I was wrong about continuing. I'm busy lately, enough that the processing power for this would be more productive elsewhere. Thanks though, BlinkingSpirit and co.
I'd just realized how much everything present annoyed me and I was most displeased with the game. I still have mixed feelings about the gridning,
(Can you open packs with redundant cards in them? Like once you have a playset of something does it stop spawning in packs?) but it's not a core gripe.
Still can't recommend unless you really love Magic. But then again you're here so you probably do.
I did buy 2015. Don't. Every starting deck is so unplayably bad you need a perfect hand rather than skill. Unlocks are based on random packs, which leads to a deck that'd be ok in draft, but against foes no easier than '13/'14 opponents. There's no synergy in the starting deck and the random unlocks don't help. I've been stuck with a randomly chosen R/W deck that sometimes just. Can't. Win. And since you can pay for more/better boosters, playing online is a "Who spent more?" contest. This game is a major step back.
Talor:
What would you use instead? We both -I assume- acknowledge the limitations of logic.
EE:
Absolutely not. Limits of our ability to apply or understand it, but the thing itself is without limits. I cannot do the math on how to send a vessel to Alpha Cenauri, but I am certain the math is there, infallible, just like it is for everything I can see.
This could go further but not to anyone's benefit.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) It's X because science.
EE:
Well I do firmly believe math is always right. Still, that measure, the distance the atom travels, is still relative to everything else. I could bisect that and you could show the measurements of the parts unto infinity but it would still all be relative to each other. Precision nearing infinity but never reaching it.
Blinkingspirit:
But when we are aspiring to write a logical proof, every assumption we make must be stated explicitly and not contested by any party involved in the argument. I mention all your assumptions precisely because I am contesting them. You need to justify them. If you could make any assumption you wanted, and when they were contested just wave your hands and say "We all make assumptions", then you could start by saying "I assume that God exists" and not bother with a proof at all.
EE:
This is interesting. I suppose for lack of education (thus practice) and the informal forum environment I allowed myself to skip over things I had considered not core to the idea. This isn't what I expected but is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for with this, thank you.
What listed or unlisted assumptions am I making that are contested?
Blinkingspirit:
Prove it.
EE:
Clearly what caused this God to create nature would have been internal, since nothing outside of it can affect it. In order for this to be true it must be outside the realm of time, or at least untouched by it, and thus unchanging, perfectly stable, the only thing that Is because it Is.*
*In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis comes at this from another way, beginning with morality and moving from there, but since morality is also a set of rules (like math) it's a fascinating how it brings a sort of all-encompassing quality to not just the idea of God, but to everything else as well. I bring it up because I'm going to have to dig up my copy to say what I'm trying to say. I'll be back.
Magicware999:
Try thinking of it as being like how an engineer uses them to design a rocket. They are not the machine, but they describe it perfectly and therefore properly understanding them is the same as understanding the rocket.
Tayler:
I'm not having a conversation that says logic can be used to disprove logic.
Blinking Spirit:
1. If we accept that 2 and every higher natural number is defined relative to 1, that still leaves the question of what 1 is. You have just ignored this. If 1 is absolute, then every number defined relative to it likewise snaps into the absolute by induction. And 1 is absolute. There can be no debate over whether you have one of a given well-defined thing or not. If we have consensus on what an apple is, and I put one apple on the table, nobody can reasonably say, "I believe that there are two apples." So then if I continue to add apples to the table one by one, we find that all the natural numbers are likewise absolute.
EE:
Sorry about overlooking you.
Here's that first bit with aesthetically different but functionally identical words. I think though we'll need to be careful else end up straying into having two congruent but not-exactly-related discussions where we both argue points the other isn't making.
Nothing is really "big" or "small." If all existence were a mile across then an inch would be very long indeed. So you can say, "What is a foot?" and I reply, "Twelve inches," you would not be wrong in saying, "Well then what is an inch?" For any measurement to have value there must be something to measure it against. This doesn't cover the whole of the idea but if viewing it differently will help this should do enough.
Blinkingspirit:
Numbers are value.
EE:
But again, what value? Against what can measurements be measured?
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) The bit about assumptions.
EE:
This addresses the next bit also, so hooray for efficiency.
Assumptions are necessary for literally any decision to be made rationally or any idea to make sense. I don't check my floor for scorpions when I wake up in the morning, I take what I know and make assumptions regarding the lack of stinging arachnids. I think the assumptions made are reasonable: Nature exists, in some fundamental way it really is there. Cause and effect is inviolate within it, things happen or are as they are because things happened to cause them and this is never not true (this could go back to the origin and we could have that conversation but it's not this one so moving on). Nature is measurable with perfect certainty if you know the right numbers, I only mean the physical realm in this case, and I know the numbers to know things (like when deer will go extinct or something) would get impossibly difficult for us to calculate, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be. They're assumptions, but if you don't make certain assumptions you'd just be paralyzed by indecision worrying every space not in front of your eyes might be filled with scorpions.
Blinkingspirit:
"Force"
EE:
Force in this case is vague because there's no way within a language designed for a physical system to exactly express something that is inherently outside its bounds. It sounds better than "thingy" and does the same job.
Blinking Spirit:
Even assuming your premise that the "force"... must not have had external impetus, how on earth does this imply mental choice?
EE:
This seems inherently contradictory but it's the bounds of language trying to describe the source of language so bear with me.
This force would be outside cause-and-effect. Nothing caused it, and nothing can affect it. There's no other reason for it to do anything but that it itself chose to.
Blinkingspirit:
You have also just equivocated between "create" and "give value to". Who's to say that those two acts are the same, or even in any way related?
EE:
Assuming cause and effect still work here, and there's no reason to think they don't, then all things that exist within or interact with our world can be measured accurately only in relation to this. It is the source of creation, and creation has value, and things that don't exist have no value, and so it must not only have but define value.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase)That thing about it not being the capital "G" God.
EE:
It was to show I wasn't trying to skip ahead.
Everyone:
(Paraphrase)A billion-billion words.
EE:
I'm kind of being overwhelmed by sheer volume of words here, many of which don't seem related to the original idea unless you take a sort of universal-interconnectedness sort of view. And honestly this is amazingly more tiresome than I expected, the Keats has been moved from an open tab to the "When I get a chance" bookmarks folder, where what is not dead will most likely eternal lie. No promises on my ability to keep my part of this going.
Verbal:
Numbers absolutely have meaning outside what we have given them, in the sense that if there are three ducks there are three of them. This is true no matter if the word I use for three is 'three', 'ham sandwich' or 'Drei'. The meaning of the word "three" is given by people, but the fact of their being three objects is objective; numbers exist.
Or, more acurately, numbers can be derived a priori. The three ducks don't give a rats if no-one is there to work out how many of them there are; there are just three of them and that is fine.
EE:
You happen to have stated one of my core beliefs: Reality is not determined by human perception. Failure to acknowledge this leads to a silly loop of "People need a reality to exist in" vs "Humans make reality." It's not what we're here for, but I've always found it fascinating.
What I intended was not, "What do they look like" but, "What are they?" If I can request without being rude you to reread the OP it will hopefully be clearer with this in mind.
Slave:
This is essentially what I think you're assuming, saying that because we have math/physics that God must have made it so. People believed in a god in whatever forms way before there was any seriously detailed math/physics. Maths and Physics in a general sense, has no bearing on, and nothing to do with, the possible existence of "God".
EE:
Everything has to do with it. It either is or is not created by this theoretical being and the current state in which it exists, assuming cause and effect remains immutable, will reflect that.
As to numbers specifically having no bearing here, they can be used to express and understand nature like a language, representing a thing without being the thing itself. In that way we can see that the same case could be effectively made, though it would require a different way of expressing it than mine. Same ideas couched in a new language.
Magicware999:
I don't follow. Are you disagreeing with me, or are you agreeing?
Because agreeing with me is saying that your logic is wrong.
EE:
Agreeing in the first sentence, explaining where I think the issue was in the rest. Although rereading you prior post I'm not entirely certain I follow what you were trying to say.
Taylor:
However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
EE:
You're trying to use logic to disprove the validity of logic. "Logic does not work here." "Why?" "Because of this logic." This is like trying to swing your sword at your sword.
I apologize if I missed any, I'm trying to stay relevant to the central idea here. And I'm still planning to try and read http://sqapo.com/kant.htm but haven't had the mental energy it deserves to devote to it.
Magicware999:
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
EE:
Correct, how we express our understanding of a thing does not matter to the reality or understanding of the thing itself. The word "Bank" has no meaning outside of that which we give it, but it still expresses the idea of something that does exist. Similarly, numbers express physical realities of nature.
Another way of putting it would be that if we begin to question our ability to communicate our understanding then we are calling into question our ability to understand in the first place. This leads to the "Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" nonsense.
To save posting as may times as there are replies:
Rodyle
1: define intrinsic value
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
3: "Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists." disagree on this. We defined mathematics to explain our universe. That doesn't mean that it functions on it.
EE
1: Has value in and of itself, requires nothing else in order to exist as is.
2: Numbers do not exist without each other, thus they might possibly be able to <i>continue</i> to exist* but could not begin to exist without something to start them. It comes to the same but this is possibly more clear.
3:Granted on vague phrasing. "Can be expressed by" would have been better.
*Unsure. It's interesting, but not important to the point.
Am Shegar
Numbers are defined by 1(existance of a singular object), 0(lack of existance), and an operation of addition. As such, they have intrinsic value if applied to the existance of a given object.
EE
But the object itself, if a physical thing, is governed by numbers, thus leading to the same problem as before.
Magickware999:
Math is meant to explain things found within the universe. You have it the wrong way around.
EE:
#3 on Rodyle's list. Once again I could have said it better and lesson learned.
**Alpinefroggy:
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God. It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
EE:
Incidentally I am very nearly convinced of same. I put a lot of effort into it but still sometimes say not-quite what I mean. "Very strong evidence for the existence of God." might have been better, but at a certain point I wonder if we get off into questioning our own perceptions and logic to such a degree that any evidence of anything becomes moot anyway. I am presented when I walk outside with evidence that is a sunny day, but the possibility exists that it is actually raining and I am being fooled somehow. But I have no reason to believe that is the case.
**I think a lot of things will be covered by this and so I'll direct them to the double asterisks.
TrappedUnderIce: http://sqapo.com/kant.htm
EE:
I plan to work my way through this and get back to you, but from what I saw it was very interesting.
Unexpectedly long weekend. Further posts to follow.
So the point of this is to find a large number of people who are opposed to this to see how well it holds up. Go ahead and try to find a fault if you could, because I'd rather be back to square 1 than be lying to people. Ok, to the thing:
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on. Thus, numbers have no intrinsic value of their own. Even stacked to infinity, relative value does not give any intrinsic value. With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist. Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists.
Thus it can be said there must be something which gives these numbers their real value, and this thing cannot itself be a number or governed by them (this means it cannot be a physical thing). Further, this force, in order not to have the same problem as the numbers it's propping up this force must be complete unto itself and require nothing else to give it value. Such a force would not be required by anything outside itself to create (give value to) the physical world. Thus, this force made a choice. To choose requires a mind. Thus it can be said the universe was created by a thinking being which is complete unto itself and independent of any governance.
This is not quite proof of the Abrahamic God, but it's getting very close, assuming all the logic can stand.
So I was keeping my submission in an open tab here and copied it so I could refresh the page. Then copied something else. It barely qualified anyway. I doubt I'll make it in but I'll still administrate.
Ilvaldi's thing it is.
Slice-of-Life: An ordinary, non-dramatic scene in the life of one or more characters.
Word-Count- Max 1200, which I'm told is 3 pages worth of TNR.
No vote for self, 2 week submissions, radda radda radda.
(Can you open packs with redundant cards in them? Like once you have a playset of something does it stop spawning in packs?) but it's not a core gripe.
Still can't recommend unless you really love Magic. But then again you're here so you probably do.
What would you use instead? We both -I assume- acknowledge the limitations of logic.
EE:
Absolutely not. Limits of our ability to apply or understand it, but the thing itself is without limits. I cannot do the math on how to send a vessel to Alpha Cenauri, but I am certain the math is there, infallible, just like it is for everything I can see.
This could go further but not to anyone's benefit.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) It's X because science.
EE:
Well I do firmly believe math is always right. Still, that measure, the distance the atom travels, is still relative to everything else. I could bisect that and you could show the measurements of the parts unto infinity but it would still all be relative to each other. Precision nearing infinity but never reaching it.
Blinkingspirit:
But when we are aspiring to write a logical proof, every assumption we make must be stated explicitly and not contested by any party involved in the argument. I mention all your assumptions precisely because I am contesting them. You need to justify them. If you could make any assumption you wanted, and when they were contested just wave your hands and say "We all make assumptions", then you could start by saying "I assume that God exists" and not bother with a proof at all.
EE:
This is interesting. I suppose for lack of education (thus practice) and the informal forum environment I allowed myself to skip over things I had considered not core to the idea. This isn't what I expected but is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for with this, thank you.
What listed or unlisted assumptions am I making that are contested?
Blinkingspirit:
Prove it.
EE:
Clearly what caused this God to create nature would have been internal, since nothing outside of it can affect it. In order for this to be true it must be outside the realm of time, or at least untouched by it, and thus unchanging, perfectly stable, the only thing that Is because it Is.*
*In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis comes at this from another way, beginning with morality and moving from there, but since morality is also a set of rules (like math) it's a fascinating how it brings a sort of all-encompassing quality to not just the idea of God, but to everything else as well. I bring it up because I'm going to have to dig up my copy to say what I'm trying to say. I'll be back.
Try thinking of it as being like how an engineer uses them to design a rocket. They are not the machine, but they describe it perfectly and therefore properly understanding them is the same as understanding the rocket.
Tayler:
I'm not having a conversation that says logic can be used to disprove logic.
Blinking Spirit:
1. If we accept that 2 and every higher natural number is defined relative to 1, that still leaves the question of what 1 is. You have just ignored this. If 1 is absolute, then every number defined relative to it likewise snaps into the absolute by induction. And 1 is absolute. There can be no debate over whether you have one of a given well-defined thing or not. If we have consensus on what an apple is, and I put one apple on the table, nobody can reasonably say, "I believe that there are two apples." So then if I continue to add apples to the table one by one, we find that all the natural numbers are likewise absolute.
EE:
Sorry about overlooking you.
Here's that first bit with aesthetically different but functionally identical words. I think though we'll need to be careful else end up straying into having two congruent but not-exactly-related discussions where we both argue points the other isn't making.
Nothing is really "big" or "small." If all existence were a mile across then an inch would be very long indeed. So you can say, "What is a foot?" and I reply, "Twelve inches," you would not be wrong in saying, "Well then what is an inch?" For any measurement to have value there must be something to measure it against. This doesn't cover the whole of the idea but if viewing it differently will help this should do enough.
Blinkingspirit:
Numbers are value.
EE:
But again, what value? Against what can measurements be measured?
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase) The bit about assumptions.
EE:
This addresses the next bit also, so hooray for efficiency.
