And I am NOT an atheist...although I also do not "believe" there is at least one god. — Frank Apisa


In the name of baby jesus this is getting SO tiresome.
Not believing in at least one god is what atheism means! — DingoJones

No it doesn't.

You have just declared you are not an atheist by describing your atheism!

No, I haven't.

There are people who "believe" there is at least one god; there are people who "believe" there are no gods. I am not part of either group.

I am not a theist...and I also am not an atheist.

Help me Odin, Zeus, Thor, Oprah, Hubberd...fucking anyone take my hand and guide me to where something so simple can be understood! Fuck!
Is it just the internet?! Please oh holy god of holyness, tell me its just the internet and this isnt what passes for a critical thinking person in the world at large.
Phew. Done. Carry on, sorry you had to be the back breaking straw frank, but THINK about what you are saying!

I do think about what I am saying, Dingo. And you are just wrong here.

I am NOT a theist...and I also am NOT an atheist.

It is not a zero sum game. One does not have to be one or the other.

Libertarianism is NOT a move towards freedom or liberty...it is a move toward chaos and anarchy.

Anyone who truly wants to live in a libertarian society can EASILY do so. Somalia is a libertarian paradise. So is the Amazon basin...and great outback of Australia.

The last thing in the world most Libertarians want...is a libertarian society.

You must not have read what I said about what the evidence was for, or you just thought that it would be entertaining to attack a straw man. Perhaps you had blind faith that I meant something completely different to what I wrote. Are you a theist, perchance? — S

I am NOT a theist...although I do not "believe" there are no gods.

And I am NOT an atheist...although I also do not "believe" there is at least one god.

"The evidence!"

What a laugh.

Identify two pieces of unambiguous evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue. — Frank Apisa


In terms of what's reasonable to believe, the absence of evidence in favour of the existence of God is absence of evidence in favour of reasonable grounds for belief, and that is evidence for rejection. If you're okay with abandoning reason, then go ahead and believe in God, if you can. I cannot, because my reason prevents me. The alternative is called either atheism or agnosticism, but it's the same difference in this sense, although some people get their nickers in a twist over the terminology. — S

Yeah...like the lack of evidence that there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...

...is evidence that no sentient beings live on any of those planets.

Good grief.

What are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Should have been "feelings." — Frank Apisa


I still do not understood. What are "feelings"? — S

I understand.

Okay.

My guess is you do not. — Frank Apisa


I do not understood? :chin: — S

Okay!

feeling — Frank Apisa


Does not compute. — S

Should have been "feelings."

I made a mistake. You are correct in pointing it out to me.

Sorry for the mistake.

I am not her for that. — Gnostic Christian Bishop


Understood, my lady. — S

My guess is you do not.

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop
Don't mind him. He wants to draw a false equivalence and pretend that it's 50/50. If he bothers you, you should call him an atheist or challenge his alleged credentials. That really triggers him. — S

Awww...are your feeling hurt?

C'mon, grow up.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
64

If you are saying that...we are not in agreement. I do not know if there are any gods or not...and neither do you. — Frank Apisa


I am going by the evidence. Try it.

In the meantime, I thought I was speaking with an adult. Apparently I was incorrect. I apologize for the mistake. — Frank Apisa


Accepted, you pathetic piece of garbage. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"The evidence!"

What a laugh.

Identify two pieces of unambiguous evidence pointing one way or the other on the issue.

When you find you cannot...

...identify one!

Apparently, even MATTER is not made up of MATTER.

Ultimately, it is made up of energy.

Or of an infinitely regressing halving of a unit of matter...or at least that is what present-day human science is saying.

One of the HUGE problems in these kinds of discussions is the reluctance of participants to acknowledge, "I do not know."

Even when a begrudging acknowledgement is made...it is almost always followed by a "But the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is more likely A than B...

...even though that is bullshit.

Discuss the subject.,..it is a very interesting one...but stop with the "definites."

Neither infinity nor eternity are impossible...and both are every bit as likely as no-eternity and no-infinity.

The people claiming one or the other definitely IS the reality...AND the people claiming one is more likely than the other...are allowing their blind guesses to go ape!

Well you can imagine a finite part of the universe and visualize the metric expanding in that part, and imagine that the same goes on in every part of an universe that goes on forever. — leo


If it goes on forever, there is no room for any expansion; there is nowhere to expand to.

Then some might say "our mind is not able to grasp it all at once but that's only a limit of our mind", while others might say "something that cannot be conceived as a whole doesn't exist or is impossible". — leo


I'm of the 2nd believe. That head spinning feeling when we think of infinity is our minds choking on a very illogical concept I think. — Devans99

'Nuff said?

Another blind guess being called a "belief."

hachit
145
↪Devans99
you made classic error. Space can ether be the area or the matter. You have use the word space without defining wich one. You argument is true when applied to matter because it is the matter what we mean when we say it is expanding, and I believe matter cannot be infinite. However when applied to the area no longer applys. — hachit

There is that term again.

YOU BLINDLY GUESS THAT MATTER CANNOT BE INFINITE.

Aside: There is a decent chance that "matter" is infinite. Science at the moment is saying that matter breaks down into smaller and smaller constituent parts...until at the quantum level...it is suggested that there is nothing but energy...not actual particles of what we humans would call matter.

Devans99
1.1k

There may be no expanding...just the illusion of expanding — Frank Apisa


What then is your explanation for the redshift of distant galaxies? — Devans99

I can make some guesses about what MAY BE the possible explanation:

It may be part of the illusion.

It may be a part of what we humans do not know about physics.

What we humans consider the universe may be expanding...but "what we humans consider the universe" may be but nothing within an INFINITE universe. — Frank Apisa


Good point. If our universe is expanding and our universe is contained in the larger universe, that means the larger universe must be expanding too hence it can't be infinite either. — Devans99

BUT...the REALITY MAY be that all there is...is infinity.

There may be no expanding...just the illusion of expanding.

Sorta like the illusion of the sun going across the sky.

— Devans99

Devans99
1.1k
↪Isaac
I've spent years studying infinity and my conclusion is that the mathematical community have it wrong.

Its a belief called Finitism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism

Used to be more popular than it is nowadays but there are still a few proponents (Max Tegmark, William Craig Lane) for it around.

You should have respect for and consider other peoples viewpoints; not dismiss them blindly.

You should realise it is a fact that not everything you we — Devans99

If anything...it is a BLIND GUESS called Finitism...which you are disguising by calling it a "belief."

It may be correct...and it may be incorrect.

No way to know right now.

That's the way things go with blind guesses about something as unfathomable as the REALITY.

If all you people would just add the words "what we humans consider to be"....to "space" "time" "the universe" "infinity"...and all that lot...

...perhaps the confusion would stop...and the definitive statements like "Space Is Expanding So It Can’t Be Infinite?"...would also stop.

Please, folks, stop thinking that humans are the ultimate thinking machines. Stop supposing that OUR concepts of reality...ARE the REALITY.

There is nothing wrong with a totally blind guess that "infinity " or "eternally" do not exist. But all it will ever be IS A BLIND GUESS.

What we humans consider the universe may be expanding...but "what we humans consider the universe" may be but nothing within an INFINITE universe.

Comment #3:

If the word is not ambiguous...why are there so many arguments about strong-atheism or weak-atheism...and why does that distinction come up so often in Internet discussions...

...and damn near never in conversations with atheists in a non-cyber environment.

The only time the distinction between strong and weak seems to be made...is during these kinds of discussions. Meet someone in the real world who is an atheist...and that person will use "atheist."

Wonder what they mean.

Are they asserting that no gods exist?

Are they asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than at least one does?

Whichever...they are asserting a blind guess...which their counterparts "theists" call 'beliefs.'

COMMENT #2:

People who uses "atheist" as part of a personal descriptor either assert a 'belief' that no gods exist...OR that it is much more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists.

A 'belief' that no gods exist OR that it is more likely no gods exist...(both of which are nothing but blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence)...seems absolutely essential to use of that word as part of a self-descriptor.

Agnostics do not do that.

Some people do identify as agnostic-atheists or atheist-agnostics...and do make those blind guesses. But they use the "atheist" qualifier BECAUSE of those guesses.

I attempt not to use a descriptor unless needed for commentary like this, but here is how I describe my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I thought atheist had an intentionally specific vague meaning...Isn't the main definition "one who does not believe in god or gods"? That captures a wide range of beliefs, (everything from agnostic to "I believe there is no god") but its meaning seems perfectly clear. Wouldn't "Christian" have the exact same problem? What about "Asian"? It just means "a person of Asian descent" or "relating to Asia". Notice there is then a wide range of possible items that fit that definition...but it doesn't make the definition meaningless.

I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. When I hear "Christian" I think of the whole range of Christianity, not just Catholics or Baptists. — ZhouBoTong

Well...if "atheist" means "one without a belief in any god"...that WOULD mean agnostics are atheists. But most agnostics I've known DO NOT want to be considered atheists.

Anyway, a few comments on that...which I will offer in separate posts.

COMMENT #1:

The notion that "atheist" means "without a belief in any god" was manufactured fairly recently...and derives from an erroneous claim about the etymology of the word. Atheists who apparently wanted to inflate their numbers by including agnostics, claimed the word atheism derived from "a" (without) + "theism" (a 'belief' that a GOD exists) = (a person without a belief that a GOD exists.)

But...it doesn't. In fact, the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE the word "theism." It cannot have derived that way.

"Atheism" came to us from the Greek, through the French..."a" (without) + "theos" ( a god) and equals (without a god) NOT (without a belief in a god.)

Anyway...it would be just about impossible to find an English dictionary prior to, let's say, 1950 that would use "without a 'belief' in a god" as part of its definition. Just about every pre-1950 dictionary (and many today) use the definition derived from its etymology...namely, "a person who believes or asserts that no gods exist."

Using that definition...agnostics would NOT be atheists.

I get the feeling this sounds a lot more profound than it is.

It sounds to me like someone talking about how he sees he could improve HIS life...and then trying to make it a universal way for ALL to improve their lives.

To show any kind of disdain for wisdom seems to be self-defeating. In offering that bit of "wisdom" you also are saying to disregard it.

There are easier ways for worries to be over.

Anything that is not established as "impossible"...is, at very least, "possible."

Human imagination does not even come into play with that.

Devans99
1.1k

Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans — Frank Apisa


You seem to be denying 2000 years worth of scientific progress. — Devans99

You seem to be denying how little ants know about the cosmos outside our our galaxy, Devans.

I am middle aged if you must know. Look at it this way; why would you bother with philosophy if you did not think you had a chance of discovering something? I certainly would not. And I am not claiming to have discovered anything, I am just floating arguments for consideration. If someone shoots down one of my arguments; I shut up about it. That's the way it works. Why do you have a problem with it?

First I want to acknowledge an error. I left Neil Tyson's last name off in my list.

Anyway...you are doing a lot more than "just floating arguments for consideration" (you are making unwarranted assertions about what is and is no)...and a lot less than "just shutting up" about it when nailed.

The reason I am doing what I am doing is: It should be an imperative for every thinking human to to battle against anyone heading toward where I perceive you to be going. (This should be fun for you.)

We'll do more battle. Use it wisely. Not all your "peers" will play nice. Get use to punches coming from all sorts of angles...and maybe some illegal kicks, so to speak.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Devans99
1.1k

One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING. — Frank Apisa


You can't fit a pint in a half pint pot. That information (on all the particles in the universe) has to fit somewhere. This is logical. — Devans99

Humans contemplating the REALITY of existence are like ants contemplating the extra-galactic cosmos, Devans.

Your ego is larger than the hypothetical brain you are suggesting.

Besides, to be truly omniscience would require a nervous system that encompasses every particle in the whole universe. How likely is that? We have not noticed such a thing empirically (CERN etc...). So we can inductively conclude it's unlikely. Again, that's using logic.

It is using blind guesswork to present a pretense argument.

Your need for the 3 O's is too much.

Hardly... I'm being perfectly straight-forward in saying a think there is probably a creator and its not like the traditional God. What is dishonest about that?

I have no quarrels with what you think or suppose.

But claims that X has to be...and Y cannot be...are an absurdity.

That is what I am talking about. Stop beating around that. It won't work.

I am exploring it. You are not helping a great deal. Specific counter arguments to my points would help us get at the truth rather than this endless rant about me having a hidden agenda.

There are people here MUCH smarter than I who are giving what I suppose to be decent counter arguments to your pontificating. I am interested in a different kind of fish...the texture of your argument and your motivation.

My guess is that I have already nailed it. You are attempting a backdoor "There is a God" thesis. I further suspect a young, intelligent, ambitious, zealous, egotistical guy thinking he can do what people like Einstein, Sagan, Degrasse, Hawking and others could not.

Well...will see what your spine is made of.

What I am sending your way is peanuts compared with what knowledgeable peers will heave. You are not handling the easy stuff very well. Imagine the more difficult.

How exactly is that a blind guess? How would a brain exist of such dimensions? It would take years for distant parts of the brain to communicate with each other... not a viable brain... so not a viable god. — Devans99

One...you are making a blind guess that it would take a brain that size...fabricating the guess from essentially NOTHING.

Secondly, you are constantly pontificating "this cannot be" "that must be" kind of nonsense that is PURE BLIND GUESSWORK.

THAT...is exactly how it is a blind guess.

Or omni-benevolence... that requires getting it right all the time, but clearly things go wrong in the universe, so again we can use LOGIC to rule out the traditional view of God.

Then get off speaking of what you are looking for as a variation of the "traditional view of God"...which is another wording error if you are doing what you pretend you are doing.

I am not a deceitful person.

You are being duplicitous whether wittingly or unwittingly...and whether toward your audience or toward yourself.

Do not rule that last part out. You may have convinced yourself that you are doing what I see as pretense...and have done such an effective job that you have fooled yourself.

I see nothing wrong with answering the question 'was the universe created?'.

Neither do I. And I can give you the definitive answer to that question: There is no goddam way we can determine that! The greatest minds ever to live on this planet have toiled endlessly over that problem...and have come up short.

To think that YOU have made major determinations about it says more about ego than about logic and research.

It would further human knowledge if we had an answer.

It would...and I suspect "human knowledge" has a very long way to go.

But the stuff you are tackling is as far beyond you as it was beyond people like Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan...and their like.

Explore it. Don't claim victory over it even in modest amounts.

I've already mentioned this; when talking in the singular; as in someone's name, you use the capitalised form, for example: God may exist. When using 'God' as just another verb and not someone's name, you use a small letter: He was a god, gods exist etc... — Devans99

You are talking about "God"...a specific entity or supposed entity.

The difference in wording I am calling to your attention has NOTHING to do with grammatical rules...and I think you realize that.

It's hardly a blind guess. Omniscience for example; knowing the status of every particle in the universe would require a brain much larger than the universe. That's very unlikely hence my conclusion that such a God probably does not exist is not a bind guess.

All you are talking about it a blind guess. None of it is the result of logic. You are simply searching for something that looks like logic...hoping to bolster your blind guesses about the REALITY of existence.

I am changing the question from something unanswerable to something answerable with logic and science. Intelligent Design is an inappropriate analogy as that is not logic/science; it purports that God was somehow involved in evolution which is ridiculous. All I am arguing for is that the Big Bang was caused deliberately which is not ridiculous (at least a 50%/50% shot).

You are being duplicitous.

You are attempting a back-door shot at answering the question "Does God exist?"...and you are talking about a specific type of god.

Get real.

It is important to note that the Abrahamic advance (over polytheism) is the principle that... — Mariner

Two questions, if I may:

One...why do you consider the Abrahamic tradition (which you apparently see to be monotheism) to be an "advance" over polytheism...

...and two...why do you consider the "Abrahamic" tradition to be monotheistic.

For the record, I see no reason to suppose monotheism to be an advancement over polytheism...and I cannot see any reason to suppose the "Abrahamic" tradition is monotheistic.

Devans99

My motivation is to work out the truth of how the universe came about.

I truly doubt that...but we'll discuss that more as we move along.

- - - - -

That may or may not include God.

That may or may not include a god, Devans! A god or gods...not God. At least that is the way it should be worded if you truly are working on what you say you are working on.

- - - - - -

I have argued for God's existence in the past but I have come to the conclusion it is more productive to discuss whether there was a creator or not; that question is amenable to logic; the question 'is there a God?' is ill defined and probably not answerable.

I think you are kidding yourself.

You are still seeking ways to argue for the existence of "God"...something you have in mind, whether traditional in the sense of "the god of the Bible"...or as a "creator GOD" concept.

- - - - - -

I think it is unlikely that a traditional God exists but likely that there was a creator of the universe.

That is a FINE blind guess about the REALITY...and MAY BE CORRECT.

But it is a blind guess...and you truly are not treating it as a blind guess.

You are doing to the question, "Does God exist"...what the people who argue for Intelligent Design are trying to do to "Creationism."

↪Frank Apisa
I am trying to use logic rather than pontificating. — Devans99

Then you are not succeeding.

I do no agree that inconsistencies in my reasoning having been demonstrated.

I suspect that has to do with selective blindness. But let's let that be for a moment...and concentrate on something else...if I can persuade you to do so.

Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed — Frank Apisa


'Always' existing in time is impossible; rather it is that something has permanent existence outside of time.

But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. — Frank Apisa


If we assume that everything that exists, exists in time, we always end up with an infinite regress. So there must be something outside of time that caused everything else. Something beyond cause and effect so needs no cause itself. Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but it's the only possible solution to how the universe started.

As to whether the first cause is God, I think you have to define 'God' first. If the definition is the traditional religious definition then that reduces the likelihood that the first cause is God - the 3Os do not follow logically from anything - so it's hard to logically argue for the traditional view of God.

This is all bullshit.

I want to tell you what I suspect about your thesis...and if you can take an honest view of those suspicions...we might get past that stuff I mentioned "putting aside" up above.

I suspect you are either hiding...or are unaware...of your true motivation here.

I suspect that the existence of a GOD is something that means a great deal to you...and that you have devised what you consider a brilliant plan to argue for the "GOD" while pretending not to be. In fact, while pretending that to be the furthest thing from your mind.

Internet arguers do this often...not necessarily for the existence of a GOD...but for political and moral notions also. Abortion, capital punishment, extreme left or right politics...all come immediately to mind.

The only person who can actually talk to you with any authority about this...IS YOU.

YOU have got to come to the realization of what is happening (if I am correct in my suspicions)...in order to deal with it.

Some questions I might ask to aim you towards thoughts in that direction:

Have you ever argued for the existence of God...expressed that way? (Not for the possible existence of gods...but for "God.")

Are you convinced that a God exists...expressed that way? (Not for the possibility of a god or gods...but for "God.")

On the spectrum of guesses about whether or not "God" (expressed that way) exists...where do you fall? Is it more toward "Yes, God exists" or more toward "No, God does not."

Deal with these questions without concern for "traditional views of God" (that very wording you used already answers some of the questions)...or about the 3 O's nonsense.

Hope you can respond.

Devans99
1k
↪Frank Apisa
Well we can say that an infinite regress is impossible - it has no start - so how could any of it come about? So the only way to avoid an infinite regress is a first cause.

Then we have the start of time (see OP); that requires a timeless first cause too.

So I would argue my position is the most logically coherent model for the start of the universe.

Silencing the debate is not in the interests of truth. — Devans99

One...there is NO debate. There is you pontificating about the true nature of REALITY...and others explaining some of the inconsistencies of your "reasoning."

Using your "reasoning" either NOTHING exists...or at least one thing has always existed.

But you then go to the totally illogical conclusion that the "one thing"...cannot be everything that exists. You insist there must be a creator being "or creator something"...and I think that is because your intention always has been to show necessity for a Prime Mover/First Cause...which will then resolve itself into a god.

Not trying to stop debate. Pointing out there is no debate happening. And attempting to inject truth into the discussion.

Devans99
1k

ither NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause. — Frank Apisa


Correct. The timeless prime mover has no cause. That is what started everything else off. — Devans99

Devans...you have no idea of what "started everything else off"...nor if "everything else" was actually started off...or if it always existed.

You are trying to pass off your blind guesses on these matters as the result of logic, math, and analysis.

In the interests of truth...you ought really to stop.

↪Frank Apisa
Everything that exists in time needs a temporal start point. Things that exist outside of time don't. — Devans99

See my comment above.

Either NOTHING exists...or at least ONE THING had no cause.

If ONE THING had no cause...that ONE THING could be EVERYTHING.

This entire discussion can be resolved into: We do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and anyone asserting "the universe is eternal and infinite" OR "the universe is NOT eternal and infinite"...is doing nothing more than sharing a blind guess.

The arguments that pretend to have logic, reason, math, or science as a basis...are bogus.

But we know the being has experienced events so there must be a (total) number of events. Goes to show how things without starts don't make any sense. — Devans99

So...NOTHING exists...right?

Things without starts make no sense to you...and you are saying that everything must have a start...so NOTHING can exist.

