slapiton_abiscuit

"You cannot prove a negative" is an unfortunate piece of pseudologic that refers to the appeal to ignorance, but condenses the fallacy too much (so much its not true anymore). It would be better to condense it like this: "Sth. is true because there is no proof that sth. is false." -> fallacy. This would make it short without distortion of the meaning (i think) Edit: Here is a link for a more in-depth description http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof I usually see it used in regards to god/s so maybe that is why it's used here? Because in the game we don't really know the definition or rules laid out for the old gods to say they couldn't have been disproved with animancy. It seems with advancement of science in our world, god has been placed outside of our universe to try to make it work. Which makes proving it's existence, or lack thereof rather tricky... But we don't know much about the old gods in PoE, so in whatever way "You cannot prove a negative" is interpreted it's possible they could have been proven false. At least, that's how it seems to me. The point was that the burden of proof was on proving that the Gods did exist, not proving that they didn't. The Engwithans saw no master moving pieces around and order once they had mastered animancy. They then determined that if there was no higher power or fate and that bad things happen just because of luck then they would create a purpose and share it with the world. They would get rid of all of the religions of the other civilizations and replace it with their own which would have order and beings which could communicate and offer a purpose in life. It's true that there could have been god or gods outside of their realm of knowledge but they lacked faith to continue to believe without proof. They felt that in the absence of purpose and meaning they would create one because it was better than nothing. "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer."[3] Translation: If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire 1770 Not sure if I get you right, but my reply on top dealt with someone taking issue with the Engwithans finding out there were no gods. Saying "so we're dealing with a civilization that learned how to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) " Which isn't true, and regardless if read literally or not they could have proven the old gods false even if the burden of proof wasn't on them. Which as far as I gathered, is what they did.It would have been strange to preform mass suicide thinking "X is false, because there is no proof X is true."

Galawain. Not sure what the other gods say, but it seems almost ironic that he supported animancy, while Thaos did so much to try to put people off it.

"You cannot prove a negative" is an unfortunate piece of pseudologic that refers to the appeal to ignorance, but condenses the fallacy too much (so much its not true anymore). It would be better to condense it like this: "Sth. is true because there is no proof that sth. is false." -> fallacy. This would make it short without distortion of the meaning (i think) Edit: Here is a link for a more in-depth description http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof I usually see it used in regards to god/s so maybe that is why it's used here? Because in the game we don't really know the definition or rules laid out for the old gods to say they couldn't have been disproved with animancy. It seems with advancement of science in our world, god has been placed outside of our universe to try to make it work. Which makes proving it's existence, or lack thereof rather tricky... But we don't know much about the old gods in PoE, so in whatever way "You cannot prove a negative" is interpreted it's possible they could have been proven false. At least, that's how it seems to me.

I hardly ever returned to the stronghold, I had my fill of shades.

Atheists generally believe that all religions are man-made and manufactured in a very obvious fashion. The allegory here is not subtle. The religious establishment that Thaos represents is 1) a system of lies created for the purpose of control and domination, 2) relies on the premise that people are too weak-minded to bear the truth, 3) obscurantist to the extreme and hostile to "science", 4) entirely willing to commit atrocities in order to preserve the status quo, and 5) not only unnessecary for the world's peace and prosperity, but an active impediment thereto. These are the same arguments and criticisms pitted against real world religion by atheist polemists. Add the fact that Thaos' organisation has many similarities to the Spanish Inquisition, and that Thaos himself is the ultimate religious boogeyman, and the ending feels like a preachy progressive morality play wherein an atheist protagonist is beating the stuffing out of a strawman that wears a papal mitre. It is within Obsidian's creative freedom to make whatever points it wants, but personally I found the ending's heavy-handed allegory to be a swing and a miss. Despite the early association of Thaos with Woedica, it wasn't clear throughout most of the game that the narrative was building to a smash-the-church climax. Iovara is too under-defined and introduced too late in the narrative for me to care about her person or her valiant undying stand against the establishment, and it doesn't help that much of her dialogue feels like it jumped straight out of an argumentative youtube comment (the "my reality is true whether you believe it or not" or somesuch line caused an involuntary eye-roll). The big revelation was a surprising twist, sure, in that I certainly didn't predict it, but it wasn't an effective one. The motivation behind the engwithan manufacture of their counterfeit gods falls flat for me; a civilization that was (with the exception of its skill at animancy) less advanced than modern Eoran civilization proved the nonexistance of god(s) with such certainty that it altered the course of their civilization and the world... so we're dealing with a civilization that learned how to prove a negative (a logical impossibility) before it mastered metallargy, or chemistry, or invented the printing press. Not particularly convincing. But, okay, I can put up with dodgy logic. The larger issue for me here is that this twist about the truth of this setting was delivered in the very same game that first introduced us to it. I've only just started learning about these gods, I'm not yet remotely invested in them, and therefore I'm not emotionally affected when they are discredited by a sudden revelation that comes with all the theatrical power of sitting on a half-inflated whoopie-cushion. If Obsidian had made Baldur's Gate 3 and written an ending which revelaed Ao the Overfather as some super computer responsible for generating the multiverse, or as the eventual apotheosis of a time-travelling Tiax or something, I might have been impacted. As it is, exposing these gods as fake really meant nothing to me in the context of the narrative. It only becomes meaningful if I consider that Obsidian is not just imparting information about the gods of their new setting, but rather is making a statement about religion in general. Which again is their point to make if they want. I just find it dissapointing to get to the end of the road and find nothing waiting for me but one-sided allegory. "prove a negative (a logical impossibility)" Can you prove that? Joking aside, proving a negative is quite possible. Not sure why people say you can't prove a negative. You can prove there isn't any milk in my glass, you can prove there is no largest prime number.Though I did find it odd how easily the companions were convinced of what she had to say. It explained a lot though, but I saw no reason to believe her until.. Well moments later after the talk and fight with Thaos.