You are displaying a gross misunderstanding of probability. Either the creator exist or it does not and that has nothing to do with probability.

Possible outcomes refer to a random event. If you flip a fair coin, on the flipping, it has a 50% chance of being heads or tails, but after it lands it is either heads or tails.

For example, say we flip a fair coin and it lands on heads. Now after the flip but before it lands there was a possible outcome of heads or tails; however, once it landed on heads there is no possible outcome tails. Probability is removed from the picture, it is heads and no matter how many times you check the coin it will not come up as tails.

Let's see you said your measure was evidence of which you have provided none, at all, for any of your assertions. In fact the only thing you provided evidence of is your hypocrisy.

That you were wrong about your interpretations of my words. We don't need a bunch of children being caged to learn that it is a bad thing, we knew that well enough before hand.

The only sense I can make of your remark is that you think either a) there's nothing to learn from their encounter with Trump, or b) there's nothing for them to learn in their encounter with Trump. — tim wood

You really couldn't figure out what I was referencing there?

Well, you are wrong.

Do you think they learned nothing? — tim wood

Is that what I said?

We can learn a lot from Trump. Painful every step, but a lesson learned is a lesson gained; an education payed for is an education for life. — tim wood

I'd love to watch you make that argument to the women he grabbed by the pussy.

You are engaging in a strawman. The merits or lack of is a different discussion.

You asserted religious morality as being in line with the objective, but there is no objectivity to it, as it is all based on one's faith in their choosen religion. Hench religious morality is relative and subjective. It does not rest on an objective foundation, it rest in which religious beliefs you decide to put your faith in. That is relative subjectivity.

In fact I would argue that in general the deeper one's faith in their choosen religion the less able they are to be morally objective. Just take the LGBT community for example, deeply religious people have had a much harder time accepting them, despite the fact there is no objective evidence at all that the LGBT community is at all harmful to society.

Religious morality is the epitome of relative subjective morality.

Some people read between the lines so much that they end up writing their own story.

You can't see any irony? — raza

I have my doubts you even know what irony is.

The last thing the Comey lead FBI wanted to do was compromise their relationship with Clinton — raza

Were you awake during the 2016 election? Comey basically handed the presidency to Trump on a silver platter. He was not worried about compromising his relationship with Clinton. In fact Trump was all pro Comey, until it became clear Comey would not be another Trump yes-man.

Do you have any evidence at all to support any of your speculations? Have you, yourself, seen this evidence? All that quibbling you did over evidence suddenly disappears when it comes to you spinning your fantasies.

I don't respect conspiracy nuts; they are the lowest of the low on the intellectual ladder; the very bottom rung. You have zero creditably with me, and I don't plan on wasting a bunch of time fact checking your nonsense.

The man is a giant idiot.

No one suggested otherwise, anywhere.

Whose zero tolerance policy? — tom

Trump's, clearly.

Case in point.

You just don't understand Trump's Zero Tolerance policy at all, do you?

Trump signed an EO ending child separation at the border. He created this situation, then walked around blaming the Dems all the while claiming his hands were tied and he could not do anything unless the Dems did something, even though the Republicans control EVERYTHING. Then only after over 2300 children have been taken form their parents and put in cages does he do something, and with a simple signing of his name, ends it.

Trump is not fit to run this country, anyone of intelligence knew that before he was even elected. However, all his little Trump followers trip over themselves trying to keep up with supporting his shifting chaos. Trump has got to be the dumbest US president of modern history and maybe even all of US history. We are living in the era of stupid here in the USA.

You are about as honest as Trump.

Can you or can you not answer both of my questions?

Donald Trump announced that he intends to end family separation with an executive order, by allowing entire families to be held in the same ICE detention centers. Now at the start of the thread you made a big deal about not housing the families together, so how do you now reconcile your views, with what appears at the moment to be a change in Trump's position? Also given that now Trump believes he can end this with his pen alone, something many of us said he could do, how do you reconcile that with the notion his hands were tied by existing laws?

I like how you talk about critical thinking skills then display a complete lack of them.

I am gonna float one of those concepts integral to critical thinking pass you. Now you make sure and let me know if I am going too fast for you.

Ready for it? It is a classic.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Don't worry that you missed that one, people with your level critical thinking often do.

Let's see the economy was doing well before Trump. Unemployment was low and in a downward trend before Trump. So what evidence do you have that Trump caused this?

Also, and more importantly, economic strength does not justify social injustices like misogyny and racism. I don't know why you would even try to make that justification. The South had great economic strength under slavery, but that sure the heck didn't make it right. What you are saying, is that your moral character can be bought off with a pay raise, and that is just sad. I would rather be poor and good than rich and evil, but apparently you, on the other hand, sell your soul cheap.

The FBI got the needed information from the 3rd party. A private company that the DNC decided to use and all this was reviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which concluded along with the FBI that Russia's goal was to damage Clinton in the 2016 election and was responsible for the leaked emails. Also the USIC constitutes more agencies than just the FBI.

You have no clue what you are talking about and have provided zero evidence to support any of your claims. Furthermore why the heck should I listen to you over the USIC? What are your qualifications in such matters?

The Zero Tolerance policy is Trump's brain child. You are a very dishonest person.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

You are so full of it.

If I wake up one day and headlines about little kids being wrongfully taken from their families doesn't cause me outrage, then I also hope that is my last day on Earth.

Ya, I am not being "ruthless", that is a bit of a hyperbole. Also, just a note, but Trump's methods are not new, people just have a short memory when it comes to US history. We are not just now letting these ass-hats have their say, you just don't know your history very well.

Furthermore being pissed off is completely the right reaction to what they are doing to these immigrate families and I am not sure why you seem to think it is somehow the wrong reaction.

I think you should feel rage if it's in your nature, but isn't there a way to channel it productively? — frank

It has been proven that people remember negative social experiences a lot longer than positive social experiences and social shaming is the foundation of how we reinforce moral norms. I mean, can you actually prove that my way is less productive?

I am corporate trained in interpersonal communication, with 10 years of experience in customer relations, both interacting with customers and instructing others on how to successfully communicate with people. If you think politeness is the fastest and most lasting way to make your point, then I disagree. People remember what a troll said long after they forgot what Mr. Nice Guy said. People will think about what a troll said, and they will become engaged with trying to prove the jerk wrong. When it comes to Mr. Nice Guy they will just "agree to disagree" forget him and move on. I know this from 10 years of on the job experience of being paid to be Mr. Nice Guy.

I have also spent some time studying basic sociology and social shaming is the main method in which we reinforce moral norms. Perhaps that is why negative experiences have such a lasting effect. In fact what you are trying to do now is socially shame me as you disapprove of my behavior, which I find a bit amusing.

Or maybe all that is just an excuse and after dealing with so many people for so long and always playing Mr. Nice Guy, I am just ready to cut through the BS. I don't know have not figured that part out yet, but one thing here is for certain, I have given my approach far more thought than you are giving me credit for and likely far more thought than you have given your own approach.

So your justification for destroying families and caging little kids is that you think it will cost you more money to do otherwise?

If that is true then it is also our morally social duty to be upset when such "bumps" occur.

So I guess the lesson here, is that it is OK to put little kids in cages as long as we are polite to each other about it.

The world is full of assholes. Do you think it needs one more? — frank

Depends on what we are being assholes about.

So he and his sort got to try out their ideas and that's as it should be. — frank

Because in America stupidity, misogyny and racism never gets its say? Is that your argument? Are you new to the USA?

I aboultely believe 17 agencies, the FBI, the CIA and Congress over you. Not only is their conclusion based on evidence it is also just plain common sense. The email hack was clearly to damage Clinton. They are also far more creditable than you.

You keep demanding evidence yet have given none to support your claims, which makes you look like a hypocrite.

Well I did read many of the the emails and I have some of the fake news data on my PC; I was reviewing it for possible analysis. What evidence have you seen to support your wild conspiracy theory?

It is not so much about viewing the evidence as they just have much more creditably than you do. What you are actually suggesting is just ridiculous. Conspiracy nuts are not generally worth listening to.

You are some random individual on the Internet spinning vague accusations of a major conspiracy, that apparently spans across 17 different civilian and government intelligence agencies AND Congress, all of which are targeting Donald Trump and this is all based on nothing. You have nothing at all; you have not provided one fact to support this wild claim of your. I am suppose to believe you? I don't think so.

I think you are defending it.

When you read history, the tendency is to think this can never happen again, but the unfortunate truth is that history is a wheel and not a straight line. People forget the lessons of the past and their lizard brain slowly pulls them back to those unethical judgments. The only solace I have here, is that with each turning of the wheel, if we push hard enough we can inch ourselves forward a bit.

Actually I gave a solution, you just didn't like it. While your solution is to torture little kids. Given the two choices, I think mine is better.

I also brought up many other points that you are glossing over.

Trump is tearing families apart and the suggested solution here is to forgot about the emotional aspect of taking children from their parents. So I guess that means in order to accept Trump's polices all one has to do is become a sociopath.

Maybe we should also look at the economic gains of slavery without emotions. Morally is comprised of reason and emotion, you don't get a moral result if you exclude one of those elements. I really did already comment on all this.