Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

And because you just repeat, so will I (the bits you ignored in order to repeat yet again a claim that's been shown wrong)

You could invoke a cosmic hippo that shat it (the universe) out, LEROY, and you'd have exactly the same degree of accuracy if you calculated the chance of that.


So what you are saying is that, even though you don't have the 'exact' numbers when it comes to determining whether a hippo shat out this universe, we can still just calculate probabilities on the back of a beermat.

In your case, that calculation would read: 1 because I prefer 1

That's the sum of your calculation.

But go on, calculate your way out of hippo shit. I bet you won't touch it with a barge-pole because any answer you gave would immediately debunk your own claim.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:09 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:the act of having sex requires intent, if you observe 2 people having sex then it is obvious that at least one of them intended to have sex.



Another assertion atop the last one.

Go on then chap, explain the intent in bacterial reproduction.

From whence cometh this intent?

Or if you really need to stick to humans... have you never slept naked in bed with a lady and woke to find you are in the act of copulation although both of you were asleep?

See? Again, your confident assertions are shown to be just gross simplifications, and that your confidence was wholly misplaced.


I already made my point, sex usually requires intent,

you can ether understand my point and answer accordingly, or you can be a troll and pretend that you don't understand, we all know what option you are going to choose
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:22 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:I already made my point, sex usually requires intent,


Oho!

It's USUALLY now, is it?

What's the noise?

It can't possibly be the goal posts moving, can it? :D

Of course, you haven't actually established that there is any intent, you have merely asserted it.

I provided the black swan, you changed your tune.



leroy wrote:Iyou can ether understand my point and answer accordingly, or you can be a troll and pretend that you don't understand, we all know what option you are going to choose


Or I can show what vacuous dribble you keep spouting in this forum devoted to reason.

Hey, there's a host of things I could do, so False Dichotomy dispelled.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:30 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

And yeah, the parrot has already been caged:


Cite your source for this assertion, or consider it rejected by honest people with honest minds who value honesty.

Secondly, sex is not a product of design, so your typical bullshit obfuscation is dismissed. Next random assemblage of words you want to assert as reality.

Thirdly, sex is an evolved behavior, and the notion of intent with respect to evolved behaviors is full of genuine philosophical problems I've already educated you about, but which you've ignored and just trotted out again as if I'm just to accept your nonsensical bullshit as fact.

Fourthly, in reality, there's the appearance of design which is not design and therefore not intent, and there is design which is done with intent, and finally there is design which is designed but not done with intent.

You therefore won't confuse me with your subnormal intelligence equivocation, LEROY, but I will enjoy showing how you need to engage in simplification in order to sneak your pathetic arguments past critical scrutiny.

So all of your sentence was wrong and incoherent. Rejected. Not accepted. Therefore you can't continue to use it as a postulate in your discussion. You can either a) go back to the drawing board and explain yourself better, perhaps try and use empirical evidence for your claims that people can independently inspect, or b) you can try a new argument not yet used.

So what's the bet you choose c? The Goebbels School of Argumentation?


Yep, prediction confirmed.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:33 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:And because you just repeat, so will I (the bits you ignored in order to repeat yet again a claim that's been shown wrong)

You could invoke a cosmic hippo that shat it (the universe) out, LEROY, and you'd have exactly the same degree of accuracy if you calculated the chance of that.


So what you are saying is that, even though you don't have the 'exact' numbers when it comes to determining whether a hippo shat out this universe, we can still just calculate probabilities on the back of a beermat.

In your case, that calculation would read: 1 because I prefer 1

That's the sum of your calculation.

But go on, calculate your way out of hippo shit. I bet you won't touch it with a barge-pole because any answer you gave would immediately debunk your own claim.

\

the bits that I ignored are irrelevant this is why I am ignoring them

what I am saying is that you don't need to know the exact numbers (data) in order to conclude that something is more probable than some other thing.

this is an uncontroversial fact, but feel free to pretend that you disagree with it



the calculations have been done, with a high degree of certainty, it is statistically more probable to live in a universe with relatively high entropy and imagine observations of low entropy than living in a universe with low entropy.

if you take this to an extreme level it is demonstrably more likely that you are just a bolzman brain

I have done my own research, chap, and I reject your bullshit assertions. You are wrong, and your confidence is wholly misplaced.

Want to retort? Then shut your pie hole and cite your sources.


o really, and what articles did you read? where did you do your research?


sure feel free to look at the sources that I provided, if you still disagree please justify your answer and provide your evidence.

[Youtube]nhy4Z_32kQo&t=2s[/Youtube]

http://chaosbook.org/library/Penr04.pdf
pages 762 to 767

or you can reed a simple wiki article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann ... in_paradox
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:43 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:I already made my point, sex usually requires intent,


Oho!

It's USUALLY now, is it?

What's the noise?

It can't possibly be the goal posts moving, can it? :D

.



really, this is my original post

leroy wrote:
well sex is usually a product of design (intent) therefore your analogy does not apply


lets see if you have the intelectual honesty to admit that you where wrong and that you wrongly accused me moving the goal post.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

what I am saying is that you don't need to know the exact numbers (data) in order to conclude that something is more probable than some other thing.



Utter horseshit.

Who do you think you are going to fool with this vapid bollocks?

Did you calculate the hippo shit yet?

No? Well, you said you don't need exact numbers or data to conclude whether it's more probable that X rather than Y, so calculate whether a cosmic hippo shit the universe into existence rather than that not happening, and show your working, please,

No? Going to ignore it?

Of course you will because you ignore everything that exposes your bullshit as bullshit.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:49 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:really, this is my original post

leroy wrote:
well sex is usually a product of design (intent) therefore your analogy does not apply


lets see if you have the intelectual honesty to admit that you where wrong and that you wrongly accused me moving the goal post.



1) here's you not using the word 'usually' last iteration of your ever changing Russian Dolls:

LEROY wrote:the act of having sex requires intent, if you observe 2 people having sex then it is obvious that at least one of them intended to have sex.


See the word 'usually' in there? No? Oh well, lookee there, lying cunt LEROY.

Now let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit that you did exactly what I said.


2) yes, your post, and here's my reply that you keep evading:


Cite your source for this assertion, or consider it rejected by honest people with honest minds who value honesty.

Secondly, sex is not a product of design, so your typical bullshit obfuscation is dismissed. Next random assemblage of words you want to assert as reality.

Thirdly, sex is an evolved behavior, and the notion of intent with respect to evolved behaviors is full of genuine philosophical problems I've already educated you about, but which you've ignored and just trotted out again as if I'm just to accept your nonsensical bullshit as fact.

Fourthly, in reality, there's the appearance of design which is not design and therefore not intent, and there is design which is done with intent, and finally there is design which is designed but not done with intent.

You therefore won't confuse me with your subnormal intelligence equivocation, LEROY, but I will enjoy showing how you need to engage in simplification in order to sneak your pathetic arguments past critical scrutiny.

So all of your sentence was wrong and incoherent. Rejected. Not accepted. Therefore you can't continue to use it as a postulate in your discussion. You can either a) go back to the drawing board and explain yourself better, perhaps try and use empirical evidence for your claims that people can independently inspect, or b) you can try a new argument not yet used.

So what's the bet you choose c? The Goebbels School of Argumentation?


Goebbels cubed at the moment!
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Incidentally, folks, it's apparently

LEROY wrote:an uncontroversial fact,


that

LEROY wrote:you don't need to know the exact numbers (data) in order to conclude that something is more probable than some other thing.



And so, consequently, without knowing the exact numbers or data (in fact, having no numbers or data) that the probability of Yahweh not having made the universe is vastly greater than Yahweh having made the universe, and just because we're allowed to simply make up facts extrapolated from no data, then I also add that the chance of Yahweh having made the universe is 0.

So, LEROY now accepts that because otherwise he can just


LEROY wrote:feel free to pretend that you disagree with it



What's most amusing of all LEROY, is that you still don't realize what I've let you do to your public credibility. If you did have a clue, you'd have stopped replying a long time ago and pretended never to notice one of my ripostes that inevitably leads you into stating such inane assertions. But you don't have a clue, do you, so you still think you're doing well! :lol:
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:58 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:And so, consequently, without knowing the exact numbers or data (in fact, having no numbers or data) that the probability of Yahweh not having made the universe is vastly greater than Yahweh having made the universe,:


maybe, but no one is talking about Yahweh I am talking about the probability of living in a universe with low entropy by chance VS hallucinating a universe with low entropy


you see, you don't even know what I am talking about, you are just trolling
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:11 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:maybe, but no one is talking about Yahweh I am talking about the probability of living in a universe with low entropy by chance VS hallucinating a universe with low entropy


you see, you don't even know what I am talking about, you are just trolling



Lying Cunt Leroy is back lying again!

Right after just having been exposed as lying:


LEROY wrote:the act of having sex requires intent, if you observe 2 people having sex then it is obvious that at least one of them intended to have sex.


Sparhafoc wrote:Go on then chap, explain the intent in bacterial reproduction.

From whence cometh this intent?

Or if you really need to stick to humans... have you never slept naked in bed with a lady and woke to find you are in the act of copulation although both of you were asleep?

See? Again, your confident assertions are shown to be just gross simplifications, and that your confidence was wholly misplaced.


LEROY wrote:I already made my point, sex usually requires intent,


Sparhafoc wrote:Oho!

It's USUALLY now, is it?

What's the noise?

It can't possibly be the goal posts moving, can it?


LEROY wrote:lets see if you have the intelectual honesty to admit that you where wrong and that you wrongly accused me moving the goal post.



So now you're going to show where I indicated that you said Yahweh. No? Can't find any evidence of me saying you said anything about Yahweh, well lookee here, lying cunt LEROY! The reason you can't find any thing to support that lie is because I didn't say you said it, I didn't imply anything like that at all, you made it up in your usual attempt to deflect from the demolition your argument has just received.

Clearly, the person talking about Yahweh was me, and you can tell that because I was the one who wrote it. Keep flapping, maybe we'll get lucky and you'll reach escape velocity and fuck off somewhere else.

LEROY caught lying yet again! Lying little LEROY, why do you lie when it's written in permanent ink? :lol:
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:17 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
What's most amusing of all LEROY, is that you still don't realize what I've let you do to your public credibility. If you did have a clue, you'd have stopped replying a long time ago and pretended never to notice

:


I do notice your comments, but as I told you I am ignoring all the irrelevant stuff, any comment that has nothing to do with the Boltzmann Brain paradox will be ignored.


from previous comments it is obvious that you have no idea on what the Boltzmann Brain paradox is, so please do your research, feel free to use my sources or to do research in any other source that you consider reliable,


This should be taken as an honest feedback, I am honestly not trying to sound condescending, but you have to learn to focus your attention, learn to limit your comments to the specific point that is being addressed, I know is hard, sometimes I also feel tempted to digress and make irrelevant comments.


so please answer

what are your thought on the Boltzmann Brain paradox ?

do you think it represents a problem for the anthropic principle? yes no why?

do you think the Boltzmann Brain paradox nullifies any explanation for the low entropy of the universe that appeals to chance or coincidence ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:00 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:I do notice your comments, but as I told you I am ignoring all the irrelevant stuff, any comment that has nothing to do with the Boltzmann Brain paradox will be ignored.


And as I've pointed out each time you've trollishly declared why you are engaging in cognitive bias, that just makes you an arrogant and close-minded fool, little lying LEROY. You think you know enough about everything that you won't even spend the time to read what people write.

Some simply call it evasion, and that you lack the competence to address those points.

Me, I know for a fact that you wriggle and you writhe desperately trying to get out of putting your money where your mouth is, but you seem unaware of the fact that I will simply keep hammering until I nail the jelly to the wall.

Don't want to play ball? Why would I play ball with you then, you self-absorbed asshat.

As such, watch what I do now:



leroy wrote:from previous comments it is obvious that you have no idea on what the Boltzmann Brain paradox is, so please do your research, feel free to use my sources or to do research in any other source that you consider reliable,


This should be taken as an honest feedback, I am honestly not trying to sound condescending, but you have to learn to focus your attention, learn to limit your comments to the specific point that is being addressed, I know is hard, sometimes I also feel tempted to digress and make irrelevant comments.


so please answer

what are your thought on the Boltzmann Brain paradox ?

do you think it represents a problem for the anthropic principle? yes no why?

do you think the Boltzmann Brain paradox nullifies any explanation for the low entropy of the universe that appeals to chance or coincidence ?



See?

Didn't even read it. That's how well your contrived manufacturings allow you to evade addressing one of your previous bullshit claims - i.e. not at fucking all, chap.

I am not interested in your endless slew of Russian Dolls. I am going to keep on hammering until you either admit you were talking out of your rectum, or you smash into little pieces. I'd prefer the former, as it goes, but with your routine cuntish behavior, the latter would also be perfectly acceptable.


Now calculate the chance of the universe being shat by a cosmic hippo.

You've declared you can do it, but when pushed, you pussy out and start flapping.

The hammer is going to do whatever it can to get this jelly nailed to the wall.....

Only then might another tool be brought out.

Until then - feel free to wriggle and make up diversions. All of them will be ignored, but your refusal to respond won't be.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:59 am
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:[
Now calculate the chance of the universe being shat by a cosmic hippo.

.


I cant calculate the probabilities, I never said I could,


now are we going to talk about the Bolzman Brain paradox? or what other specific topic would you like to discuss. ?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:22 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:I cant calculate the probabilities, I never said I could,


No, you said you could.

You even tried to claim that anyone who said they couldn't would just be pretending.

So why are you pretending that you can't calculate the chance of a cosmic hippo having shat out the universe comparative to it not having done so?

Again, LEROY, you don't understand or don't want to understand.

I have made you debunk your own ridiculous assertions about which you were confident and condescending just posts ago.

I am giving you the rope, but you are gleefully hanging yourself.


leroy wrote:now are we going to talk about the Bolzman Brain paradox? or what other specific topic would you like to discuss. ?


We'll talk about that when I am ready to talk about that, and not a moment before.

Learn some manners, LEROY.

You have made a slew of claims which I have debunked. As such, you either need to address that, or to acknowledge your error.

Then, maybe, we might carry on.

But if you show no credibility as a human being, if you keep appearing to be a silly little troll fucking with people, then why would I join in with your ludicrous attempts to evade the fact that I just spanked you?

No chap. I want to talk about how stupid your claims were. And I will keep talking about them for exactly long as I can be bothered to.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

LEROY wrote:Sparhafoc you have no idea what you are talking about, this thread is not even about evolution or the evolution of sex, and the particular analogy that you where making with sex had nothing to do with evolution ether



Missed this before due to your failure to use the quote function... cough Creationist

Actually, as we've now established each time we've had a conversation, I do know what I am talking about because I don't pretend to know what I am talking about unless I can back up what I am talking about.

You, on the other hand, make it all up as you go along, and when shown wrong, simply raise another canard in its place.

As such, I made a very important point here showing your error in claiming that an evolved behavior should be considered from within the notion of 'intent' and provided an angle that completely buried your notion.

Of course, it's not about the evolution of sex, I just used the evolution of sex because you were talking about your sexual fantasies and intent.

As an aside, it reads more like an attempted justification at a rape trial:

But she must have wanted it your honour! We couldn't have had sex if it wasn't without intent - she clearly wanted it! :roll:

Anyway, the point being that there is a whole suite of evolved behaviors, and sex clearly is one of them, regardless of your braindead dismissal.

Of course, it's inconvenient for you to address it, so you dismiss it.

But I could ask you about intent and breathing, for example, or many other thousands of examples with respect to human behaviors that have no intent. Given that all life has sex, if you want to claim that intent is operational, then you'd need to be providing tomes of evidence of how you've quantified intent in all those other species.

I can wait. It's at least a lifetime's work after all.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:37 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:I cant calculate the probabilities, I never said I could,


No, you said you could.

You even tried to claim that anyone who said they couldn't would just be pretending.

So why are you pretending that you can't calculate the chance of a cosmic hippo having shat out the universe comparative to it not having done so?

Again, LEROY, you don't understand or don't want to understand.

I have made you debunk your own ridiculous assertions about which you were confident and condescending just posts ago.

I am giving you the rope, but you are gleefully hanging yourself.


leroy wrote:now are we going to talk about the Bolzman Brain paradox? or what other specific topic would you like to discuss. ?


We'll talk about that when I am ready to talk about that, and not a moment before.

Learn some manners, LEROY.

You have made a slew of claims which I have debunked. As such, you either need to address that, or to acknowledge your error.

Then, maybe, we might carry on.

But if you show no credibility as a human being, if you keep appearing to be a silly little troll fucking with people, then why would I join in with your ludicrous attempts to evade the fact that I just spanked you?

No chap. I want to talk about how stupid your claims were. And I will keep talking about them for exactly long as I can be bothered to.




again, I can not calculate the probabilities of cosmic hippo having shat out the universe, and I don't think I ever claimed I could, if ever said I could calculate those probabilities then I clearly made a mistake and I apologize for it.



can you please tell me which other specific arguments you claim to have debunked so that I can ether justify them or admit my mistakes?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 4:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:again, I can not calculate the probabilities of cosmic hippo having shat out the universe, and I don't think I ever claimed I could, if ever said I could calculate those probabilities then I clearly made a mistake and I apologize for it.


You clearly did as you must have noticed the 4 or 5 times I quoted you as having said that you could calculate probabilities without any data.

You still haven't acknowledged that you can't.



leroy wrote:can you please tell me which other specific arguments you claim to have debunked so that I can ether justify them or admit my mistakes?


Great.

Let's start here:

search.php?author_id=12640&sr=posts
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:22 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

Sparhafoc wrote:again, I can not calculate the probabilities of cosmic hippo having shat out the universe, and I don't think I ever claimed I could, if ever said I could calculate those probabilities then I clearly made a mistake and I apologize for it.


You clearly did as you must have noticed the 4 or 5 times I quoted you as having said that you could calculate probabilities without any data.

You still haven't acknowledged that you can't.

I didn't say that you can calculate probabilities without any data, I said that you can conclude that something is more probable than something else, even if you don't have all the data.

I honestly think that I made myself clear since the first time I made the statement, but I apologize if I wasn't clear

leroy wrote:can you please tell me which other specific arguments you claim to have debunked so that I can ether justify them or admit my mistakes?


Great.
Let's start here:

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/search.p ... 0&sr=posts


done,

but I was talking about the debunked claims in this particular thread, is there any other claim that you think you have debunked?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:30 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1281Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Fine-Tuning Argument: The Worst Argument for Theism

leroy wrote:I didn't say that you can calculate probabilities without any data, I said that you can conclude that something is more probable than something else, even if you don't have all the data.

I honestly think that I made myself clear since the first time I made the statement, but I apologize if I wasn't clear


LEROY.

Answer me this.

Do you think I am an idiot?

Do you think I am stupid enough to fall for your incessant bait and switches?

Are you really going to try and pretend that you have ANY data with which to calculate probabilities?

Go on - what data do you have already.

Spell it out so you can show me it isn't exactly what I think it is which is, at best, only one single data point.

Then you can actually explain to me how you set about making that calculation.

Now, I am no genius at math, so you might have to explain in detail to me, but if you present an equation here, I will do my damndest to understand it.

You know why? Because to me it would be akin to magic to be able to calculate meaningful probabilities from a single data point. So if you know how to do it, I want to know too.

Of course, at any point you can just raise your hand and admit that you can do no such thing, then we can finally move on.

But yeah, getting you to admit your errors seems to be the only way to stop more blather from being extruded.



leroy wrote:
done,


Yeah, no... in all of those cited, you have made arguments, had them debunked, pretended they weren't debunked, and then repeated your argument. People have debunked your argument from dozens of angles until they're blue in the face, but you still keep pretending that regardless of all the criticism, your ideas are still worth a ha'penny jizz.

Are you on medicine, LEROY with strong side-effects? If so, please do say because it's beginning to be the only possible explanation.


leroy wrote:but I was talking about the debunked claims in this particular thread, is there any other claim that you think you have debunked?


Yes, please read through and see all the times people have debunked your claims and then you have replied. In each case, that reply either ignored all the content of the post, repeated the same argument with a few lines inferring stupidity in others, or were transparent evasions.

Aside from that, I will, as I've already told you now 5 times, perform the tasks I want to perform exactly at the moment I want to perform them, and nothing you say will induce me to do otherwise.

Are you clear on that last point, or do I need to draw you a picture?

You seem to draw confidence when looking at comic strips - perhaps I can oblige?
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Fri Jul 14, 2017 5:37 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 15 of 18
 [ 352 posts ] 
Return to Blog of Reason

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron