bmcclure7

1. No it's speculation, You're guessing, it maybe a good guess but still guess. Brandon sanderson has told us nothing on this topic, For all we know it could just be a coin shot with similar ideology. It's not like following the law It's a particularly unique or creative ideology. Who knows maybe he went to roshar was inspired. And your wrong about the post RoW discussion you forgetting the northerners. 2. Speculating About Roshar vs Scadrial post RoW (temporally) Is a fruitless endeavor. 1. Dalinar could be dead by the end of book 5 no more bondsmith unchained. 2. Honor could be United by the end of book 5. Which would also mean no bonds with unchained. 3. Roshar could be Is the capital of odium's intergalactic Empire full of super nukes. 4. Roshar could have been destroyed. Which case this debate is pointless Any one of these or a million more options could be possible. Change even one factor completely changes The outcome of this conflict. If you want to talk temporary equivalency Then we shevel this topic till at least book 5 if not 6.

1. The conquistadors were also contemporaries to the Aztec. 2. Maybe he could have, Or maybe hes not a skybreaker at all but a coin shot, Or someone from the new mythos planet. It's supposed to be speculation based on Brandon Sanderson's writings. It's not speculation based on speculation. 3. Ishar is insane. And doesn't seem to be in the mood to share anything anytime soon. Kalak Can't even get himself off world. What makes you think he can get a Spren. 4. As of Rythm of war Dalinar cannot use his powers to allow Spren to move off world. If he learns later then maybe we can start this discussion over again but right now he can't. 5. Such discussions have already been had, This is supposed to be an update To that discussion for LM. Were Comparing based on book equivalency not temporal equivalency. So its RoW to LM until book 5 then its book 5 to LM. 6. If you want to discuss roshar vs Scadrial at some earlier date and time, Then you are free to start that topic in the regular cosmere discussion form. It's not what we're discussing here though.

If hoid and the Ghost bloods count as Roshar then "the ones above " count as Scadrial. 1. Both The Ghost bloods and hoid have access to powers and knowledge that the Rosharians do not. We have know reason to believe that Roshar alone will be capable of moving a spren off system any time soon. 2. Also soon is not now. We can't predict the state of Roshar at the end f book 5 (it could destroy for all we know. ) so we can't speculate on want they will or will not be able to do post RoW.

This makes the most sense.

Has Roshar brought a spen off world?

Possibly, yes but if were going with what's possible we have to give Scadrial ftl and space travel.

Hoid is not roshar.

As of this moment you can't move spren off system.

You bring up some really good points I still think roshar wins a defense war long term because Dalinar but not with Pryic level losses. Between guns metal born and harmony Scadrial we do a lot of damage.

I actually have a sort of mixed idea, I think there are sort of robots or more accurately a cognitive shadow connected to A kind of robotic or perhaps Animated metal body. I suspect the metal is trellium or one of its alloys.

There autonomy versions of the fused . We all ready know that autonomy has cognitive shadows under her command. My guess there bodies are artificial probably made out of trellium or one of its alloys.

How exactly our they different. To be they seem pretty much the same. Secretive, searching for knowledge and power, and will to kill if someone gets in there way.

1. Ghost bloods also were about to kill marasi. 2. Ghost bloods also kept secret from Marasi we she was looking for set. By her own words if they could have caught the set far earlier if they had been open. 3. At least two of the ghost bloods have selfish motives for joining.

I agree this topic has drifted to far a field from the original topic.

It would give a new perspective on his famous quote. " Honor is dead, But I'll see what I can do."

Alass I agree, The fundamental disagreement seems to my perspective to be on the definition of "reality " and "natural world". It seems from my perspective that 1 side is using these words Synonymously, While the other is not.

1. "coinshot can generate force 'out of nowhere', F-gold can create cells, etc. But that is only because he does not include Investiture in his considerations, if someone in our world did not know about electricity and photoelectric effect then toy car powered by a solar cell would look like it is breaking natural laws." A. Wax may not be a scientist but he knows the scientific method and he knows scientific laws. He Clearly has a scientific education, Even if hes not expert in any scientific field. He recognizes that investiture Violates natural law. And so doesn't consider it part of the natural world governed by scientific law. B. Electricity is part of the natural world investure is not. Electricity doesn't come from another plane of existence. Electricity is not the body of a being predated the world and was responsible for its creation. C. Electricity Is limited it cannot violate other natural laws . I can use electricity to power my house. But I can't lose electricity to grow back my heart, I can use electricity to fly, But I can't use it to transport me to another dimension. I may power my car with your Electricity, But I cannot create the universe with electricity. This is in contrast to investure, Brandon Sanderson has implied in several occasions that with enough investure you can do pretty much anything. Even over writing its own laws. 2."Spiritual realm is just another realm of existence" You could say the same thing about hell, Heaven, Mount Olympus, Asgard, Or literally any other spiritual world from any other religion. Giving it a fancy more Modern sounding name does not change what it is. It is a dimensional realm outside of the natural world. And just because you can use the scientific method on something doesn't change its nature. If were are transported to Asgard or Mount Olympus. And we're able to then use the scientific method to On Asgard And mountain olympus, Would that make them part of the natural world? An absurd question, if Asgard exist, And was accurate to what North mythology describes, Then it Could not be part of the natural world, No matter how often you use the scientific method on it. Because it is of a fundamental different nature. 3. As I've already pointed out investure may exist in the natural world, but A. It predates the creation of natural world. B. Is not bound by the laws of the natural world. C. Comes from another dimension not the dimension of the natural world. 3. I feel that our fundamental confusion, Is derived from the subconscious definition of reality that you're using. You seem to be acquainting reality ( All Real things) with the natural world. Meaning that if you prove that something is real it must therefore be natural. So you're concluding that since investure is real it must be natural. This is certainly a perspective, But please recognize it is only your perspective. When I and, I would say most people, use to term natural world We are referring to The world created by The "big Bang" or ( Insert deity of your choice) Or some combination of the 2. The world composed of Atom's in the form of matter or energy, The world that follows a natural law such as gravity, Or thermodynamics. So at least from our perspective it is very possible for something to be a part of reality ( That is is real) And not part of the natural world. From our perspective investure cannot be part of the natural world. It comes from a different origin, Is neither matter nor energy, And openly violates the laws of a natural world. I would argue that those in the Cosmere Share our perspective. Wax Clearly views Investure as Something that violates natural law. Something which natural law cannot apply to..

1.Read lost metal again, wax plain says that Investiure breaks the laws natural laws, there laws not ours. 2. Even that aside it doesn't change the fact that investure specifically said to predate the natural world and was responsible for its creation. If it created the natural world how could it itself be Natural? 3. Investure specifically said to come from the spiritual realm. This is really the death nail as it is not of there world literally. It comes from a world beyond there's. How can you with a straight face called part of the natural world when it comes from a completely different world. By definition it's not natural it's spiritual as it comes from the spiritual world. It may exist in nature, But it is not a part of nature. I don't see how method you use to study something can change what that thing is. Just because I use the scientific method to study investure does not change its nature.

Let's go and take this a step further Kaliden is "Son of Tanizast " obviously the storm isn't going around impregnating people. So could this mean something else? Is could Kaliden be an avatar of Tanizast.

1. Just because something is bound by certain mechanics does not mean part of the natural world. Go to someone who actually believes or practice is magic in our world they will tell you that magic is also bound by certain mechanics. 2.Wrong, Something that comes from another world And can violate the laws of our world because of that is the very definition of supernatural. Super definition over and above : higher in quantity, quality, or degree than : more than. superhuman. (2) : in addition. nat·u·ral /ˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ Learn to pronounce See definitions in: All Music Religion Bridge Cards Gambling Fishing Angling adjective 1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. "carrots contain a natural antiseptic that fights bacteria" 2. of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something. supernatural [ soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl ]SHOW IPA See synonyms for supernatural on Thesaurus.com adjective of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. 3. It's because it's a brand of physics, Also means nothing. Look at alchemist, Look at magi. If You can mix the study of science and magic even in our world and surely you can in the cosmere. 4. Why do you keep comparing it to technology like Dyson swarm. All modern technology even the Dyson's swarm Is the application of natural laws without outside interference from beyond this natural world. Does not compare too Investiure. I am posting dictionary definitions because you are trying to change the definition of things to fit your argument. You can't do that.

I'm literally reading what the dictionary says. How exactly am I circular reasoning? I stated that Atheism is difficult to justify because of Investiure. What is circular about that? This conversation also can't go anywhere as long as you make up definitions for words.

I am not actually debating whether Sazed is God. Merely pointing out that atheism As we know itIs a nearly impossible position to defend intellectually within the cosmere. 1. If you don't like what atheism definition is talk to the dictionary. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that your view of atheism is not atheism according to the dictionary. 2. Wrong, Sufficiently advanced technology Only applies the laws of physics, It is a part of this world. Technology no matter how advanced only appears As magic to Those ignorant of the natural laws. Magic violates laws of physics because it is not a part of this world. Is therefore not bound by our physical laws. It is mistaken for advanced technology only by those ignorant of the natural law. 3. This has nothing to do with any real world debate. This isn't Christianity vs atheism or buddhism vs atheism. This is merely a discussion Of atheism within this within this fictional universe. 4. Honestly if the X-Men existed in real life what they do would magical pretty much. We can talk about mutations all we want but mutations do not give you the power to shoot lasers out of your eyes. However we accept their powers as natural because we are told that their powers are within The spectrum of the natural world ( They're natural world not ours) We are told just the opposite about investure. We are told very clearly that it is not natural. That comes from a different realm, That Pre dates this world That it created this world. 5. Investiure isn't just The material that makes up the cosmere it's the literal Body of the creator of the cosmere. That's not the same thing as an atoms by any means. 6. If you could prove that Atoms We're supernatural that they were the literal body of a God, Would you worship them? Maybe maybe not. But You wouldn't disbelieve in them. So technically speaking you would not be an atheist. Just someone who didn't worship the Atom God. The only way for you to be an atheist would be to deny the existence Of these magical Atoms, Deny that they were supernatural, Or simply just be ignorant of the supernatural nature.

One of them perhaps I think they're probably several.

1. I feel like you're 2 points don't reflect actual religious doctrine and more An atheist opinion of that doctrine. 2. Investuir is magic by every definition of the word. A. It Breakers the laws of nature world. B. It Comes from another world literally a spiritual realm. C. It predates the national world. D. Is literally the body of the God that created the world. How can you honestly say it is not magic? What reason could you possibly have for saying that? Yes the characters in world may not consider it magic, but that's just because of familiarity. I noticed you didn't quote Marasi reaction to the magic of other worlders because when not blind by familiarity she recognized it as supernatural. Regardless of what the characters might investiture is magic objectively so. 3. The difference in between atheism and theism is not interpretation but fundamental beliefs about reality. So if what only is difference between this view point and religions view point is one interpretation then what you are describing is not Atheism. At least not as we know it.

Re read what you quoted. You notice the word "existence". Your definition is not the same as what you quoted. Believe and worship Are not the same thing. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, or gods. What you're describing is someone who doesn't worship God. It's a lot closer to a traditional atheist( As in the ancient Romans and Greeks) than modern word. By your logic I don't believe In the king of England. This makes no sense.