I am working on several papers. I find it helpful to bounce my ideas off people. And (some) people seem interested anyway. So what is the problem with that? — Devans99

I've already explained the problem. Oh! No, wait. I haven't. I must have dreamt that. I have no arguments or valid counterarguments. This is not a sentence. I don't exist, and neither do you. Am I man dreaming that I'm a butterfly, or is a Devans a troll or just dumb? It's one of life's great mysteries.

I disagree with your “math” and views on probability (specifically the way you conjure probability out of thin air, and do not understand the logic you refer to in your arguments).
So, im curious as to why you think I disagree. — DingoJones

I think you don't understand my argument. We have statistics for how 'thin air' behaves - the normal distribution. If you cannot assign a probability to a specific boolean proposition because you have no data - what do you do? - you use a 50%/50% estimate in line with the normal distribution.

What parts of my math do you disagree with?

I had hoped that you would be open to the possibility of being wrong in your argument now that more have given responses to your argument and logic, but it seems that you are just ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you.

So, you fail in logic and philosophical reasoning. Your argument is not valid, your logic is not valid, deal with it or your theory will never hold ground outside of your own mind. The whole point here is to convince people beyond any doubt that your argument is solid and correct. By just ignoring everyone you're essentially trying to argue that everyone else is stupid and doesn't understand your logic or argument. This is simply not the case.

We've all addressed your reasoning and logic and pointed out why it fails, but you persist. Being stubborn is good in some cases, but I think that you need to publish your ideas if you are actually doing a real paper on it so that you'll get proper counter arguments from philosophical academia. You can argue stubbornly against all of us, but if you're just as stubborn within academia, you will never accomplish anything with your ideas.

If we're not enough to show you why you are wrong or incomplete in your reasoning, then expose yourself to the highest level of philosophical discourse. Maybe then you'll understand what we are talking about in here.

If you came here just to rant your ideas without discourse, you're just spamming and trolling the same thing over and over. I'd say that's low-quality posting, but I'm no mod.

NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POST.

What I would appreciate is reasoned, specific, on topic counter arguments rather than waffle.

NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POST. — Devans99

Too obvious. The jig is up.

Good game, though. You just lost the game, by the way.

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live. — Devans99

Can you link to publications in your name as an astronomer? Show that you have credentials if you use that as support for your arguments.

What I would appreciate is reasoned, specific, on topic counter arguments rather than waffle. — Devans99

Which you already have been given, by all of us. We pointed out that your probability reasoning is flawed and doesn't work and your response is just to say "no valid counter-arguments". Respectfully understand this simple fact, please.

Maybe if I write in all caps you will understand:
YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID - YOUR PROBABILITY LOGIC IS NOT VALID.

Can you link to publications in your name as an astronomer? — Christoffer

I am familiar with his published writings on the subject. His magnum opus is Stars Have No Valid Counterarguments by Trollerton McTrollingsworth.

I am an amateur astronomer. I am also an amateur philosopher. I have not had anything published but then I have not tried until recently.

Just saying my argument is not valid does not make it so.

I believe that you're an amateur. But that's about the only thing I believe.

Cheap shot. I think you are very closed minded.

So I do not understand your argument, so that's why I disagree and everyone else is disagreeing because their strong atheism is being threatened? Is that right?

I think it is a mixture of people not understanding my argument and not liking my argument because it offends their atheist sensibilities.

Cheap shot. — Devans99

American rock band from Rockford, Illinois, formed in 1973. No, wait, that's Cheap Trick. Nevermind.

I think you are very closed minded. — Devans99

But you can't, because you don't exist, and even if you did, you wouldn't have any valid counterarguments.

I tagged the people in this thread, but there are more people who disagree with you on the same things as we do from other threads since you’ve uses this stuff as a basis for a bunch of threads. In fact, no one agrees with you that Ive seen.

Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”?

Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”? — DingoJones

Not I. Not generally, anyway. Only in the strictest of circumstances, like a contradiction.

Unfortunately not even good credentials can support bad arguments.

At least I have arguments.

NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POSTS!

At least I have arguments. — Devans99

How can you have arguments if you don't exist? Provide a link to your existence.

I do not get you; this is a solipsism reference?

I do not get you; this is a solipsism reference? — Devans99

You don't anything, because you don't exist. You haven't provided any valid your own existence. Provide a link, or you don't exist.

A link to what?

Prejudice isn't an argument, and it has a negative impact on arguments. Atheism has a definition, and most atheists couldn't care less about arguing nonsense. Atheism doesn't come in a package with whatever else you imagine it comes with. Confirmation bias is also not an argument, neither is it a good foundation on which to conduct philosophy, or science, or mathematics, or any other thing you might pretend you're incorporating into it.

You haven't yet presented a sound argument for or against anything.

This thread is a prime example. You presented something you're pretending is math, or "probability" or whatever you want to call it, to found an argument about something--that you're already convinced exists and are grasping at straws to try to explain--for which there has never been a hint of evidence.

A link to what? — Devans99

To Trollerton McTrollingsworth, amateur astronomer, and author of Stars Have No Valid Counterarguments, amongst other gems, such as Planets Have No Valid Counterarguments, and Black Holes Have No Valid Counterarguments.

That's you, isn't it?

I have presented a probability analysis in the OP for the basis of discussion. Please indicate which parts you regard as unsound.

I am afraid I do not have much of a web presence if thats what you mean. Not even a Facebook page.

Well, S replied. Not a strong atheist. So that eliminates his disagreement on the basis of his strong atheism. So, is he now in the category with me as mot understanding your argument?

Since no one else replied I will have to suppose...lets suppose (as I strongly suspect) that no one you are arguing with is a strong atheist. Are we all failing to understand your argument then?

Can you be clear on exactly what you are disagreeing with please. That way it may be clearer if there is a misunderstanding.

You started a troll thread based on percentages you made up in your head and you're pretending it's fortifying claims that have no foundation in reality. There are people who spend 40 years on one math problem, you must be a prodigy. You need to get off this forum and go to a prestigious university, I'm sure they'd all be ecstatic to place you in a teaching position and siphon your vast knowledge.

Your argument is make believe. I don't have to contest it any more than I have to contest a child who says their toy car can jump a million hundred feet in sixty hundred fifty seconds.

I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument?