# Infinite Existence

103 posts / 0 new

I PREDICT THERE WILL BE A LUNAR ECLIPSE THIS YEAR.
Just trying to add to the stupidity!

@ Dan

I see my poor pet is still coming up with self-deluded ideas that still will not muster past flushing.

There are only two things you ever need remember.

1) Everything you think is correct is actually wrong.
2) If ever in doubt, refer to rule #1.

rmfr

@ Dan

Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
Start of time 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%
Why is there something rather than nothing 96.875% + 3.125% * 25% = 97.65625%

We've been through this before Dan. The probability you are doing is nothing more than confirmation bias. Do try and learn something by going back to school.

To start, you know nothing about boolean math. Boolean Math is a 0%/100% propostion, which can also be represented as 0/1, False/True, No/Yes. Definitely shows you nothing about logic, let alone probability. The Probability you are proposing is multiplicative NOT additive.

At what percent would you suggest we start bearing in mind that we have (initially) admitted no evidence either for or against the proposition 'was the a creator of the universe'?

You would start at 0.00.

But I have to know the probability of a creator to satisfy my curiosity. So I could assign:

0% - that would be showing a bias against there being a creator
100% - that would be showing a bias for there being a creator

So I assign 50%... equidistant between the two extremes.

0% - that would be showing a bias against there being a creator This is where you actually start. Go back to school and learn.

100% - that would be showing a bias for there being a creator This is where you would start when using confirmation bias. Then again, that is the position of all Religious Absolutists.

Doing a probability analysis is one step removed from complete ignorance so it is preferable.

Except when a Religious Absolutist like you uses confirmation bias.

But 50%/50% is only the starting point before evidence is admitted... I then adjust the numbers up/down in light of the evidence. Its perfectly valid maths.

BTW I have a 1st in maths.

Its perfectly valid maths. BTW I have a 1st in maths.

Proof your ability with math is 0.00%. "It is" is contracted as "It's" NOT "Its". And it is "math" NOT "maths".

BTW I have a 1st in maths. What the fuck is a "1st in maths"? A 1st what? 1st place in failing "maths"?

When are going to realize my previous post is true about your thinking?

But creation itself can't of been a natural event else there must be multiple instances of creation (infinite instances with infinite time).

Again. Proof you ain't never been to college. It should have been: “But creation itself cannot have been a natural event else there may have been multiple instances of creation (infinite instances with infinite time).

Start at 50% / 50% for a unknown boolean proposition
Start of time 50% + 50% * 75% = 87.5%
Fine tuning of the universe 87.5% + 12.5% * 75% = 96.875%
Why is there something rather than nothing 96.875% + 3.125% * 25% = 97.65625%

Now, once again to show how your maths should have gone. The bold emphasis above shows where you are wrong.

1) Start at 0.00
2) 0.00 + 0.5 = 0.5
3) 0.5 × 0.75 = 0.375
4) 0.375 × 0.125 = 0.046875
5) 0.046875 × 0.03125 = 0.00146484375 = 0.146484375% chance.

Additionally, where are you getting this bullshit from?

• + 50% * 75% (start of time?)
• + 12.5% * 75% (fine tuning?)
• + 3.125% * 25% (something rather than nothing?)

You have neglected to show how you came up with this erroneous data.

And you have your logic completely wrong.

1. Start of Time – How do you know Time even had a "start"? How do you know Time is NOT infinite.
2. Fine Tuning of the Universe – The universe was "fine tuned" for NOTHING.
3. Something Rather Than Nothing – Still plagiarizing Willian Lane Craig.

And quit saying this bullshit about infinite not existing when it actually does.

When are going to realize that ALL of William Lane Craig's arguments have been totally and utterly debunked? When are you going to realize than everything you say has already been debunked? Are you sadomasochistic?

Dan, you keep coming to these forums to post arguments that have already been debunked. You never come up with anything new. You are always plagiarizing the arguments presented by others. You keep spewing the same mind diarrhea again and again.

Yet, you are a presentist yourself. You should crawl away in shame by plagiarizing others. You should crawl away in shame for never presenting any evidence that any "creator" being actually exists.

All you ever do is to try to show your confirmation bias is true. Then you whine like a little baby when we completely debunk anything you say. Quit being like your god that you have created in that tiny little world inside your mind. Paraphrased: “Men rarely, if ever, manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods men have created have the manners and morals of a childish, spoiled brat.” — Robert A Heinlein

rmfr

@ Arakaish

ka ka ka ka KA BOOOM.... love it...

Woah, Arakish laying out the spankings like a catholic bishop.. BOSHHHHHH!

@arakish:
The probability Dan's silly assertions hold up against someone who knows what in the hell they are talking about...... ( 0% )

So DAN is back and he has decided to resurrect all of his old threads.....

Naw, I had to go though his old threads looking for copyrighted material. The act of removing the material bumped the thread :(

@Nyarlathotep: IC TY Apologies to DAN.

QUESTION: If the material is cited, links given, do you still remove it? Do you actually search for such material or simply wait till there is a complaint? (A bit of both?) Just curious. I will be more diligent in my citations if it helps. Sometimes I just forget. I actually like having them in my posts so people know I am not just talking out my butt.

Cognostic - If the material is cited, links given, do you still remove it?

No. The only exception would be if it is a huge amount of material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cognostic - Do you actually search for such material or simply wait till there is a complaint? (A bit of both?)

Yeh, a bit of both. I normally only search when I'm suspicious. What makes me suspicious? The most common occurrence is when they paste the "footnote numbers" along with the text. People is dumb.

Thanks. I will be a bit more diligent for you.

Yup...wannabe apologists is dumb.

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.