they probably will... i mean that's the heart and soul of PoP

needless whining, constantinople was beautiful

I did not care at all for Constantinople. Take the series back to the Middle East and Renaissance Italy. Those cities were incredible.

But America was not.

And the Caribbean doesn't look like it'll be very city-oriented.

>Pirates
>More pirates
>More awesome pirates

I'll probably be fine with that.

This pirate one seems like it's in response to how much people loved the ship to ship combat in the third one. It was interesting but having it completely mission based instead of free roaming on a ship was kind of a let down. Not sure if that will be changed in the next one. But yeah as far as the story goes, the third one leaves a lot to be desired.

I think that's really all it is. They're taking the most enjoyable part of Assassin's Creed III and designing a whole game around it. I'm definitely going to wait a while before I decide if this is worth the buy or not.

what game is that?

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Similar story, on my birthday two of my friends were staying the night at my house. I let one of them play FarCry 3 because she had been bothering me about it all day. Anyway, I was falling asleep at the foot of my bed ( two friends were on the upper part.) It's the first plant/ boar gathering mission, and all of the sudden I hear a huge commotion. I look up to the screen and it's all teeth. I turned to her, look her dead in the eye, and ask "I know for a fucking fact that that's not croc territory. What the hell did you do?"
Then she played Oblivion 'till we all fell asleep.

"What evidence can anyone present on the existence of God?"
I'm asking you, I'm assuming you don't believe in big foot right?
Then evidence that is sufficient enough to prove evolution to you, and not evidence that is used for big foot because it is obviously insufficient.

"Do you want me to lay out my life story? Do you want me to recount the experience of feeling God in myself? "
I hardly see how this would count as evidence. I'm sure many people get feelings inside themselves, doesn't mean it's god.

"I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me."
Well that's wonderful for you, I question why you are so quick to jump the gun with believing it's god and not something more realistic but either way, why tell me the proof for god is there and I just don't accept it when IT'S A FEELING INSIDE YOUR BODY.

Sorry but science and religion are just not compatible, you can believe they coincide nicely that's fine, but that's only at an individual level. You NEED your faith to compliment science otherwise you would have to choose and wait for real evidence of god.
Objectively though, science and religion don't work. Religion is supported purely through faith, and faith has no place whatsoever in science.

Oh also:
"I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me."
So every alien abduction is real, big foot/loch ness sighting is real, and every god that has every been thought of is real?

Please you seem smarter than this, don't prove me wrong in thinking that.

You see that's the problem right there, you see evolution right? So you see what actual empirical evidence looks like. You see what evidence is required to make a claim and prove it. That is what I look for, it's not me "accepting" whether there is evidence for god, it's whether or not you have it!

I am asking for evidence for god that doesn't rely on faulty premises, personal experience, presuppositional ideas, etc. Since you realize evolution is a fact, you KNOW what evidence I'm asking for, you also know how the scientific method works.

So far you have given me the 5 proofs, a set of arguments that try to coincide certain processes we view in this universe with the existence of a god. I have explained why these are faulty and prove nothing even close to that. Especially with the new science that is developing every single day.

Yet after I do, you tell me I can not apply physical realities to the metaphysical WHEN THAT IS THE EXACT SAME THING THE 5 PROOFS AIM TO DO. So what? If it proves your claim -> "Look how compatible science and god are!" If it is used to disprove your claim -> "You can't apply those two, they are completely different properties!"

Pick one.

The fact is, I will see and accept evidence when it is presented to me. You are making a specific claim, please provide this evidence. I am asking for evidence that does not require "faith" or an assumption of gods existence first to make the evidence work. I'm asking for empirical direct proof of gods existence, and if you cannot give me that, then your claim is not proven, and thus worthless to believe as true.

What evidence can anyone present on the existence of God? Do you want me to lay out my life story? Do you want me to recount the experience of feeling God in myself? No, of course not. I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me. I can also tell you that science and religion can perfectly coincide together. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in my faith conflicts with science. That's true whether you think so or not. When you claim that science and religion cannot exist together, you're wrong. There are no two ways about that.

"What evidence can anyone present on the existence of God?"
I'm asking you, I'm assuming you don't believe in big foot right?
Then evidence that is sufficient enough to prove evolution to you, and not evidence that is used for big foot because it is obviously insufficient.

"Do you want me to lay out my life story? Do you want me to recount the experience of feeling God in myself? "
I hardly see how this would count as evidence. I'm sure many people get feelings inside themselves, doesn't mean it's god.

"I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me."
Well that's wonderful for you, I question why you are so quick to jump the gun with believing it's god and not something more realistic but either way, why tell me the proof for god is there and I just don't accept it when IT'S A FEELING INSIDE YOUR BODY.

Sorry but science and religion are just not compatible, you can believe they coincide nicely that's fine, but that's only at an individual level. You NEED your faith to compliment science otherwise you would have to choose and wait for real evidence of god.
Objectively though, science and religion don't work. Religion is supported purely through faith, and faith has no place whatsoever in science.

Oh also:
"I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me."
So every alien abduction is real, big foot/loch ness sighting is real, and every god that has every been thought of is real?

Please you seem smarter than this, don't prove me wrong in thinking that.

later

What was it?

Calling me an anti-seminite

So deleting the comment proved?
You are way too sensitive for criticism.
I think he is right, half of your posts are slightly racist/anti-semantic

Sure am

They make no sense whatsoever, the only person I can think would assume so is someone who is fishing for reasons to believe in god and to reconcile such with a logical nature. Unfortunately these arguments are based in ridiculous assumptions, non-proven premises, and just overall bad logic (and in turn, bad science).


"You are applying physical realities to a metaphysical realm."
Which would be problematic if said god wasn't involved in this universe or reality whatsoever. However, because supposedly he created the universe, and thus determinations of reality must be built on this, we can apply these realities to the claim of a god. Also where were you when you read the 5 proofs? They are all based on assuming god through realistic means.

"It occurs when people like you force them together and apply principles from one to the other. "

Oh how dare I apply science towards such things as the universe, my deepest apologies.

" Just because something is assumed without direct and decisive proof does not make it false."

It doesn't make it worth bothering with. We do not make assumptions in science in the way one does with a god. Science requires evidence and proof, you're right it doesn't make it false but it doesn't make it true either. It does however mean we concede to it being false until more evidence is uncovered.

"Why is that theory accepted? Because we can observe processes which lead us to the conclusion of evolution."

We have direct objective evidence of evolution, we even see it happening every single day. It's not based on assumptions it's based on genetic evidence, visual evidence, fossil evidence, laboratory tests, peer reviewed observations, etc etc etc.

"In the same way, one can observe events in this world which would lead them to conclude that a deity is present."

You just said we can't apply principles from physical realities to the metaphysical correct?

Regardless of whether you see it or not, there is proof of God. I don't expect you're going to accept that any time soon. That's fine. You just seem to me as the equivalent of those people who say that evolution isn't true because it's a theory and not fact.

You see that's the problem right there, you see evolution right? So you see what actual empirical evidence looks like. You see what evidence is required to make a claim and prove it. That is what I look for, it's not me "accepting" whether there is evidence for god, it's whether or not you have it!

I am asking for evidence for god that doesn't rely on faulty premises, personal experience, presuppositional ideas, etc. Since you realize evolution is a fact, you KNOW what evidence I'm asking for, you also know how the scientific method works.

So far you have given me the 5 proofs, a set of arguments that try to coincide certain processes we view in this universe with the existence of a god. I have explained why these are faulty and prove nothing even close to that. Especially with the new science that is developing every single day.

Yet after I do, you tell me I can not apply physical realities to the metaphysical WHEN THAT IS THE EXACT SAME THING THE 5 PROOFS AIM TO DO. So what? If it proves your claim -> "Look how compatible science and god are!" If it is used to disprove your claim -> "You can't apply those two, they are completely different properties!"

Pick one.

The fact is, I will see and accept evidence when it is presented to me. You are making a specific claim, please provide this evidence. I am asking for evidence that does not require "faith" or an assumption of gods existence first to make the evidence work. I'm asking for empirical direct proof of gods existence, and if you cannot give me that, then your claim is not proven, and thus worthless to believe as true.

What evidence can anyone present on the existence of God? Do you want me to lay out my life story? Do you want me to recount the experience of feeling God in myself? No, of course not. I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me. I can also tell you that science and religion can perfectly coincide together. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in my faith conflicts with science. That's true whether you think so or not. When you claim that science and religion cannot exist together, you're wrong. There are no two ways about that.

"What evidence can anyone present on the existence of God?"
I'm asking you, I'm assuming you don't believe in big foot right?
Then evidence that is sufficient enough to prove evolution to you, and not evidence that is used for big foot because it is obviously insufficient.

"Do you want me to lay out my life story? Do you want me to recount the experience of feeling God in myself? "
I hardly see how this would count as evidence. I'm sure many people get feelings inside themselves, doesn't mean it's god.

"I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me."
Well that's wonderful for you, I question why you are so quick to jump the gun with believing it's god and not something more realistic but either way, why tell me the proof for god is there and I just don't accept it when IT'S A FEELING INSIDE YOUR BODY.

Sorry but science and religion are just not compatible, you can believe they coincide nicely that's fine, but that's only at an individual level. You NEED your faith to compliment science otherwise you would have to choose and wait for real evidence of god.
Objectively though, science and religion don't work. Religion is supported purely through faith, and faith has no place whatsoever in science.

Oh also:
"I can tell you that these experiences are proof enough for me."
So every alien abduction is real, big foot/loch ness sighting is real, and every god that has every been thought of is real?

Please you seem smarter than this, don't prove me wrong in thinking that.