Thread Arrogant Prick the former Pig.

Casper

Bobbert Cheapstein
Oct 6, 2009
8,299
365
41
what do YOU mean, you people? :D

youpeople.jpg
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
So you're saying that even the most intelligent scientific geniuses cannot come up with any kind of probability of God's existence?
No, because the very idea of a supernatural entity that controls the universe inherently defies any application of logic. No argument can be used against it because the default response will always hold true in the minds of believers: said deity is all powerful and thus none of the rules apply to him/her/it/they.

You also can't assign a value to any of the ideas because they are all subjective and without any objective values to base them on, any probability estimate is pure conjecture. And probability estimates are NOT scientific evidence.
I said it was almost certain that God didn't exist, not that God definitely didn't. I think your attitude is very defeatist if nothing else.
I think your attitude is retarded if nothing else. You used the word fact. Either have the balls to own up to it or stfu and go sit in the corner.
I'm actually quite intrigued as to why you're so angry about the few basic premises I've talked about in this thread. Weird.
Because you, the militant atheist that grossly misunderstands and misrepresents the arguments against belief in a higher power as well as the reliance on rational and empirical evidence to explain the world around us, are worse than the fucking bible thumpers. You are the type of person that makes a thumper cling to their book even harder because all you have is the same consistency of bullshit they spew but in a different flavor. Spouting bad ideas regarding what science is remains counterproductive to educating everyone else.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix

Flaccid Member
Aug 21, 2009
856
14
0
inside your head
No, because the very idea of a supernatural entity that controls the universe inherently defies any application of logic. No argument can be used against it because the default response will always hold true in the minds of believers: said deity is all powerful and thus none of the rules apply to him/her/it/they.

Fine, but that's more of an argument against people, i.e. firm believers and their irrational thought processes, as they will always say "God exists no matter what you say, the rules don't apply to God because he's God". It does not in my opinion mean that scientists should not come up with works which show to all logical thinking people, or indeed people who are mild/doubting believers, that God in all probability does not exist. What you're suggesting is that no one should ever write anything questioning God's existence because some people are gonna disagree whatever is written.

also can't assign a value to any of the ideas because they are all subjective and without any objective values to base them on, any probability estimate is pure conjecture. And probability estimates are NOT scientific evidence.
I think your attitude is retarded if nothing else. You used the word fact. Either have the balls to own up to it or stfu and go sit in the corner.

Is it or is not a fact that the probability of a child being born male or female is roughly 50%? I don't see why just because something is a probability means I can't use the word 'fact'. I think your problem is more my use of language rather than my argument.

Because you, the militant atheist that grossly misunderstands and misrepresents the arguments against belief in a higher power as well as the reliance on rational and empirical evidence to explain the world around us, are worse than the fucking bible thumpers. You are the type of person that makes a thumper cling to their book even harder because all you have is the same consistency of bullshit they spew but in a different flavor. Spouting bad ideas regarding what science is remains counterproductive to educating everyone else.

This is incredibly patronising but whatever, I don't agree with a word of that.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Fine, but that's more of an argument against people, i.e. firm believers and their irrational thought processes, as they will always say "God exists no matter what you say, the rules don't apply to God because he's God". It does not in my opinion mean that scientists should not come up with works which show to all logical thinking people, or indeed people who are mild/doubting believers, that God in all probability does not exist. What you're suggesting is that no one should ever write anything questioning God's existence because some people are gonna disagree whatever is written.
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the rules of probability no more apply to the idea of a god than to any other idea based in a fantasy world. There is no reliable, objective method of assigning the probability of the existence of anything supernatural.

And even if there was, PROBABILITY ESTIMATES ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Is it or is not a fact that the probability of a child being born male or female is roughly 50%? I don't see why just because something is a probability means I can't use the word 'fact'. I think your problem is more my use of language rather than my argument.
jesus fuck

There is genuine evidence to support that probability and it's not merely counting. You can't use the word fact because it doesn't fucking apply here. The fact that it's a probability should be a goddamn warning sign a mile high telling you that you can't apply the word fact.

