Infinite Existence
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
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
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.
You would start at 0.00.
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.
Except when a Religious Absolutist like you uses confirmation bias.
Wrong. For true probability calculations, you would start with 0.00.
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?
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).”
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?
You have neglected to show how you came up with this erroneous data.
And you have your logic completely wrong.
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.
No. The only exception would be if it is a huge amount of material.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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