I don't have to do anything...Your comments do all the work for me.
I exposed your ignorance on how Statistical Probabilities work.
You are trying to hide the damage your claim did to your credibility and image...but without success.
Look at the positive side...at least you learned how we calculate probabilities....and you learned the use of an Ad Absurdum argument — Nickolasgaspar

The only thing you offer to teach, comes through demonstration of your own confused contradictory musings and postings.

Yes I did! I made up, out of thin air, a god that is more powerful than the made up god of that theist. — Nickolasgaspar

Now who is using logical fallacy! How can you 'make up a god,' more powerful than a god that the theists have already posited is OMNIPOTENT, you buffoon!

Since you are the only one who uses ad hominems....we already know who is the dishonest sophist and who isn't... — Nickolasgaspar

That's the best you can do? Panto exchange? You're the problem, oh no I'm not, oh yes you are!
Boring, pointless and meaningless but what I expect from your like. It's the last toilet characters like you run to for desperate protective shelter (no doubt one of your own inFerior designs).
I suppose it takes two to panto but I don't panto so.......

What about all life killed in the name of science, the atom bomb, the knowledge terrorists possess to create bombs, the airplanes used in 9/11? — Hillary

Would you have preferred the death of many more American soldiers and goodness knows how many Japanese civilians during a full invasion of the Japanese mainlands. The evidence from the time suggests that the Japanese would not have surrendered easily.
Look how stubborn they were on places like Iwo Jima. Look at the Kamikaze attitude etc?

Some animals have been sacrificed in the name of science, yes But probably no fewer than those sacrificed to gods. Humans have also been sacrificed to gods. Which conflation are you suggesting for 'human sacrifice to science?' Nazi-style medical experimentation? Surely you don't blame the invention of the gun or the scalpel for how some humans choose to employ such.
I don't blame god or Islam for the theist crazies who perpetrated 9/11 in the same way as I dont blame guns and bullets for killing people. People kill people, HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE! not god(s) or science.

The Cosmos knows that and he will force god to do some heavy explanation... — Nickolasgaspar

An athiest, who anthropomorphises the Cosmos and even gives it a gender.
You suggest a god called Cosmos! :roll:

-No you didn't, you referred to the credence of the claim....not your certainty., at least be honest when one can point directly to what you wrote — Nickolasgaspar

Well, I tried. You obfuscate and employ sophistry, you are the type of atheist that atheism could do without as you are a dishonest individual.
You are Nickerless gasbag, Mr Minutia, a dishonest pompous ass who tries to hide behind such cry's from his cradle as 'ad hominem.' :down: :vomit:

Thus can be dogma about evolution. — Hillary

I've never heard of a terrorist blowing stuff up in the name of evolution.

Really? I think you misunderstood, how do you reconcile with God if you reject God for good? — SpaceDweller

If god exists its problem is going to be how it reconciles with us.

hah right, and I'm santa claus — SpaceDweller

Research it santa! (anagram of satan)

Virtual anything can lead to that behavior. Being dogmatic tells nothing about your attitude — Hillary

Extremist behaviour does have many triggers, that's true, but dogmatic fervour about gods is certainly one of those main triggers.

Again, so what? You might appear in your videogame and destroy it. But why should they do that? Why they had created it in the first place? Should they destroy it because human gods fucked up a little — Hillary

I said I could appear as an avatar within a virtual world WITHOUT destroying it, so what do you mean?

I have no idea where did you get that from.. — SpaceDweller

Just type 'Adams first wife Lilith,' into a search engine. You will get plenty about her.

if I reject God then I gave up my freedom because I can no longer fix my mistakes — SpaceDweller

I reject god and I can fix mistakes, well most of them. Some mistakes people make cannot be fixed.

I am, but your inability to understand how we calculate probabilities and why percentages about your personal certainty are irrelevant to the credence of a claim.... — Nickolasgaspar

I taught maths and computer science for 30+ years you pompus ass!
You struggle to type a legible sentence.
I don't need musings about probability from an interior designer.
Stick to picking curtains and floor coverings.
I am not discussing the credence of a claim from the standpoint of scientific rigor.
I referred to my own personal certainty regarding MY atheism.
You are the one who is desperately searching for points of minutia by conflating and inventing what I have previously typed.

And what's wrong with being dogmatic? — Hillary

It can result in extremism and extreme behaviour.

The world would break apart if they appeared in the macro domain. — Hillary

Again they sound incompetent if they can't appear without destroying our world.
I can appear in a virtual world as an avatar and not destroy the computer in the process.
So I can do what your gods cant?

But then not say you are 100% sure? — Hillary

That would make me as dogmatic as theists! We have already had that chat!
I cannot prove gods don't exist.

What if the can't show up? — Hillary

Then they are not very impressive. They created a 3D space they cant appear in.
If I create a virtual world, I can appear inside it as an avatar.

when in your initial claim you were give your personal value on the credence you of the claim itself — Nickolasgaspar

If you are too lazy to proofread what you type then few people will have any idea what you are trying to say.

As I have explained to you, you can not do that. You can not provide a probability number on a supernatural claim — Nickolasgaspar

Yes you can Mr Minutia!

A percentage about your certainty, sure you can do that — Nickolasgaspar

I know! and your quotes contradict each other. How sure are you about your atheism? Could you suggest a percentage quantifier so that others could gain a sense of how strong your atheism is?

But how can you be so sure if you don't know if they exist in the first place? — Hillary

All they have to do is show up and submit themselves to authentication tests. If they do that then we can both say hello to them. I think I will probably try to attack them for all the vile things they let happen in the past. We can release our responsibility for the actions of nefarious humans past and present, to them.
I would be happy to do that. Maybe that's why they don't show up. They are big fearties!

I might have sinister motives...but your screwup stands on its own. — Nickolasgaspar

You should use Logic and its rules in all the aspects of your life...even when arguing against magical thinkers — Nickolasgaspar

I don't need advice from Mr Minutia who has already admitted to having sinister motives.
Just in case you didn't understand my 0.1% belief level in the god posit, let me try to put it another way for you. I am 99.9% sure gods don't exist. Using a little basic logic to help you further. That means I am ALMOST 100% sure gods don't exist. I hope you understand a bit better now, you pompous ass.

Again your opinion doesn't change the fact that Logic exposes your irrational attempt to define probabilities without establishing possibility first and without any samples to evaluate. sorry. — Nickolasgaspar

Don't apologise. I accept your limited understanding of logic.

-You are explaining why you used that way and I have no reason to doubt it. I don't have issues with your intention, I only point out that the way you decided to presenting (using statistical probabilities) is nonsensical and wrong...that's all. Again you can not assign probabilities when you have zero samples to study and compare.
Its not an issue for you being mathematically unsound...but mathematically invalid (I hope you know the difference between soundness and validity). You can not conclude to a mathematical figure without first numbers of different cases out of a total. You have no numbers to arrive to statistical figure — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: You make pointless statements. In the REAL world REAL PEOPLE use percentages to quantify a belief level towards a particular posit all of the time. Mathematical validity has nothing to do with it.
You know this fine well but you choose to roleplay the indignant analyst and search for some points of minutia you can give the kiss of life to. You simply come across as a pompous ass.

Why is this so difficult for you — Nickolasgaspar

Why is the fact that basic logic is very much employed in science so difficult for you! Mr Minutia!

The snake is the devil embodied, and we know (according to scriptures) that God did not create the devil, instead God created an angel who later desired to be God and so he was cast out of heavens — SpaceDweller

Yeah I know the lucifer fable they are all just stories based on earlier stories.
This dimwitted god failed in his first attempt to make a woman for Adam.
His first wife Lillith was a rebel as well. Eve was its second attempt and she was a rebel too.
This god is very incompetent, he even creates rebel angels.
god is too much of a failure to be awarded omni status.

When children starve to death and the climate of the Earth destabilises, that's our fault, not gods.
If god exists then all human suffereing is its fault and its responsibility.
god better not exist because if it does, it is a vile, evil monster that watches innocent people die in some horrific circumstances.

God could have prevented A&E trouble with the snake, but then there would be no true freedom for A&E.
Freedom of free will clear - it's my own, and my own only choice - not up to anyone else but me — SpaceDweller

So why are you threatened with punishment and judgment if you don't make the choices your god requires? How can this god give you freedom of choice and then punish you for eternity if you choose to use that choice to reject god?

Scientific rigor has nothing to do with basic logic — Nickolasgaspar

A completely illogical comment!

You made a claim and you provided a statistical probability for a metaphysical hypothesis without being able to demonstrate Possibility first! — Nickolasgaspar

I assign 0.1% credence to the god posit as MY OWN PERSONAL way to explain to others my level of belief in the truth of the god posit. This is a perfectly valid position. The fact that YOU find it not mathematically sound means nothing to me and I doubt it means much to anyone else except YOU.

Let me help you with a simple example. — Nickolasgaspar

I suggest you first try to help yourself!

Now if you want to calculate probabilities of life in the solar system you wi ll need to compare the known case you have ont planets having life and those who have not and apply it to the total number of planets and moons of the system (number of planets and their conditions).
This is nothing scientific or special. We are talking about basic Logic. — Nickolasgaspar

:lol: Your thinking is so skewed! So according to your thinking, there is nothing scientific about calculating the probability of life in the solar system other than life on earth? really? That's your idea of a logical sentence? As I suggested, your the one who needs help.

What we can say for sure is that the Multiverse is a ar more reasonable hypothesis because we know that a Universe can exist, we have examples in the nature that more than one processes can occur and we have our Math from different fields of study pointing to the idea — Nickolasgaspar

No shit Sherlock! :roll:

Except God didn't made people sick, he gave them free will (freedom) and they made their choice to trust the snake right? — SpaceDweller

Yes it did make people flawed. god is described as omniscient so original sin was part of its design.
Free will cannot exist if the omnis are true. You cannot 'surprise' an all-knowing god. God must have made the snake and allowed it to tempt Eve. Was god shocked by Eve's action? If it was then its not much of a god. you can only do exactly what it knew you were going to do. God stacked the deck before the game even started. This is why god is merely a scapegoat. Humans will pass responsibility on to it with dumb comments such as 'god works in mysterious ways.' We need to take full responsibility for all we do and for what our fate is. Stop blaming fictitious gods.

Right, and even though those religious books show all the evil that come out of trusting the snake you choose to follow the same mistakes of Adam and Eve.

My point is that I don't see why would God have to be blamed.
But consider if God gave us no free will, wouldn't that makes us hopeless slaves of God, wouldn't such God be unjust God? — SpaceDweller

Snakes and demons all work for god, as do characters like satan. God is supposed to be omnipotent so all evil is allowed by god. According to the christians and many other theists, If you reject god, you answer to satan not god. Satan is gods enforcer. Fear of Satan is a great motivator to make you a theist.
Nothing to do with free will, you are threatened with eternal damnation if you reject god.
Why does this pathetic god need to threaten its own creation in such a heinous way?
Humans are a lot less vengeful than this idiotic god. We don't even execute murderers anymore.
'Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord.' Yeah, let's just keep passing our responsibilities on to a fairy tale! :roll:

You are coming up with percentages on claims that have never been proven possible.
Probability is a mathematical concept that demands a verified sample from a total number of cases.
As far as we can tell non of the ideas you do compare have ever been supported by Objective evidence..
How can you ever talk about probabilities when you don't have a single verified case proving its possible nature? — Nickolasgaspar

Theism is a belief system it has nothing to do with scientific rigor. You are being deliberately obtuse.

:smile: :up:

There are many stories. I have the gods story, you the mindless spark. — Hillary

That about covers it. :up:

What is the most disturbing thing about God which makes you think this way? — SpaceDweller

Good question!
We are not free if god exists, we are tied to the will of an omnipotent creator. I find that offensive.
We exist based only on its whim? Yuk!
I then turn to the vile gods who are described in the religious books.
Christoper Hitchens put it very well when he said god made you flawed/sick and then commanded you to heal yourself and if you don't you will be punished for eternity. Such a god would be a moron.
Other serious issues I have are, god has no inherent purpose that I can perceive, god is an obvious response to human primal fear that we inherited from our evolution in the wilds, god allows human suffering of innocents, god seems unable to appear so it cannot be omnipotent and on and on it goes.
I really do appreciate your question but I will stop listing my complaints here as I think my laptop would give out before I could list them all. You asked me to identify the most disturbing thing about the god posit for ME in particular. I cant honestly apply much prioritisation to a particular entry in my list, they are all important to me and all add to my 99.9% level of confidence that god does not exist.

except the fact it all exists in the first place. — Hillary

I am satisfied by the meaningless, mindless spark that no longer exists. That allows me to get rid of the whole god posit and all its flavors

Shake my virtual hand brother Uni! — Hillary

Yep.virtual hand shake :up:

But no mystery gained either — Hillary

Why? if there are no gods then all mysteries currently belong to intelligent lifeforms.
I go back to, we don't need the supernatural as the natural is sooooooo super!

Can we ever understand the heavens and the gods in it? It's an eternal mystery. — Hillary

We have no need to, if, as I BELIEVE, they don't exist, so no mystery to solve!

Ah! Look. That's something different than not cherent — Hillary

I use the term in line with something akin to the definition below:

" Incoherent means that something is difficult to understand because it’s not holding together. A lot of people use incoherent to mean unintelligible, which is a perfectly fine usage"

I don't force you to be satisfied by gods. For me they do give satisfaction. The final closure, so to speak — Hillary

I know but I care about truth so I will push against those who I think do not speak or type it, including those who say what they say in all earnest. Truth as they see it, I disagree that they speak truth, I think they are wrong. I assume you do the same, although sometime I think you roleplay as many others do.
Some with far more nefarious intentions than you.

Coherent in what sense? — Hillary

Makes no sense to me!

Harris is a self righteous guy. Dawkins too. — Hillary

In some ways yes, but no more so than De-Souza or William Lane Craig and probably most other 'public speakers,' in both camps.

It's not emotive theism but scientific knowledge that makes me reject it. — Hillary

And that seems to satisfy your rationale but you also accept that it absolutely does not satisfy many many others, including me, yes? Your arguments/proposals/posits/science points have not convinced me that your polytheistic posits are coherent. So we remain where we are.

Yes, but that's because you are a welcome exception to the rule! — Hillary

I assume you have watched some of the atheist/theist debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and De-Souza, William Lane Craig etc. They very rarely throw any kind of personal insults at each other and are respectful towards, but strongly disagree with, the viewpoints of their interlocutor.

Which doesn't do away with the fact that many worlds are introduced because they don't know. I.e., ignorance — Hillary

They absolutely don't know that's why they propose but it is emotive theism to suggest that such scientific proposals are put forward from a position of ignorance. Ignorance is a word with too many connotations to use in the context you use it.

The same word "ignorance" is used if theists are considered. It is said they use gods out of ignorance.. — Hillary

A bit harsh towards the theist if you ask me. I would rather ask a theist about why they need the god posit. What role does it play in their day-to-day lives? and go from there. I would not merely call them ignorant unless I used the word in anger because they were evanhellicals or had seriously pissed me off.

That's what you believe. Assigning credence level to non-existent worlds is a confession of ignorance — Hillary

Its acceptance of the fact that I don't know for sure but I think your 'ignorance' word is too emotive and it has nothing at all to do with belief in the sense of faith.

Welcome to the Epicurean Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

All hail Epicurus!

But you believe there are many worlds outside ours. — Hillary

Did you not BELIEVE me when I already stated that I don't believe in the many-worlds theory, I assign it a credence level.

Which is, on ignorance. — Hillary

Is that your emotive or venerated opinion?

As I thought. So you reason just the same as theists but with a different belief — Hillary

No, I don't associate the term belief with science in any rigorous manner.
I might use it in a sentence such as 'I believe science has the necessary tools and methodologies to.....