Okay folks,

Here comes another of the Fatboy's busybody suggestions.


It seems there is a brouhaha brewing (but no one is haha-ing) over in the comments to "proof of anything". This has happened before (in the puzzle "can or can not") and led to the thread "the existence of God."


The thing about these two dustups is that they both could easily been avoided. Both of the puzzles could have been posted in a manner that would not have changed them substantially but would have not brought about so many ill will. "Can or Can not" could (and I suspect probably originally was referred to "an omnipotent being" instead of "God" and Proof of anything could have been written with a different broadly accepted statement "If S is true then the Pope is Polish".


I would respectfully suggest that in the future those reviewing problems consider suggesting changes to avoid unneeded, distracting controversy.


I'm not suggesting that we ban any topics or that we avoid controvery all together. But in cases where the controversial elements do not particulaly add to the puzzle's interest (as I think was the case in these two puzzles) we should consider doing without it.


I know that this seems needlesly PC of me but I think it would keep discussion in the comments more centered and what flooble is best at: puzzles and puzzling.


In the interest of full disclosure, When I was a newer floobler, I argued the otherside of this issue saying: whats wrong with a little free exchange of ideas? or something like that. Charlie set me strait then and while I did not agree at first, I have begun to see that this kind of debate really doesn't add to flooble.

Well....

Sure I'll agree that this type of religeous back and forth is not in the 'heart' of flooble, but I don't see it as a bad thing regardless. Lifes greatest opportunities for growth happen when unexpected circumstances arise, or different (and therefore often challenging) views or opinions are brought to bear. Obviously, I know that I'll be in the minoroity here, but I thought I'd express my opinion anyways.

And, (poor grammar there) I think the argument being about the existence of God was the best way to go with this puzzle, though any choice would've worked. The reason that I think this topic was best suited was precisely because you can't use knowledge or logic to conclude anything about the topic in general. Obviously, the puzzle was not ~about~ theology, but I think it was properly suited to ~include~ theology. Maybe a better choice would've been to relate it to some other 'religeon', say like proving that Zues did indeed use a demon to kill prometheus...

I find it most interesting to see how both sides of heavily ~opinionated~ people react to these theological disagreements, and would miss it wherever it turned up, flooble or otherwise.

A fundamental of religion is faith - ie believing in something without proof.

A fundamental of logic problems is a definitive answer - ie deriving a proven solution.

Ergo religion and flooble do not fit together. QED

That said, I do agree with Corey's last point in that I'll miss the amusement of watching otherwise rational people trying to construct reasoned arguments that justify their personal beliefs, despite the fact that the 'debate' is as pointless as arguing about what is the perfect thing to spread on toast. After all everybody knows that it's Marmite, so what is there to discuss?

Why do people use "QED" when they never said what they were going to prove in the first place?