It's also important to understand that most people if entering the 1%, would act accordingly. The way people detach their morals from what morals the ...
Because of supply and demand, because of apathy, because of comfort. If your population is content with their life, distracting themselves with substa...
I think I can, they scramble together while thinking them. What kind of "not being able to" are you referring to? The meaning? The sound of the though...
Once again, you use yourself as the foundation for your argument. This is Inception-level of cognitive bias. I'm not sure which level we're at, your o...
I've never proposed taking linguistic lessons from me. But your linguistic skills do not have to be a hunchback in order to be lacking in efficiency. ...
How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. And we don't have any data yet of anything earlier than a few fractions after Big Bang...
That still doesn't support your original argument, the numbers and probability you calculate. The first cause argument also doesn't prove anything oth...
In the context of the argument being discussed, it is not valid and does not have any relation to it at all. So, what is your point? The argument isn'...
Of course. May I predict that you will start a new thread, proposing the same logic, referring to your old posts as support for your new thread, ignor...
Because you use it as a fundamental foundation for your entire theory of inductive probability. A foundation that would require a true premise, meanin...
No, I'm not pedantic, you need a solid ground for your argument. How can you demand us to accept a theory that is flawed? That is not philosophy, that...
Induction doesn't mean your conclusion or premises can be fantasies. Induction means a probable conclusion based on true premises. You have no true pr...
No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game. And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT So you need it to be true, therefore, ...
We're not done yet, convince me with your superior math skills and superior knowledge of physics before claiming a win of the dialectics. Or are you a...
Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period. I can't, I ...
I refer back to my own reference post of an argument that is 50% probable to be true based on a hypothesis that is part of my agnostic ideals. There, ...
How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estim...
Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation ...
Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. That's the problem. People have pointed this out over and over but you won't...
Just saying our counter-arguments are invalid does not make it so. You are right in that you are an amateur. Many in here are, but being an amateur mi...
Your own definition of atheism is still in line with what I described. The concept of a God or Gods does not exist for a baby, but is learned. If the ...
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. Which you al...
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, b...
Based on what? You don't listen to others at all. If you ever even looked at the dialectics I've gone through on this board you would see that when so...
Because you won't actually listen to people. It's called cognitive bias. I'm not the only one who countered your arguments, I might be the only one st...
You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've recei...
Because you haven't put forth any real argument against what I wrote about, you stopped at a semantical error and are just spamming posts about things...
The counter-argument is that you have no support for your math premises. How are those not valid counter-arguments? Produce actual support for your pr...
That doesn't mean anything. I'm working on paper as well, but it's not truth, both because I'm working on it and because it hasn't gone through falsif...
You believe some parts of math and therefore you classify some parts as not belief. What parts are beliefs whatsoever in math? You essentially choose ...
And you ignore the rest because of the semantics, not the linguistic pragmatics of it. Daniel Cox didn't have a problem understanding what I wrote, wh...
Yes it is. You believe it to be 50% true, you have no foundation for those numbers in anything but your own opinion and belief. How you mix together y...
Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probabil...
It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer t...
That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my ori...
That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made...
Comments