• Announcements


      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,615 (as of June 4, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!

      D1Pcast Episode 28: The 2017 E3 Review Show (Recording June 23 - share your E3 impressions!)   06/01/2017

      Now that E3 2017 has concluded, the D1Pcast crew will be recording its impressions of the show on Friday June 23 at around 6:30pm Eastern time.  Like we did for the preview show, we'll run through each conference and give our thoughts on the good, bad, and the wonderfully inexplicable (Devolver Digital - I'm looking at you!).   We're very much interested in hearing your thoughts and impressions about this past E3, so feel free to share them in this thread.  Or -- even better! -- if you'd like to join us for this episode, we'd love to have you on the show!  The more, the merrier as we put a capstone on our E3 2017 coverage!  

      E3 2017 is upon us!   06/07/2017

      The annual celebration of all things video gaming is upon us, so let us share in the revelry and post the news, videos, interviews, and discussion topics in our dedicated E3 2017 board here:   http://www.dayonepatch.com/index.php?/forum/122-e3-2017/   Also, feel free to join our Discord server for live text and voice chat of the various conferences - here's an invite that (theoretically) should not expire:   https://discord.gg/chqTQ2F   Let's all have a magnificent E3!


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Rev last won the day on February 16

Rev had the most liked content!

Community Reputation


1 Follower

About Rev

  • Rank

  • Birthday 01/11/1921

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

48,307 profile views
  1. Are you attacking him because his statement is unlikely to compel religious people to abandon or reform their religion or because you think he's incorrect? One can be pragmatic sometimes and one can just be brutally honest other times. The former isn't the only rational way to be. If people were only pragmatic and never truthful, the truth would be lost in general.
  2. That trailer honestly looks extremely last-last-gen.
  3. I played the single player prolog while it was downloading and shelved the game. Feels shitty and ancient imo.
  4. ACLU was advocating for seeing this movie as an example of political action on Twitter.
  5. I feel like a tattoo like that is an ultimate pussy move on many levels. If you're really anywhere near as hardcore as you're pretending you are, you should just cut your mouth and get real stitches.
  6. Yep, it makes it exactly the same as the big bang but with a much more complex mover.
  7. It's worth pointing out that academic apologists like WLC have countered the special pleading attack on the first mover argument (all things must be moved by something else *except* God) by implying that maybe God was moved by something else too, but we just can't infer that far. So that seems to leave the door open to other Gods also being involved. It's pure post-hoc rationalization on his part, of course, but it does seem to make the proposition more probable as it allows that other Gods and/or forces may have been involved as well.
  8. @legend Just to clarify, I do think a vague proposition like "Many Gods created everything" is more probable than "1 and only 1 God created everything," especially because it's unclear how all the terms are formally defined.
  9. It all comes down to how specific the proposition is. "Creation is the result of one God and one God only" may be less probable than "Creation is the result of a class of Gods" but "Creation is the result of a God" doesn't necessarily entail that other Gods don't exist or weren't involved in creation as well.
  10. Yeah, and the probability hinges dramatically on how the proposition's formed. "A God exists who created everything we see" is infinitesimally more probable than "There is 1 and only 1 God." And every trait you ascribe to that God makes it far less probable. It's like if I asked you to guess what's in my pocket and let you articulate your proposition however you wanted. A guess that I had "an object" in my pocket would be far more probable than a guess that I had a set of headphones in my pocket, and a guess that I had a set of headphones in my pocket would be far more probable than a guess that I had a set of grey headphones in my pocket. Note: this is all presupposing no evidence for any of these claims. If you happened to know I carried headphones every day, the guess of headphones would have higher probability than other guesses.
  11. No offense but I'm not going to spend time trying to explain it to you given your track record. If anyone else asks for more clarification, I'll probably go into it.
  12. @SFLUFAN For its entertainment value, here's a video of Cenk Uyger trying to argue against the idea that Mormonism is less probable than Christianity:
  13. It depends on how the hypothesis is stated but there are probabilistic considerations: 1. 1 God exists and he cares about X, Y, and Z. 2. 7 Gods exist. #1 cares about Z. #2 cares about Y. #3 cares about X. #4 cares about W, etc. 3. Several Gods exist and they all care about different things. 1 will have a higher prior probability than 2 and a lower probability than 3. A more vague type of polytheism that doesn't specify much about the Gods will be more probable but if it just assumes more Gods with specific traits, it'll be infinitesimally less probable without evidence because it makes the same assumptions as the monotheistic hypothesis, then makes more assumptions on top of those.
  14. Yep, I agree. Also, as a side note, if it was a good idea to change the definition, it'd still be absolutely necessary to introduce a new term to represent the old definition of truth that we're taking away. This is a step that seems to almost always be missed by people who propose new, unusual definitions (I think usually because they hope to be able to coopt the currency of the old definition or at least confuse with the conflation).