If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Freddy Figbottom]

This is subjective.

that's objectively bad evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

they talk in probabilties because everything is basically random, you dumb skeezz.

Random number mathematics is not probability mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

And you are way out of your depth on this one, Cletus.

Watching you post is like watching one of those videos with "Darth Dawkins" trying to debunk atheism. Equally pathetic and equally uneducated.

It is not possible to debunk atheism. There is nothing to debunk. Atheism is not a religion, and not even an opinion.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Random number mathematics is not probability mathematics.

probability is a way mankind deals with randomness.

 

[Into the Night]

This is subjective.

Worse. It's an attempt to use a subjective word as an objective word.
Kind of like 'climate change'.

 

[Into the Night]

that's objectively bad evidence.

Illiteracy: Subjective used as objective.

 

[Into the Night]

probability is a way mankind deals with randomness.

Probability mathematics is not random number mathematics. Probability mathematics does NOT generate a single random number nor uses them.
You DO have to declare a boundary and the randX to be used (which governs the calculation itself), but that's all.

It is not possible to predict a random number other than a randU. It IS possible to predict certain type of randU, such as those based on a Taylor series (common in crappy computer random number generators).

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Probability mathematics is not random number mathematics. Probability mathematics does NOT generate a single random number nor uses them.
You DO have to declare a boundary and the randX to be used (which governs the calculation itself), but that's all.

It is not possible to predict a random number other than a randU. It IS possible to predict certain type of randU, such as those based on a Taylor series.

but probability math is how mankind deals with randomness.

 

[Into the Night]

but probability math is how mankind deals with randomness.

Probability math uses no random numbers and does not generate any random numbers. Probability math is not random number math.

 

[ZenMode]

IOW, you're not counting ANYTHING?

Thoughts aren't evidence. People walking on water. Burning bushes talking. Old guys parting a sea with a stick. Literally stopping the sun in the sky (another nonsensical Biblical claim). Those are evidence. Thinking about those things happening isn't evidence.

 

[ZenMode]

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Void.
Mantra 1d. Lame.

You are also an ideal target for religion.

It's no wonder you are also a conspiracy theorist.

 

[IBDaMann]

I believe that water is 2 parts oxygen and 9 parts hydrogen. The fact that I believe that is evidence that it might be true.

So all you have is complete misrepresentation as a pivot away from your having tipped your king.

A forfeit is a forfeit.

 

[IBDaMann]

not good evidence.

An Old Testament flavor of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

So all you have is complete misrepresentation as a pivot away from your having tipped your king.

A forfeit is a forfeit.

Misrepresentation

 

[ZenMode]

There is no "might be true". It's definitely NOT true. This thread is about religion, NOT science.

Right and as we know, religion is about faith, not reason and logic

 

[IBDaMann]

Were you always a fumb duck?

 

[Into the Night]

Thoughts aren't evidence.

Oddly enough, they are.

They have even been used in proofs.

People walking on water.

I do it quite often. I drive on it too.

Burning bushes talking.

Never seen one talk. The Bible never describes one talking either.
It DOES describe God talking from what appeared to be a burning bush though (though the 'bush' was never consumed).

Old guys parting a sea with a stick.

Why not?

Literally stopping the sun in the sky (another nonsensical Biblical claim).

Nonsense? No. God has control of his creation.

Those are evidence. Thinking about those things happening isn't evidence.

BOTH are evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

You are also an ideal target for religion.

Good.

It's no wonder you are also a conspiracy theorist.

No, the Democrat party is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

An Old Testament flavor of a No True Scotsman fallacy.

with a little bit of ad populum thrown itn.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Oddly enough, they are.

They have even been used in proofs.

I do it quite often. I drive on it too.

Never seen one talk. The Bible never describes one talking either.
It DOES describe God talking from what appeared to be a burning bush though (though the 'bush' was never consumed).

Why not?

Nonsense? No. God has control of his creation.

BOTH are evidence.

argument to popularity.

it;s considered a fallacy.