Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Quote:

No...as a matter of fact, I do not. But you are starting to sound silly...and out of control. Try to get a rein on it, Jimmy. We were doing so nicely.

It's pretty obvious to any unbias onlooker that you sound silly.

Quote:

Learn how to quote so we can actually discuss whatever you are trying to discuss.

Tell me exactly what you suppose I inferred about unicorns...and where I inferred it.

(Hint: You are dead wrong on this.)

I told you that burden of proof never lies on the negative side. I used the unicorn as an example of this and you said that unicorns might have existed.
From there you just continued your bs.

Quote:

I'm glad you came along, Jimmy. You are making so little sense, I suspect even the people who are on your side are getting uncomfortable with you pretense at argument.

I do not understand your point here.

Really. Provide an unbiased onlooker to corroborate that.

I am enjoying you more than you can possibly imagine, Jimmy. When I started my conversation with you, I though it could be an intelligent one, but you quickly moved into a mode that indicated I should have fun playing with you instead.

I have been...and no matter what you think...I am enjoying it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not understand your point here.

In order to claim that something with a probability truth value (that you don't believe in, and you don't recognise as a tool of assessment) of 10^-** is driving the universe you should exclude all the other possibilities, like ID, for example.
In order to claim that we, the humans 'are the first ... & still the best ILF in the universe' you have to prove that we are made directly by the big bang (not to speak that you shall prove also that the big bang has the feasibility to do so) ... and also that there is nothing in-between.
Otherwise you fall automatically into the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Quote:

Really. Provide an unbiased onlooker to corroborate that.

Scroll up on the previous page to find a couple.

[img]I said that unicorns might have existed.

I defy you to find that quote.

I have said that I do not know if the exist (I do not)...and I said I do not "believe" they exist (I am not part of the set of people who "believe" they exist...and I also and not part of the set of people who "believe" they do not exist. I DO NOT KNOW[/img]

The fact that you're entertaining the notion merely pads my argument.

Quote:

I am enjoying you more than you can possibly imagine, Jimmy. When I started my conversation with you, I though it could be an intelligent one, but you quickly moved into a mode that indicated I should have fun playing with you instead.

I have been...and no matter what you think...I am enjoying it.

Come now. This is too easy for me. You do all the work in making yourself sound ridiculous.

You are not actually suggesting there are unbiased onlookers here in A2K on this question are you???

You are in desperate need of some type of critical thinking/logic-based class.

... whether it is logical or reasonable or not is another question entirely.

I THINK GUESSING WHETHER THERE IS A GOD OR NOT is an absurdity and not worth while …

You are not actually suggesting there are unbiased onlookers here in A2K on this question are you???

How cute!

I'm not sure what argument you are declaring as victorious, Jimmy, but you are a treasure!

In any case, I still defy you to find the quote.

You won't...and probably you will not have the guts or ethical sense to acknowledge that you cannot.

Otherwise you fall automatically into the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Weren't you some 'almost bachelor' in biology or s.th.
How did it happen that all of a suddent you became top scientist in math logic ... and started providing consultations on the net who which class needs

Frank Apisa wrote:

... whether it is logical or reasonable or not is another question entirely.

When s.th. is illogical it is called implausible ... and is expected to have very low truth value. Often the truth value of illogical statements is so low that it doesn't 'worth the effort' even to read them.

further wrote:

I THINK GUESSING WHETHER THERE IS A GOD OR NOT is an absurdity and not worth while …

When you make similar statements perhaps you have some solid reasonable ground to claim this.

In this case you have to prove that:
1. The reasoning about the existence (or non-existence) of God is extremely unreasonable: not governed by reason or is exceeding the reasonable limits
If the reasoning about the existence of God is 'absurdity' what will you say about the reasoning for replacing the beliefs in God with the beliefs in the big bang and in the evolution of the stars as a driving engine of the universe.

2. ... is foolish (we are still interpreting 'absurdity')
- lack of failure of wisdom and of making proper careful choices, intellectual arrogance.
What choices do you make when commenting the possibility for existence or the non-existence of other intelligence (besides ours) in the universe, for example.

3. ... should not be taken seriously
What exactly is funny in this dispute. We may want to laugh as well.

Quote:

You are not actually suggesting there are unbiased onlookers here in A2K on this question are you???

How cute!

I've been getting a few people who I've even debated on other threads messaging me telling me all about you LOL

So, spewing nonsense must be something you do often here, eh? Whenever you're beat you're just going to mud the waters with more nonsense?

Quote:

I'm not sure what argument you are declaring as victorious, Jimmy, but you are a treasure!

In any case, I still defy you to find the quote.

You won't...and probably you will not have the guts or ethical sense to acknowledge that you cannot.

Next time try to quote the correct passage so I can figure out what you're talking about (I believe you told me to start doing the same and I have).

If you are being contacted by people who are too cowardly to post their remarks here in the forum...fine. Let 'em say what they want. But if you want to think any of them are "unbiased onlookers"...you are just kidding yourself.

Oh, Wow...what a sharp comeback.

But I did quote the passage. You wrote:
”The fact that you're entertaining the notion merely pads my argument. “

That is the victory you are claiming.

You left that out so you could get that zinger in.

You really have very low debating ethics.

Quote:

That was a positive assertion on your part, Jimmy. You asserted that it is more likely that there is no god than that there is one.

Where is the evidence that validates that assertion?

And if you do not have it...and it was just an atheistic throw away line like the theistic throw away line of, "It is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are no gods"...grow the spine to acknowledge that it is.

C'mon, Jimmy, if you do...we can have more fun discussing less absurd notions...and you will be able to put away all that silly, " I think I've clearly made my point with you on how illogical your methodology is."

It's also more likely that unicorns do not exist than that they do. It's not my responsibility to prove that assertion either.

I gave you my evidence and you dismissed it, which shows you're unwilling to accept when you are wrong.

Perhaps if you would stop equating the two (when clearly proving a negative is not the same thing) I would be able to take you more seriously. Honestly, I'd expect better from someone your age. Just proves my phrase "with age does not come wisdom", I guess... Pity

Yeah...you are one of the people who make unfounded assertions...and then when challenged, refuse to acknowledge that the assertion was unfounded.

You'll never make it doing debate, Jimmy. Stick to selling snake oil.

You didn't give any "evidence" at all. You merely did what the theists do when they say..."Just look at the Grand Canyon...and you can see the hand of God."

Sometimes kids think they are smarter than they are. When you grow up you may look at what you are now...and cringe.

In any case, you asserted that it is more likely that there is no god...than that there is.

Where is your backup for that likelihood "estimate", Jimmy?

Quote:

Yeah...you are one of the people who make unfounded assertions...and then when challenged, refuse to acknowledge that the assertion was unfounded.

You'll never make it doing debate, Jimmy. Stick to selling snake oil.

I guess the assertion that unicorns do not exist is "unfounded".
You really are an idiot.

Quote:

You didn't give any "evidence" at all. You merely did what the theists do when they say..."Just look at the Grand Canyon...and you can see the hand of God."

Incorrect. You dismissed it because you're not willing to accept when you're wrong.

Quote:

Sometimes kids think they are smarter than they are. When you grow up you may look at what you are now...and cringe.

In any case, you asserted that it is more likely that there is no god...than that there is.

Where is your backup for that likelihood "estimate", Jimmy?

Did I not already provide this in a previous post?
The memory is starting to fade from you, Frank. Might be time to go check in with your physician and make sure everything is okay.

The assertion "Unicorn do not exist"...IS NOT A NEGATIVE ASSERTION. It is a positive assertion.

The burden of proof for that assertion falls on you.

Are you absolutely positive that unicorns do not exist on any of the planets circling any of the starts in this galaxy or our sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy?

Gimme a break!

I acknowledge when I am wrong every time I am shown to be wrong...and have done so several times during the last several months.

You did not give any evidence that it is more likely that there is no god than that there is.

But you are a riot when claiming that you did.

I love ya, Jimmy. You make me laugh.