>mfw /g/ can't implement network in The Temple Operating

OP BTFO

https://github.com/tharrod1/TOSN
https://github.com/tramplersheikhs/uriel
https://github.com/tramplersheikhs/selaphiel

>>61453346
>implying any of these users are /g/entoomen

>>61453353
What makes you think so

>>61453299
> tfw you are so fucking wrong
Lol lurk moar, typical redditor who casually surfs /g/ to feel like his empowered by the """anonimoose dark side"""

>>61453539
>github
SJWhub is a known botnet that also promotes feminism and affirmative action.

File: logic.jpg (114KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 600x600px

>>61453539
>"you can't prove that these are /g/ users"
>"well you can't prove that they aren't"

>>61453569
read this >>61453353

File: 1498438925043.png (148KB, 222x293px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 222x293px

>>61453299
>wasting time with modern TCP/IP protocols when decentralized internet is right around the corner

>>61453586
should we go sourceforge

>>61453602
"I has LOL XDDDD"
CIA nigger detected

>>61453602
but it's the truth
you can't prove anything
you merely have faith that the nature of our world is rational

>>61456876
>>>61453602
>but it's the truth
No it isn't.

>you can't prove anything
Yes you can else we wouldn't have created so much technology.

>you merely have faith that the nature of our world is rational
No we observe immutable facts and apply them to get results, create things, ect.

No religious person has brought up any immutable evidence of their sky god and the comic displays that just because we lack proof that it exists isn't any reason to believe it exists because there is no proof.

Take for example rustell's teapot.

>>61453602
kek

>>61457021
>No it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
Have you never heard of this?

>>61457063
Yes I have and whether you are a simulation or not, there will still be a reality for you no matter what.

But because we lack proof of being a BIV we cannot believe we are simply because of lack of evidence.

My point is we can't prove things by simply observing others can't disprove them. That's not how logic works, at all.

It's this kind of thinking that gets innocent people hurt or murdered over fairy tales (ie muslim terrorists).

>>61457213
>we cannot believe we are simply because of lack of evidence.
You're free to believe whatever you want, including not believing in things that you haven't seen yourself
However, you cannot prove or disprove anything for sure
The best you can have is faith that the world works in a certain way
Obviously this may be discomforting but it is what it is

>>61457294
>However, you cannot prove or disprove anything for sure
Yes you can, at least in the existence you currently reside in. Who's to say we aren't a simulation of a simulation of a simulation, ad infinitum? Nobody can disprove that but it's ridiculous to believe that because there's no proof for it in the first place.

>The best you can have is faith that the world works in a certain way
No the best you can is observe immutable facts around you and draw objective conclusions about your existence. What you're saying is to believe in something we cannot prove. You've come full circle you fool.

If you want to argue for our reality to be a simulation then you can start by finding objective proof.

>>61457441
>Yes you can, at least in the existence you currently reside in
No, you cannot because that would require you to know the complete set of rules that describe the world that you're in first-hand, which is impossible

>it's ridiculous to believe that because there's no proof for it in the first place.
It's only ridiculous (to you) because of the metaphysical framework that you believe in

>No the best you can is observe immutable facts around you and draw objective conclusions about your existence.
Yes, but that still requires you to have faith that the world works in a certain way, since there's no proof at all that a given scientific experiment won't suddenly give unexpected results
It's extremely unlikely but you cannot say that it's impossible for sure because you cannot have first-hand knowledge of the underlying rules that describe our world

>If you want to argue for our reality to be a simulation then you can start by finding objective proof.
I'm not arguing either way

>>61457594
>Yes, but that still requires you to have faith that the world works in a certain way, since there's no proof at all that a given scientific experiment won't suddenly give unexpected results
>It's extremely unlikely but you cannot say that it's impossible for sure because you cannot have first-hand knowledge of the underlying rules that describe our world
>>If you want to argue for our reality to be a simulation then you can start by finding objective conclusions about your existence.
>I'm not arguing either way

M8, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. If I do have faith in something it's gonna be pragmatism because having faith in things you cannot prove are only going to cause problems in your life.

Also you cannot have faith in say the laws of physics, you either accept them or you don't. There's no "faith" involved since they are proven to be true.

Anyway I'm going to make some burritos, maybe instead of engaging in philosophical masturbating you can set aside time to make them someday.

Here, I think this recipe works well, maybe you should try it.

https://www.melskitchencafe.com/tacos-supreme/

>>61453672
>Watches silicone valley
>Thinks decentralised internet is even a thing
>when actually The world is moving toward the cloud which is literally the opposite
>Pajeet faggot