My problem is with both your inaccurate language and your gross misunderstanding of the scientific principles we're discussing.
This is incredibly patronising but whatever, I don't agree with a word of that.

Good. It was meant to be.
 

Phoenix

Flaccid Member
Aug 21, 2009
856
14
0
inside your head
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that the rules of probability no more apply to the idea of a god than to any other idea based in a fantasy world. There is no reliable, objective method of assigning the probability of the existence of anything supernatural.

Well, you're misunderstanding there. God is only "supernatural" in that he* is so far beyond our comprehension that he may as well be (as humans would be to bacteria). So that premise, that the existence of God is beyond natural laws, is flawed.

And even if there was, PROBABILITY ESTIMATES ARE NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT. jesus fuck

There is genuine evidence to support that probability and it's not merely counting. You can't use the word fact because it doesn't fucking apply here. The fact that it's a probability should be a goddamn warning sign a mile high telling you that you can't apply the word fact.

Whatever. Merely questioning my language again. What word would you use to describe the situation that 'a child is roughly 50% likely to be a boy and 50% likely to be a girl'. Surely it's not inaccurate to say that it's a 'fact' that the chance of a given baby being male or female is 50%?

My problem is with both your inaccurate language and your gross misunderstanding of the scientific principles we're discussing.
. Good. It was meant to be.

Right, I can hardly take you seriously given that you're just demeaning me personally and inaccurately rather than actually arguing. LOL.

* only used as I can't be arsed to type he/she/it every time.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
Well, you're misunderstanding there. God is only "supernatural" in that he* is so far beyond our comprehension that he may as well be (as humans would be to bacteria). So that premise, that the existence of God is beyond natural laws, is flawed.
I agree that the premise it's flawed but it's also unverifiable and unfalsifiable, meaning no probability estimate attached to it has any weight because said estimates are purely subjective. There is no science behind it.
Whatever. Merely questioning my language again. What word would you use to describe the situation that 'a child is roughly 50% likely to be a boy and 50% likely to be a girl'. Surely it's not inaccurate to say that it's a 'fact' that the chance of a given baby being male or female is 50%?
did you not read the rest of the fucking sentence? it's a "fact" because we have evidence. we have objective values with which to calculate a probability.
Right, I can hardly take you seriously given that you're just demeaning me personally and inaccurately rather than actually arguing. LOL.

* only used as I can't be arsed to type he/she/it every time.
I've demeaned your argument as much as I've demeaned you. It falls flat on its face and any time someone tries to hide behind science they don't understand to make a blanket statement that's patently untrue, bullshit shall be called.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,757
23,480
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Most people tend to think that God operates outside of the laws of this universe. That makes His probability incalculable. Phoenix seems to define Him as an entity that exists INSIDE the universe, which then requires Him to abide by its laws. If everyone else's definition is correct, then Phoenix is wrong. If his definition is correct, then Semper is wrong.

Can we be done yet? :D
 

Phoenix

Flaccid Member
Aug 21, 2009
856
14
0
inside your head
I agree that the premise it's flawed but it's also unverifiable and unfalsifiable,

Incorrect. If God revealed himself to humanity tomorrow and proved that he was subject to natural laws, it would be verified.

meaning no probability estimate attached to it has any weight because said estimates are purely subjective. There is no science behind it.

Again, tell that to Dawkins.

did you not read the rest of the fucking sentence? it's a "fact" because we have evidence. we have objective values with which to calculate a probability.

oh so now it is a fact? I thought you said a minute ago that nothing to do with a probability could be a fact. Nevertheless, I agree with the fact that the body of evidence makes this much more provable than the other things being discussed.


I've demeaned your argument as much as I've demeaned you. It falls flat on its face and any time someone tries to hide behind science they don't understand to make a blanket statement that's patently untrue, bullshit shall be called.

You tried to call bullshit but were unsuccessful. Better luck next time. :D
 
Last edited: