works for NASA is NOT evidence that she does not. That would be true. But not having evidence that my aunt is a vampiric telepath from dimension 'x934' IS evidence that she is not.

---

quote:

---

Define these "souls" and "entities" for me and I will tell you. If they are vacuously defined or ambiguous then I simply lack assent to any claim that they exist and point out the error in reasoning that goes with claiming otherwise.
If they are defined in such a way that entails contradiction then I say they positively do NOT exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by SkeleTony:

quote:

---

If I’m not mistaken the general consensus is something. If that something is someone, it does not seem farfetched, even if difficult to understand, that time is not the same for them as for us.

---

Even granting the premise that it was "someone"(for which there is NO reason to grant), we have EVERY reason to assume that time is time. What does it mean, for example, for a God to "create the universe" if there was not a preceding moment where the universe did NOT exist, followed by the act of "creation" and then the post-creation span? The "beyond time" or "Non-linear experience of time" is just word salad nonsense. Like claiming that square shaped circles might exist in Bizarro World without explaining HOW such a thing could be.

quote:

---

It also seems a pretty bold claim to assume we know everything must be natural and physical – that was your claim.

---

Not at all bold. By definition all things must be natural and physical for we live in a natural and physical reality. This fact remains until one of you can cough up reason to infer otherwise.

What you are doing here is citing the lack of proof for your own speculation as the case for your speculation being true. If we DO live in a material reality(as all evidence points to) then we CANNOT have evidence for or against a 'non-physical' reality, which is why we have that "burden of proof" thing that falls on YOU making such a claim.

---

quote:

---

When extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

---