Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "TED" channel.

  1. @drop0112 Your claim is fundamentally misguided as I expressly keep reminding you that the multiverse would be the complete whole, of with our universe would be a necessary thing. In the multiverse all possible mathematics would be expressed, one of which would be the mathematics of our universe. The actual nonsense is when you claim that in a full and complete world there is a being creating things.... My claim suffers from no such nonsense. "// And it's not a mega generator of universes, it's a collection of universes. // Call it what you want, the essence does not change. Why this collection should exist at all?" In my conjecture the multiverse was the product of the fullness and completeness of the world. I guess: Call it what you want, the essence does not change. Why should such god exist at all? But I guess your hypothetical god requires a mega generator of gods? Is that it? A god is required to explain the existence of god? Oh well. "That is, a world that has 10 to 500 degrees of universes does not contain superfluous elements, but one world that has fullness is an superfluous element? Your logic is original)" No, I expresselly said the multiverse is full and that it makes the universe's existence necessary. But I guess you are still not on par with my argument (you should be as it is basically your argument but cutting down on superfluous elements...). "Then I expect a model of the world from you, at least speculative, the most likely for you." I've already given the example of the multiverse, which you can't argue against without invalidating your own claims (this model just cuts out the superfluous elements from your model as already explained). And I don't actually need to favor any model. Especially in the lack of any evidence, which you consistently fail to provide instead opting for fallacies that have already been exposed and for inconsequential eccentric interpretations of an old myth. "If this turns out to be extremely unlikely, then yes, the Lord did it" Except those probabilities represents the state of your knowledge, as the event 100% did happen. Ignorance is the basis for your assertion that "god did it". This was already explained multiple times to be a purely fallacious reasoning, but I guess I'll go and generate a random number with 500 digits and contemplate the extremely low probability of that outcome and come to terms with the extremely well reasoned fact that gnomes picked that number for me... "There is no mistake." Oh so you're now suggesting that we know everything about genetics? More over with no mistakes? Perfect knowledge, that is a wild claim. Again: ignorance of any details does not in any way substantiate your claim that god exists (again it might be any misunderstood genetic function or a poorly understood role of viruses or anything that we don't know yet). But again you go with that fundamentally fallacious idea that if I don't know something gnomes did it. The fact that evolution took place, now that has actual evidence, rather than being a case of "idk, therefore god". As I said: there we go to the same initial fallacy, as if our potential lack of knowledge (in this case represented by whatever probability you come up with), in any way substantiated your claim that the missing piece of information is "the intervention of the mind", rather than an incomplete understanding of codons or the role of viruses or the environment or just statistical outliers." "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly" Again, no mention of any sort of evolution. Instead it is the stuff of harry potter where god says some incantations and trees burst out of the ground and the oceans explode with life and we reach the age of man in a couple days. And it is not about being a book of science, it is about being a book about true things, which it is not: it's a book of mythological things (where the sun can come after the trees, or the earth for that matter - the stuff of fantasy of people who didn't know better). "// I guess he didn't know what direction light would take because he also saw it was good after he "declared" it. // Of course, he did not see the new world before the big bang, so when he saw it for the first time, he was delighted. What confuses you?" I'm calling out the inconsistency of your claims: First "God saw 'it was good' only after he completed this stage of evolutionary development, since he did not fully know which way evolution would take", but in the case of light god saw it was good not because of any evolution, but because he was delighted. Your interpretations are not just eccentric, but also inconsistent. "a pear gives birth to a pear, and an apple tree an apple tree" Any ancient ignoramus would know that. And for all the times it references "each after it's kind", not once does it mention "each with slightly differing from their kind"- you know: evolution is what it doesn't mention. "And how do you like this version ..." I find it a wonderful work of fantasy that is in contradiction with all that is known about how things happened. How about gnomes were pointing light bulbs at earth? That's another ad hoc option. "Your knowledge of reality is insignificantly small to draw conclusions" I base my claims on the information I do have, rather than fallacies and a fixation for some obligatory truth of a cultural myth. Unlike the bible, whose pinnacle of its scientific potential tend to be antiscientific positions, science actually has scientific potential. Unlike people who take obviously incorrect claims and stomp down their foot saying that they must somehow be correct, there are people who actually take their ideas and check whether they actually have factual support. But I get why you're downplaying knowledge, after all: don't know, therefore god. It is impressive that so many people report that harry potter changed their lives ( https://www.google.com/search?q=harry+potter+changed+my+life ) it must have some spiritual value, and it does talk about real landmarks in england and the prime minister of england if I'm not mistaken, and it really is a collection of related books, but it is still a tale of fantasy. Oh and no, the (christian) bible is not indivisible as the jews are happy with just a section of it (in fact they claim that that's all there is to it) and it was actually put together by compiling various separate texts and choosing to keep some and throw others away. The bible still contains errors, but it is already the product of revision to try and fit it all as nicely as possible. Thinking back at genesis, surely you must find it odd that all of it is filled with caveats, from firmament being laws to days being billions of years, to the earth being transported to resolve the problem of the sun, etc. Surely you must be able to see that you need quite a lot of ad hoc changes to make it work.
    4
  2. 4
  3. ​ @drop0112  Do not do with my comments the same you do with the bible: do not pretend that my comments say things that I specifically said otherwise. I consistently specified said ideas as "hypothetical" and as "conjecture". Oh mathematics is god now... (Might as well say that gravity is a god and so is the sun and my shoe, and I might as well say that the only place where those things are gods is inside the superstitious mind.) But let's go into things that are not the domain of superstition. Math is a description, what you are talking about is objects (in this hypothetical case universes) that have some variation in some characteristic. So what you were pointing at doesn't even exist. Furthermore as already explained over and over again - after all that was the point of my conjecture: the mechanism I have proposed for the existence of the universe is the same that you are proposing for the existence of god. Are you now claiming that god needs another god in order to exist? If you still haven't got the basics: // in an infinite and full world there is any opportunity that does not contradict other opportunities, then such opportunity, as [a multiverse], becomes the only and marginal opportunity of such a world. Are we done here? Do you now understand how attacking this idea is an attack to your own claims? These are basically your own claims, just decluttered. // //That just shifts the question //You have lost the argument of the multiplicity of Gods / Now show me (...) this possibility with multiple Gods You don't even seem to have understood the argument: I am claiming precisely cannot be infinite gods. (Does "atheist" ring a bell?) I'll note that you actually agree that that multiple gods are impossible, and continue to assert my case: proposing an intelligent designer to account for design just shifts the problem to what designed the designer (and so on) and ends up in claims that neither of us accept. Oh and claiming that "it is the ultimate possibility" is precisely the resolution I have proposed (being the multiverse "the ultimate possibility"). //Now tell me why God is superfluous in the multiverse model with more dimensions and possibilities than our universe? I've told you this time and time again: "We live in a subtract with a large number of dimensions, in which complex structures for our existence, such as universes like ours, become inevitable." "I'm saying that my conjecture the universe does not need a creator (making it superfluous) and that cosmical creators aren't known to exist nor even to be possible. " "The thing is that the universe actually is known to be a possibility, while god is neither necessary (cause the multiverse would guarantee the existence of this universe), nor is it known to be possible." //But I give you to understand that the atheistic model of the world has no logical advantages over the monotheistic model of the world. I've already explained that the advantage is precisely that it cuts necessary elements therefore making the explanation more likely to correspond to reality. I've also explained (quoting from my response to Gordon) that "If god is something for which you have no evidential or logical case, then it should be dismissed as imaginary (as I've outlined it in the last paragraph of my comment to @Евгений Сусков, and shouldn't come as a surprise at all if you already dismiss things like magical unicorns)." And most recently " mathematics is god now... Might as well say that gravity is a god and so is the sun and my shoe, and I might as well say that the only place where those things are gods is inside the superstitious mind." ...No matter what concept of god or how you use it it always comes down to a net negative in whatever reasoning you are engaging in (if any at all). //The model of the complete multiverse without God is flawed, because it lacks the main opportunity - the Creator, who possesses maximum power and therefore this model cannot be complete. False, Whatever the reason for the supposed creator's existence I've already proposed the same mechanism for the universe/multiverse, demonstrating that your claims about god's existence are completely superfluous. "Now about probabilities. If there were no logical prerequisite for the existence of God," ...There is no logical prerequisite for the existence of any god... Facepalm. "the existence of God (...) is a logical consequence of the extreme mathematics of the world" We've been through this, and god can perfectly well be eliminated from your argument. It is nothing but an unnecessary complication motivated by your religious preconceptions... "If you said that you do not know if there is a God or not, you would not have sinned" Sin? Again you Come with superstitions... If you were talking about anything real you might of talked about immorality, but since you won't find much of that in me you might as well attempt to vilify me with your imaginary immorality. "now ye say, we see; therefore your sin remaineth" That is what I say about you: you insist on your unreasonable and purely superstitious claims, therefore your ignorance "remaineth".
    4
  4. ​ @drop0112  Merit?! Your claims don't have merit as I explained and demonstrated they are illogical. But you dogmatically insist on arguments already demonstrated to be fallacies of elementary fallibility, and on baseless conjectures and on gods that are unnecessary even within your baseless conjectures. And while I understand the limits of both our knowledge, your knowledge is further limited by your double and triple willful ignorance that leads you to ascribe to me an ignorance that you yourself are ignorant of and further deluded about. Merit? You mean admonition. How much reprimand your insistence on failed arguments should get you. And yet again I respond to each of your claims on their lack of merit: //I pointed that mathematics describing a multiverse is a higher order of mathematics than mathematics describing our universe. I remind you that: "no one created the fundamental laws of the world multiverse, which determine the existence of God the multiverse." This was the answer you gave me. What is still unclear about your own argument? Next time before you criticise my conjecture consider that you're also attacking your own conjecture. Also consider that if you don't successfully attack my conjecture god will still remain a superfluous element in your argument. Is it clear to you by now that this is an end game condition for you, or round and round we go till it never sinks in past your dogma? //Analogy is a plane and space. Our universe is a plane, and the multiverse is space. This is very simplistic, because our brain is difficult to imagine more than 3 or 4 dimensions. So what does not exist from what I pointed about: the multiverse or mathematics describing the multiverse? Disembodied mathematics is what doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with simplism, it has to do with models being mental representations. //I also explained that, firstly, the hypotheses unproved today do not give you the right to reject them as imaginary. Except I've already explained why I correctly do so: "untestability still does not shield from sheer improbability which can be logically demonstrated to be justified for any unjustified idea. (If I think of five numbers and you baselessly try to guess it'll be utterly unlikely that your guess actually matches any of my numbers. Even if I consider infinite numbers like the natural numbers you'll still have infinitely more sets of numbers to choose from making your baseless guess still utterly unlikely to match any of my infinitely many numbers. Same goes for your baseless assumption that some god exists. And the odds don't meaningfully improve if you dismiss a bunch of numbers or a bunch of ideas.)" //An example of this is the Poincare hypothesis, For each Poincare hypothesis there are infinite leprechaun. It's all in the argument that you were criticising without reading. //unproven problems of the millennium in mathematics, but no one is going to consider them imaginary. The problems actually exist. People have been at them for some time now. But again this is the result of criticism without reading my argument. //And secondly, I also explained to you the logical case for the existence of God. Additional dimensions in space add tremendous additional possibilities for the existence of complex structures. And secondly, I also explained to you the logical case for the multiverse without creator. Additional dimensions in hyperspace add tremendous additional possibilities for the existence of complex structures. Next time before you criticise my conjecture consider that you're also attacking your own conjecture. Also consider that if you don't successfully attack my conjecture god will still remain a superfluous element in your argument. Is it clear to you by now that this is an end game condition for you, or round and round we go till it never sinks in past your dogma? //So why can't exist a rational being with maximum power in the multiverse space? This is not logical. Such maximum power is limited by its subset of laws of physics and it would be inconsequential to the existence of our necessary universe. There would also be plenty very similar beings and they would be unlikely to coincide with any of our made up fables. This isn't anything like the god you were proposing before and is nevertheless bound by the possibilities of physics, to which no (non-shoe-like) version of god is known to correspond. //Whatever the reason for the supposed creator's existence I've already proposed the same mechanism for the universe/multiverse, demonstrating that your claims about god's existence are completely superfluous.// //You did not proposed anything clever,.// Funny, I've proposed something as clever as yours, just with less clutter. //The multiverse itself is a wildly irrational thing with huge (almost endless) possibilities. You do not give any explanation for the existence of such a wild structure,// Funny, cause you said: "no one created the fundamental laws of the world, which determine the existence of God". I just said the same about the existence of the multiverse. If you want to claim that the multiverse can only be explained by a god, then your supposed god can only be explained by another god. Again: I've proposed something as clever as yours, just with less clutter. "in the world of infinite possibilities." The natural numbers are also a world of infinite possibilities and you won't find imaginary numbers there. Infinite doesn't make anything possible. Our universe and everything in it is in fact possible - as we are a verified case. God's more over like the one's you whimsically propose aren't needed for the existence of any possible universes in a multiverse, and their existence is neither verified nor known to correspond to any of the sets of laws of physics - which . ////I consistently specified said ideas as "hypothetical" and as "conjecture".// //That is, you do not know anything,// Instead I demonstrated that your case was baseless. that there is no reason to find it in any way true. On top of that I've demonstrated that imaginary things aren't very likely at all. In sum, I've demonstrated that your claim that there is a god is not only not known to be true but also lacks plausibility. ////That is what I say about you: you insist on your unreasonable and purely superstitious claims, therefore your ignorance "remaineth".// //I have no superstitious claims and all my arguments are valid. But what I see in you is not only ignorance, but uncommon stubbornness in your ignorance. Your beliefs that you've been exposing amount to precisely that: superstition. And after your arguments ALL failed, you are now left with a baseless conjecture which which you (and/or I) can explain any scenario that we very well please. So much for a great argument for monotheism. Welcome polytheism where all gods live in the fullness of a baseless conjecture. For an "argument" (cough conjecture cough) about infinities, it is only fitting that there would be infinite holes in it.
    4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 4
  8. 4
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. ​ BTIsaac  Let's shed some light on why a typical job is what makes a robot out of you: -Commute time: Previous: 2 hours. Current : NA. -Flexibility to work OR not to work depending on what I feel like doing: Previous: very limited. Current : extremely flexible. -Work hours per day: Previous: 8 & 1/2 hours (there was a mandatory lunch break in the middle). Current : 4-5 hours (includes breakfast while working, no need for a break unless I feel like doing one). Yes, my workday is now half of what it used to be, and I still earn more than I previously did. -Breaks: Previous: Mandatory . Current : most of my work is done in the 2-3 hours in the morning and 2-3 hours in the evening. Most of my day is a break. -Days off: Previous: 2 days; mandatory; fixed. Current : 1-2 days; on whatever day I feel like doing something else; optional/varies with the number of hours worked on a given week. -Life and playtime: Previous: vacations + weekends + a couple free hours per day. Current: most of my day, nearly every day. -Work conditions: Previous: workers boycotted my efforts, many coworkers were not interested in working at all, actual work was often secondary to silly and blind implementation of methodologies (like 5S and SCRUM). Current : I only work with people I think are serious and whose goals I can get behind so that we are all working towards the same goals. And I follow the methodologies in the way I think they should be applied based on my expertise, which yields better results with much less hassle. -Environment: Previous: Factory, conditioned air that made a noticeable difference in my airways - and I have always been a perfectly healthy person without respiratory afflictions. Current : my cozy setups are comfortable, ergonomic, varied and essentially I can work however I feel most comfortable and wherever I feel like being for as long as I can get some kind of internet connection (wifi or mobile). So what the heck are you going on about? I most certainly spend less time inside a room than the average office worker. (Not to mention that I can breathe air that doesn't require constant treatment and monitoring so that we don't all die around here.) And what about cons? Certainly it can't be all roses. The lack of a senior mentor was an issue for a time, but I've found other ways to expand my knowledge which ended up being comparable to the benefits of having a mentor. That was the only complaint I had so far and it wasn't anything that couldn't be fixed. Some people speak of loneliness and other issues, but I have never really felt like that was a problem for me (I live in a nice place where neighbors are friendly and besides I now have my partner/wife who is also very nice and also works remotely although in a completely different area).
    3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. @drop0112 //What prevents the existence of mathematics, which will allow the existence of an omnipotent smart being able to create?// What prevents the existence of mathematics, which will allow the existence of a full multiverse where all possibilities come true? The thing is that the universe actually is known to be a possibility, while god is neither necessary (cause the multiverse would guarantee the existence of this universe), nor is it known to be possible. As such the existence of life as we know it is in no way dependent on the existence of any creator god. And the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing. //a multiverse with a Googleplex universes can exist, but a higher world with a smart creator and extreme math cannot.// Have I said that? What I actually said: "and the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing." //You do not know how this event happened// I do know that it happened. You claim I don't know the mechanism, but I do know some such as evolution and gravitation. But perhaps you haven't gotten the point: your argument is fundamentally fallacious. your argument consists of a series of fallacies: - lack of contrary evidence (appeal to ignorance): "show the illogicality of this postulate" <-- show the illogicality of me being bald right now? I guess I must be bald then... - [can't explain it? therefore] goddidit (equivalent to "gnomesdidit" or "magicdidit"): "suggest the best model of the world" <--- tell me nintendo's proprietary algorithm? you can't? It's magic I tell you. - low probabilities can't happen (when all probabilities are low) (unnamed fallacy, but illogical none the less) "If the probability of an event is 10 to 500 degrees, it will mean that your theory should be thrown into a landfill" <-- Only 1/6th probability of your dice landing on a 3? It should have landed elsewhere, your dice is biased (or gnomes purposefully guided it to a 3). - Ludic fallacy According to wikipedia about the ludic fallacy: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information"; "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact;" //And I suggest you calculate this probability based on knowledge, but not on ignorance.// And I suggest meteorologists accurately forecast the weather for next summer. After all you do know the formulas... Oh wait: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information" and "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. (Same goes for a ball rolling on a rough surface...) Oh and there is a new one now: - loads of people believe it - appeal to the people fallacy //Only children believe in gnomes, but half of the globe believe in one Creator.// I hope you're not pointing out that your type of arguments can be used to make such absurd claims that only children qwould believe such a thing. And I also hope that you're not saying that if we indoctrinate a large number of people with a false belief that same belief suddenly is true. Neither objection helps your case, a case that is on it's own right purely a fallacy. //And hardly all of them are more stupid than you.// I guess people throughout history who believed that bloodletting was actually curing disease were stupid, that must of been it... The thing that actually is relevant: none of them that I have heard from actually had the only thing required: a sound justification for their belief. //only creation can be an alternative to the theory of evolution// Pretty sure that is a false dichotomy. Right off the bat I can think of at least one other: randomness. Regardless: unknown unknowns, another reason why even if evolution was wrong, that would still not translate into creationism being right. But... so far evolution is holding up just fine, and there actually is evidence for it. "In order to make 100% reliable conclusions about evolution, it is not at all necessary to know everything about genetics." 100% reliable conclusions - like humans evolved from other species? I wouldn't say that is 100% reliable, but definitely can be said with a very high degree of confidence. On the other hand the sort of conclusions you want actually require you to know everything, not just about genetics, but also about initial conditions on which evolution was acting upon. The largely random seeds and high sensitivity of these sorts of processes makes it so that not knowing the precise conditions leads to multiple potential scenarios. //Your knowledge of reality is so small that you cannot draw conclusions about the existence of the Creator, the multiverse, evolution without the participation of the mind and authenticity of the Bible.// As already stated: I base my claims on the information I do have, rather than fallacies and a fixation for some obligatory truth of a cultural myth. Biblical claims are consistently invalidated by real world data. You can claim that I can't be sure, but I can be a heck of a lot more sure than you since facts actually support my claims and contradict yours. But I'm sure the compelling and understandable (did I mention counterfactual?) narration of harry potter is a testament to the existence of magic beyond the world of muggles. And again: But I get why you're downplaying knowledge, after all: don't know, therefore god. Regardless downplaying our knowledge does not provide any validation for your claims that continue to lack evidence and logic. //The information about the world, which is recorded in the Bible, is fully consistent with modern scientific data.// Trees and earth before sun and that's just the tip of the iceberg. You must be joking. //And so that your soul does not perish// That is the stuff of fantasy. You'd do better to simply think and act in reasonable ways, at least you'll get closer to whatever goals you are pursuing.
    3
  30.  @drop0112  //Why (...) there cannot exist a rational being capable of creating? In our universe, man is also not needed, but, nevertheless, it exists.// 1st: man effectively exists (man is necessary because you'll have to include us in whatever explanation you end up giving). 2nd: I'm not saying that a "rational being capable of creating" can't exist (in fact many do), I'm saying that my conjecture the universe does not need a creator (making it superfluous) and that cosmical creators aren't known to exist nor even to be possible. //our universe was once a point with infinite density of matter (...) it will expand forever (...), it will never return to the point. How could this opportunity be realized?// Actually the part about infinite density is not known, it's extrapolated from equations that should not be expected to be accurate at those scales. I don't know, it might be impossible that our universe return to its initial state. If the laws of physics don't allow it, then I guess it won't happen. The existence of a multiverse doesn't need to make anything and everything possible. //"As such the existence of life as we know it is in no way dependent on the existence of any creator god. And the supposed existence of a gods is still superfluous to this whole thing." You do not know this.// It's part of my conjecture, in a multiverse where all possible universes come into existence in no way is a god needed for our exact universe to exist. //And again, returning to the topic of proof of evolution, I insist that there are no mistakes in my arguments and requirements.// And I insist that there might (and probably are at least some minor errors in our understanding of the specificities of the systems involved in evolution) and that even meteorologists knowing the relevant formulas can't predict the weather accurately a long time in advance: "It is impossible to be in possession of the entirety of available information" and "Small unknown variations in the data could have a huge impact. (Same goes for a ball rolling on a rough surface...) I insist that as explained there are definitely mistakes in your argument and related requirements. But if you insist that there are no mistakes in your argument and requirements I expect you can use the known formulas of classical mechanics to determine precisely where an paper airplane will land after being thrown off of the roof of my house. Bear in mind that if you can't demonstrate the accuracy of your calculations (be it because you don't now where my house is or the exact moment I'm going to throw the airplane or that small differences in the airplane can make a huge difference or because there are too many variables, ...), I will have demonstrated that classical mechanics doesn't work without gnomes. //Because evolution is not the movement of air currents, as is the case with weather prediction, but a completely understandable and discrete process of transforming a DNA code from one species to another.// Oh really? I guess you can show me exactly how that happens. Cause as far as I'm concerned a rare random mutation bearing organism being wiped out by some minor cataclysm could change the course of evolution towards different paths that would still be beneficial and still lead to speciation and so on. But here you are again wanting me to calculate probabilities of events that did happen... Again I tell you that: I can generate a sequence of random number with very low odds and nevertheless the numbers that I end up with are the4 numbers I end up with, regardless of how improbable those specific numbers are. Here are my numbers (clearly manipulated by gnomes because they are so very unlikely about 10^110): 8483623561296075283911533653 3210311177391768317833474343 1660490381375815957916001865 6761662042493690751308125550 Again I tell you that:'Except those probabilities represent the state of your knowledge, as the event 100% did happen. Ignorance is the basis for your assertion that "god did it".' As for the evidence that evolution did happen, again you have all the various remains showing organisms that were subject to the mechanisms by which evolution unfolds and graudally changing based on those processes, and whose genetic codes match ours in preciselly the ways that would be expected if we had evolved form the same ancestor. Meanwhhile your claim that "goddidit" still has no evidence whatsoever and runs counter to claims athat are actually substantiated by the facts. Oh and we're all equally well adapted (which is why we're all still alive), and we're descentends from common ancestry which means we're here for the same time. Evolution does not select for complication nor for adaptation, it selects for survival, that is the vector (and it lead to both the simpler and the more complex to the broad and to the specialized - indeed there is no cosmical vector towards intelligent life unlike you want to believe). //You can certainly think about chance, but only when this chance is justified// Randomness is a known unknown, that is not even accounting for the unknown unknowns. As said, your dichotomy is fallacious. And randomenss is justifiable. Given enough random shaped rocks there is bound to be a copy of mount rushmore. //your brain is completely unable to identify the signs of mind intervention in the process of evolution// So far it's not just my brain, it's any brain that is not engaging in fallacies upon fallacies.... And if you stil think that probabilities of things that actually happened are relevant: 9095573917792868599961591698876741094641 1989681016634266420311498663336127558987 2229600004489996052059794708686988248945 The odds of these numbers are now at about 10^220, It's gnomes I say. Wait, no I don't actually say that... It's a fallacy I say! //Let's take a closer look at what scientific data is your confidence based on// It certainly is infinitelly higher than that of claims were based on nothing but fallacies and counterfactual myths. //I have a 100% certainty that God exists// But hey I've actually been explaining to you that your confidence is purelly phychological. // you have neither a scientific nor a logical argument against my arguments of faith// I merelly have the one thing required: your fallacies and your lack of logic basis and evidence. In the end you have faith which as justification amounts to 0. In sum a purely psychological, unwarranted confidence.
    3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2