Thanks guys, I was right... Some dumb level 1 judge told my friends that since the source was red/black the Harm's Way could target the pro-white...which makes no sense. Peace!
Hey guys, been awhile... I have a question regarding pro white creatures and Harm's Way. I attack my opponent with a Goblin Outlander and he casts Harm's Way choosing my Goblin Outlander as the source and then tried to target the outlander. Does that work?
Anyone know where I can find a picture (.jpg or otherwise...really dont care) of the color wheel in full color? I searched the 'net for like the last hour and still cant find a decent picture. I need pretty good quality; need it for my 'tat.
I have been testing a similar deck profusely lately and two cards I dont think people have discussed much have worked wonders for me...
[card]Drekavac[card/] and [card]Delerium Skeins[card/]
They both are hellbent enablers and the skiens is extremely efficient when you are built for no-card hands. Drekavac can be great simply because he is a 3/3 for 1B.
No problem, no offense taken at all. I stopped exactly for that reason. I have an idea worked out, and I am simply going to outline it onpapaer and THEN ill type it here for your veiwing (and arguing:)) pleasure. Sorry, I more or less started something I can't finish...right now. Gimme a few days or so and I will post in full force.
Note to Mods: You can go ahead and delete this thread, I will be back.
DISCLAIMER: I will start out by saying that I am NO theologian. These are (technically) only opinions concerning the exsistence of supernatural powers. I will most likely not even touch a Judeo-Christian God, but I would like to make an arguement for the need for the supernatural. All beliefs welcome.
...I guess
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism...what do I mean by this? No more than if naturalism is true in its complete form then there are no Supernatural beings to bother with. I am going to attempt, through this post, to find the truth.
First, we must agree on a definition of both Nature and Supernature. Normally, when I hear nature being used, they are refering to "everything there is" or "The Whole Show" And if that is what we mean by Nature, of course, there is nothing else in existence. So, my def. of Supernature is just "Everything that isn't in Nature." Another definition of Nature I have heard would be "What we percieve with their five senses," but this is also unsatisfactory because we do not percieve our own emotions in this way.
What the Naturalist believes is the ultimate fact, the place where "the buck stops," is a vast process in space that goes on of its own accord. If it didn't go on of its own accord it would be dependant on something else and thus not the "ultiamte fact" or the thing that existed before anything else could exist. Within that system, everything "is" because everything before it "was," and whatever happens next is because of what is happening now.
Now, the Supernaturalist agrees with the Naturalist that there MUST be something that exists in its own right; some basic fact whose existence it would be nonsensical to try to explain because this fact is itself the ground or starting-point of all explanations. But he does not identify this fact with "the whole show." He thinks that things fall into one of two classes. In the first class we find either things or (more probably) One Thing which is basic and original, which exists on its own. In the second we find things which are merely derivative from that One Thing. This one basic thing has caused all the oher things to be. It exists on its own; they exist because it exists.
If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the total system. We say explicable in principle because of course we are not going to demand that naturalists, at any given moment, should have found the explanation to every single phenomenon. Science may not be able to describe something that it will be able to in a few years time.
Wow, i didn't realize how long this is gonna take me...I will update soon, sorry.
Oh, really? You would base your logical arguments on a lack of proof?
Think of it this way. You go into a building you've never been in before, and find a closed door. Someone asks you what's inside the door. You can:
A. Say there's candy behind the door, 'cause I like candy!
B. Say it leads to a brick wall, because people always pull pranks on you.
C. Say that either A or B is right, 'cause you don't want to make them mad.
D. Say, I dunno what's behind the @#$% door, I've never been in this building before!
Perhaps i mispoke, I meant that because of my lack of "tangible evidence" I would have to start elsewhere.
Now, on the other hand I would also like to say that I did mispeak about proving GOD'S exsistence. I simply meant to prove the need for a supernatural being (regardless of the name). If I could convince you of that, then the rest is your job, whether you believe in god, buddha, or whatever is up to you.
I am no theologian, but I will likely post an arguement on a seperate thread...
Honestly... I don't even see the point in this thread. God is based on belief, since there's no proof either way. How do you debate belief? If you believe god will, then you believe he will. If you believe he won't, then you believe he won't. The only possible thing I could see that's constructive would be posting passages from various holy books... is that what you're looking for?
- Note: I'm not religious, atheist, or agnostic. I personally think that, since there's no proof, believing god exists is foolish, believeing he doesn't is foolish, and believing he might is foolish. I am self confidant enough to say that, in the absence of proof, I simply don't know.
Yea... Hate to be a jackass about this, but thats a really wussy position to take. I could sit here and debate beliefs all day. I have no physical evidence, absolutely none, but I can make a damn good attempt at explaining God logically.
Sorry If I offended you man. I was trying to bring up the fact that the book can't be trusted. I thought that was what I said but I must've been too subtle.
Id like to point out that The Bible is unable to be beleived if you are not a christian, and a christian has to accept the bible as truth. An atheist thinks God doesnt exist so why would his word have any meaning? And by the same token, a Christian knows that God doesn't lie, and a Christian also beleives that The Bible is God-inspired. To be a true atheist, The Bible must be false regardless of how possibly true and the reverse is true for Christians, beleiving The Bible's truth regardless of how impossible.
I guess what im trying to say is that you cannot prove (or disprove) the exsistence of God with The Bible. It is a tool for already practicing Christians. Not to convince atheists (or anyone else for that matter).
I will say right now that i am currently on 20 mgs of Lexapro, and i have never felt better.
I used to feel completely swamped and overwhelmed by the simplest, least troubling things. I refused to go to school simply because I could not force myself to go. Now however I am a straight "A" student, involved in several extra curricular activities, including band, and I do not feel overwhelmed or overloaded or super anxious about anything. I used to hate the idea of taking meds... but now I will never go back to not taking them.
[card]Drekavac[card/] and [card]Delerium Skeins[card/]
They both are hellbent enablers and the skiens is extremely efficient when you are built for no-card hands. Drekavac can be great simply because he is a 3/3 for 1B.
Note to Mods: You can go ahead and delete this thread, I will be back.
...I guess
Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism...what do I mean by this? No more than if naturalism is true in its complete form then there are no Supernatural beings to bother with. I am going to attempt, through this post, to find the truth.
First, we must agree on a definition of both Nature and Supernature. Normally, when I hear nature being used, they are refering to "everything there is" or "The Whole Show" And if that is what we mean by Nature, of course, there is nothing else in existence. So, my def. of Supernature is just "Everything that isn't in Nature." Another definition of Nature I have heard would be "What we percieve with their five senses," but this is also unsatisfactory because we do not percieve our own emotions in this way.
What the Naturalist believes is the ultimate fact, the place where "the buck stops," is a vast process in space that goes on of its own accord. If it didn't go on of its own accord it would be dependant on something else and thus not the "ultiamte fact" or the thing that existed before anything else could exist. Within that system, everything "is" because everything before it "was," and whatever happens next is because of what is happening now.
Now, the Supernaturalist agrees with the Naturalist that there MUST be something that exists in its own right; some basic fact whose existence it would be nonsensical to try to explain because this fact is itself the ground or starting-point of all explanations. But he does not identify this fact with "the whole show." He thinks that things fall into one of two classes. In the first class we find either things or (more probably) One Thing which is basic and original, which exists on its own. In the second we find things which are merely derivative from that One Thing. This one basic thing has caused all the oher things to be. It exists on its own; they exist because it exists.
If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the total system. We say explicable in principle because of course we are not going to demand that naturalists, at any given moment, should have found the explanation to every single phenomenon. Science may not be able to describe something that it will be able to in a few years time.
Wow, i didn't realize how long this is gonna take me...I will update soon, sorry.
Perhaps i mispoke, I meant that because of my lack of "tangible evidence" I would have to start elsewhere.
Now, on the other hand I would also like to say that I did mispeak about proving GOD'S exsistence. I simply meant to prove the need for a supernatural being (regardless of the name). If I could convince you of that, then the rest is your job, whether you believe in god, buddha, or whatever is up to you.
I am no theologian, but I will likely post an arguement on a seperate thread...
Yea... Hate to be a jackass about this, but thats a really wussy position to take. I could sit here and debate beliefs all day. I have no physical evidence, absolutely none, but I can make a damn good attempt at explaining God logically.
Id like to point out that The Bible is unable to be beleived if you are not a christian, and a christian has to accept the bible as truth. An atheist thinks God doesnt exist so why would his word have any meaning? And by the same token, a Christian knows that God doesn't lie, and a Christian also beleives that The Bible is God-inspired. To be a true atheist, The Bible must be false regardless of how possibly true and the reverse is true for Christians, beleiving The Bible's truth regardless of how impossible.
I guess what im trying to say is that you cannot prove (or disprove) the exsistence of God with The Bible. It is a tool for already practicing Christians. Not to convince atheists (or anyone else for that matter).
I used to feel completely swamped and overwhelmed by the simplest, least troubling things. I refused to go to school simply because I could not force myself to go. Now however I am a straight "A" student, involved in several extra curricular activities, including band, and I do not feel overwhelmed or overloaded or super anxious about anything. I used to hate the idea of taking meds... but now I will never go back to not taking them.
me likes winning with the dragons and the big Death Clouds....