Unless, of course, you are making an exception to that "things without starts don't make any sense" thingy.

And if you are making an exception...

...why not make the exception be...

...EVERYTHING?

S
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa
You do realise that by substance, I mean actual content, like an argument, and not boasting about publications?

Making an assessment about probability in this context is warranted because...??? — S

S, you do realize that I do not much care about what you mean, right?

The moment you dismissively told me that I did not meet your standards for replies and that you were finished with me...and then continued to reply...I realized you were an Inernet toy.

Now...I am playing with you. Anything more substantial would be a waste.

S
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa
What you're doing speaks for itself. — S

Yes it does. And I am proud of myself.

What you are doing speaks of you.

My condolences.

When I offer you a chance to be reasonable, you demonstrate only that you are all talk and no substance. — S.

Don't flatter yourself. You do not offer me a chance to be reasonable...I AM REASONABLE.

And there's plenty of substance in what I have to say. I have had substantive thoughts and considerations published in tens of dozens of newspapers across the US...and even in England (The Lincolnshire Echo). The New York Times published an essay sized piece...without a comma being changed. (Challenging something A. M. Rosenthal wrote!). NEWSWEEK Magazine published a full-page MY TURN of mine.

So don't give me that no substance nonsense.

You talk of mud, yet you're the only one continuing to sling it, whereas I've washed my hands. — S.

What you have done is to declare I am not worthy of your responses...and have continued to respond as I was sure you would. If anyone has a problem with a big mouth and no action...you have proved it is you.

There is much irony here given the context. In a discussion about rationality, you refuse to be rational. — S.

You wouldn't recognize rational discussion if you tripped over it. You lecturing me how to write rationally is like Theresa May lecturing on how to get Brexit legislation passed.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
So you have chosen the last option, which is the least dignified. — S

You seem unable to understand reasonable commentary...so why should I offer it.

As for dignity...you are the guy who said he was through here...and yet...HERE YOU ARE.

What I said is as clear as day... — S.

Almost nothing you say is clear as day.

Perhaps you meant "muddy as the Mississippi."

"...and there are two acceptable spellings of "scepticism", that being one of them. Also, I am English, so my preference for that spelling is understandable. Do your research next time. — S.

I'm just going to laugh at your shenanigans...so research would be wasted effort.

I am an Anglophile...and in my opinion, you give Englishmen a bad name.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Whether you find what I said insulting or otherwise, one thing you'll pick up about me is that I speak my mind. And I like to have the last word. — S

Okay.

Now, as often happens, what you've done there is said much without really saying anything at all. — S.

I've been very clear. Your comments are muddy. But then again...you are speaking your mind.

I have indicated my scepticism. I have said that I do not believe there to be any assessment of probability that is warranted. — S.

You cannot even spell it correctly; it is preposterous to suppose you have indicated it.

You have three options: attempt to provide warrant, concede, or continue to produce text which says nothing at all. So what's it to be? — S.

I also like to have the last word.

That may say it all.

Fooloso4
281

But that has been my point right along.

Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing? — Frank Apisa


If that has been your point right along then I am agreeing, although I have been known to disagree with myself. — Fooloso4

Touche'.

I've done that myself.

I've been an op ed writer for decades...and there are times when I look back at some of the stuff I wrote earlier in my life, where I wonder, "What the hell was I thinking that day?"

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
What part of "I talk about this in terms besides probability" don't you understand? Or are you acting deliberately morose in order to be combative? I do not judge the matter in terms of likelihood. I do not judge there to be any warrant for making any assessment in those terms. No, 50/50, 60/40, 80/20, or any other likelihood.

You genuinely seem ignorant on the basics of how probability works, as others have suggested. I am no expert, but I at least know that ignorance of likelihood does not logically imply or equate to 50/50. — S

Still need insults to help you get by.

Interesting.

Anyway...I had to take statistic three times in university. One for my undergrad major of economics; one for a math requirement that I needed. In graduate school my major was psychology...and, as luck would have it, I had to take an advanced statistics course.

Lots and lots of probability theory...an essential to all statistics courses.

Okay...I'm an old guy and university is way back. But I do have an understanding of probability.

Anyway...discussing with you is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling of a room.

You chose to confront me. You also indicated that I am not worthy of your attention...but still...here you are.