Assumptions are necessary for literally any decision to be made rationally or any idea to make sense. I don't check my floor for scorpions when I wake up in the morning, I take what I know and make assumptions regarding the lack of stinging arachnids. I think the assumptions made are reasonable: Nature exists, in some fundamental way it really is there. Cause and effect is inviolate within it, things happen or are as they are because things happened to cause them and this is never not true (this could go back to the origin and we could have that conversation but it's not this one so moving on). Nature is measurable with perfect certainty if you know the right numbers, I only mean the physical realm in this case, and I know the numbers to know things (like when deer will go extinct or something) would get impossibly difficult for us to calculate, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be. They're assumptions, but if you don't make certain assumptions you'd just be paralyzed by indecision worrying every space not in front of your eyes might be filled with scorpions.
Blinkingspirit:
"Force"
EE:
Force in this case is vague because there's no way within a language designed for a physical system to exactly express something that is inherently outside its bounds. It sounds better than "thingy" and does the same job.
Blinking Spirit:
Even assuming your premise that the "force"... must not have had external impetus, how on earth does this imply mental choice?
EE:
This seems inherently contradictory but it's the bounds of language trying to describe the source of language so bear with me.
This force would be outside cause-and-effect. Nothing caused it, and nothing can affect it. There's no other reason for it to do anything but that it itself chose to.
Blinkingspirit:
You have also just equivocated between "create" and "give value to". Who's to say that those two acts are the same, or even in any way related?
EE:
Assuming cause and effect still work here, and there's no reason to think they don't, then all things that exist within or interact with our world can be measured accurately only in relation to this. It is the source of creation, and creation has value, and things that don't exist have no value, and so it must not only have but define value.
Blinkingspirit:
(Paraphrase)That thing about it not being the capital "G" God.
EE:
It was to show I wasn't trying to skip ahead.
Everyone:
(Paraphrase)A billion-billion words.
EE:
I'm kind of being overwhelmed by sheer volume of words here, many of which don't seem related to the original idea unless you take a sort of universal-interconnectedness sort of view. And honestly this is amazingly more tiresome than I expected, the Keats has been moved from an open tab to the "When I get a chance" bookmarks folder, where what is not dead will most likely eternal lie. No promises on my ability to keep my part of this going.
Numbers absolutely have meaning outside what we have given them, in the sense that if there are three ducks there are three of them. This is true no matter if the word I use for three is 'three', 'ham sandwich' or 'Drei'. The meaning of the word "three" is given by people, but the fact of their being three objects is objective; numbers exist.
Or, more acurately, numbers can be derived a priori. The three ducks don't give a rats if no-one is there to work out how many of them there are; there are just three of them and that is fine.
EE:
You happen to have stated one of my core beliefs: Reality is not determined by human perception. Failure to acknowledge this leads to a silly loop of "People need a reality to exist in" vs "Humans make reality." It's not what we're here for, but I've always found it fascinating.
What I intended was not, "What do they look like" but, "What are they?" If I can request without being rude you to reread the OP it will hopefully be clearer with this in mind.
Slave:
This is essentially what I think you're assuming, saying that because we have math/physics that God must have made it so. People believed in a god in whatever forms way before there was any seriously detailed math/physics. Maths and Physics in a general sense, has no bearing on, and nothing to do with, the possible existence of "God".
EE:
Everything has to do with it. It either is or is not created by this theoretical being and the current state in which it exists, assuming cause and effect remains immutable, will reflect that.
As to numbers specifically having no bearing here, they can be used to express and understand nature like a language, representing a thing without being the thing itself. In that way we can see that the same case could be effectively made, though it would require a different way of expressing it than mine. Same ideas couched in a new language.
Magicware999:
I don't follow. Are you disagreeing with me, or are you agreeing?
Because agreeing with me is saying that your logic is wrong.
EE:
Agreeing in the first sentence, explaining where I think the issue was in the rest. Although rereading you prior post I'm not entirely certain I follow what you were trying to say.
Taylor:
However, logic doesn't lead us to the conclusion of a Primum Movens. The idea that causality leads to an unmoved mover is self-contradictory. If everything must have a cause, then so must 'God.' Thus, that God isn't God. If you give an ad hoc ability to God to claim God is the start of the causality chain, such arbitrary attribute could just as easy be given to the Universe. Logic doesn't lead us to a prime mover.
EE:
You're trying to use logic to disprove the validity of logic. "Logic does not work here." "Why?" "Because of this logic." This is like trying to swing your sword at your sword.
I apologize if I missed any, I'm trying to stay relevant to the central idea here. And I'm still planning to try and read http://sqapo.com/kant.htm but haven't had the mental energy it deserves to devote to it.
Numbers in of themselves have no meaning. They are given meaning by us to define things that we see in he world around us. There is no difference in defining the first ten numbers as "q,w,e,r,t,y,u,i,o,p,wq" instead of our Arabic number "0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10". So long as you maintain the internal logic built into the system.
In other words... Numbers do not exist. At least, not in the way you seem to think they do. What does exist are the realities that we choose to define. And those realities really could "care less" (as if empirical truth can care about anything) how we define them. What does matter to us is that we do define them.
EE:
Correct, how we express our understanding of a thing does not matter to the reality or understanding of the thing itself. The word "Bank" has no meaning outside of that which we give it, but it still expresses the idea of something that does exist. Similarly, numbers express physical realities of nature.
Another way of putting it would be that if we begin to question our ability to communicate our understanding then we are calling into question our ability to understand in the first place. This leads to the "Am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man?" nonsense.
Rodyle
1: define intrinsic value
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
3: "Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists." disagree on this. We defined mathematics to explain our universe. That doesn't mean that it functions on it.
EE
1: Has value in and of itself, requires nothing else in order to exist as is.
2: Numbers do not exist without each other, thus they might possibly be able to <i>continue</i> to exist* but could not begin to exist without something to start them. It comes to the same but this is possibly more clear.
3:Granted on vague phrasing. "Can be expressed by" would have been better.
*Unsure. It's interesting, but not important to the point.
Am Shegar
Numbers are defined by 1(existance of a singular object), 0(lack of existance), and an operation of addition. As such, they have intrinsic value if applied to the existance of a given object.
EE
But the object itself, if a physical thing, is governed by numbers, thus leading to the same problem as before.
Magickware999:
Math is meant to explain things found within the universe. You have it the wrong way around.
EE:
#3 on Rodyle's list. Once again I could have said it better and lesson learned.
**Alpinefroggy:
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God. It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
EE:
Incidentally I am very nearly convinced of same. I put a lot of effort into it but still sometimes say not-quite what I mean. "Very strong evidence for the existence of God." might have been better, but at a certain point I wonder if we get off into questioning our own perceptions and logic to such a degree that any evidence of anything becomes moot anyway. I am presented when I walk outside with evidence that is a sunny day, but the possibility exists that it is actually raining and I am being fooled somehow. But I have no reason to believe that is the case.
**I think a lot of things will be covered by this and so I'll direct them to the double asterisks.
TrappedUnderIce:
http://sqapo.com/kant.htm
EE:
I plan to work my way through this and get back to you, but from what I saw it was very interesting.
Unexpectedly long weekend. Further posts to follow.
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on. Thus, numbers have no intrinsic value of their own. Even stacked to infinity, relative value does not give any intrinsic value. With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist. Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists.
Thus it can be said there must be something which gives these numbers their real value, and this thing cannot itself be a number or governed by them (this means it cannot be a physical thing). Further, this force, in order not to have the same problem as the numbers it's propping up this force must be complete unto itself and require nothing else to give it value. Such a force would not be required by anything outside itself to create (give value to) the physical world. Thus, this force made a choice. To choose requires a mind. Thus it can be said the universe was created by a thinking being which is complete unto itself and independent of any governance.
This is not quite proof of the Abrahamic God, but it's getting very close, assuming all the logic can stand.
Wizards needs to do this.
Slice-of-Life: An ordinary, non-dramatic scene in the life of one or more characters.
Word-Count- Max 1200, which I'm told is 3 pages worth of TNR.
No vote for self, 2 week submissions, radda radda radda.