Okay...let's see...where was I...

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You have absolutely no idea of the probability that unicorns exist. To pretend that you know to the point where it is small enough to compare with zero...is beneath you.

Unlike you, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Once again, Thomas, you are shooting off your mouth without thinking. I am more than willing to "put my money where my mouth is"...and I have no idea of why you suppose I am not.

But I don't take stupid bets.

Quote:

If you can show me a real unicorn until the end of the decade, I will give you $10000. If not, you pay me $1, which is consistent with the probability I gave in my last post. I predict you won't agree to the bet, because you expect to be losing on those odds.

Nice try, Thomas...but only if you are not particularly bright.

I am willing to aver that I cannot produce a unicorn.

But just what makes you suppose that would prove that unicorns do not exist? And what makes you suppose that would be a reasonable argument that there are no unicorns in the universe?

I cannot produce an alien being of any sort. Are you so in love with your silly atheism that you would suggest this is proof that there is no other life anywhere in the universe?

Gimme a break, will ya. I argue with enough stupid people to fill my plate. I don't need an intelligent individual like you presenting stupid arguments also.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You have even less idea about the probability that gods exist than you do about unicorns.

Maybe so, but I am willing to make a similar bet about gods, which is a much more informative statement than the empty semantics you appear to be engaging in.

Yeah...so the theists cannot produce a god...and that means you atheists can assert there are none.

Well as I said earlier...I cannot produce a living entity from any other planet anywhere else in this galaxy....or from any planet in any of the other several hundred billions of galaxies that we know of.

Do you dare to suppose that is an argument that there is no other life anywhere else in the universe?

And if you do....go play this silly game with someone else. I'm not in the mood for comic book discussions.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

But just what makes you suppose that would prove that unicorns do not exist? And what makes you suppose that would be a reasonable argument that there are no unicorns in the universe?

Nothing. But the odds at which you would accept the bet measures a probability, as you see it. I suspect it would be similar to the probability I see, or everybody else does.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And if you do....go play this silly game with someone else. I'm not in the mood for comic book discussions.

Spoken like a true agnostic ... bitter, angry, and humorless .... Razz

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But just what makes you suppose that would prove that unicorns do not exist? And what makes you suppose that would be a reasonable argument that there are no unicorns in the universe?

Nothing. But the odds at which you would accept the bet measures a probability, as you see it. I suspect it would be similar to the probability I see, or everybody else does.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And if you do....go play this silly game with someone else. I'm not in the mood for comic book discussions.

Spoken like a true agnostic ... bitter, angry, and humorless ....

Yeah...when all else fails....pretend that all the "true agnostics" you know are bitter, angry, and humorless. This coming from an atheist, no less.

Gad...you are a gem. You provide laughs in abundance. And since I am an alive....hardly bitter....almost never angry....filled with humor and loving of it human being....

....I owe you many thanks.

Hey....did you hear the one about the German porn star and the English atheist who....

....ahhh....I'd better save that one for someone who has a sense of humor. You're way too dry.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But just what makes you suppose that would prove that unicorns do not exist? And what makes you suppose that would be a reasonable argument that there are no unicorns in the universe?

Nothing. But the odds at which you would accept the bet measures a probability, as you see it. I suspect it would be similar to the probability I see, or everybody else does.

By the way...you forgot to respond to my question earlier.

Since you are pretty certain that there are no unicorns on any of the planets circling the nearest 30 stars to our Sol....tell me what the fauna on those planets actually are like?

0 Replies

Put your money where your mouth is, Thomas.

I'm willing to bet you dollars to donuts....or marks to schnitzels or whatever....that you cannot describe the fauna on any of the planets circling the 30 nearest stars to our Sol.

Wanna make the bet?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Since you are pretty certain that there are no unicorns on any of the planets circling the nearest 30 stars to our Sol....tell me what the fauna on those planets actually are like?

I don't know, but I'm willing to bet high odds that nobody will ever find any in my lifetime.

0 Replies

... "German porn star", my foot! You're so humorless you start your jokes with the punchline.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Since you are pretty certain that there are no unicorns on any of the planets circling the nearest 30 stars to our Sol....tell me what the fauna on those planets actually are like?

I don't know, but I'm willing to bet high odds that nobody will ever find any in my lifetime.

Yeah...me too. But someone like you would pretend to know whether or not there is any life on any of those planets.

And you would try to make bets with people...saying things like: I'd be willing to bet you cannot produce an alien from one of the planets circling one of the 30 closest suns....

Gimme a break.

Your entire atheistic thesis is nonsense....and anyone with a brain and any integrity would see it...and acknowledge it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... "German porn star", my foot! You're so humorless you start your jokes with the punchline.

Sonny....I've probably got more humor in my little toe than you have in your entire body.

By the way....have someone explain to you what a "punchline" is. Obviously you do not know what it is.

0 Replies

I love it when I click on a topic with new postings and see 3 new pages of heated argument...good stuff.

Thomas: The crux of your argument with Frank, as I see it, is the difference between "high probability" and "certainty". Your claim, if I'm reading your post correctly, is that since it's highly unlikely that a unicorn exists, therefore no unicorns exist. Frank's position (and mine) is that even though it's doubtful that unicorns exist, we cannot be sure because we have never seen evidence that they don't exist.

Applied to the atheism/theism/agnosticism conundrum, I tend to feel that theists are deluding themselves, since I've never heard of any concrete proof that there is a God; atheists are falling prey to a logical fallacy, since, while they recognize the absence of proof supporting God's existence, they incorrectly assume that translates into proof supporting God's non-existence, which is a fallacious assumption. Agnostics see that neither side has true proof, and while they might find one side to be more likely (I personally lean towards the possibility that a God does exist, though in what form I do not know), they admit to their own inability to even know for sure.

JL: while I agree with your point about passive ideology, I find myself confused as to your argument against agnosticism. Could you elaborate on this part of your post, please?:

Quote:

My main objection to your epistemological fence-sitting rests not on logical grounds. You are safe there. But you show a lack of existential vigor (AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED) in your unwillingness to FEEL the meaningfulness or lack of meaningfulness of either position.

I think that's the point on which I'm confused. What "meaningfulness" do you think agnostics are missing? Thanks.

To all: C'mon guys, enough with the petty insults. We're supposed to be adults, here. JL: That was a bit uncalled for, and Frank:...Holy jeez. I'm speechless. Tone it down, would you? I'd hate to see you kicked off again; it's a hell of a lot better with you around.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Thomas: The crux of your argument with Frank, as I see it, is the difference between "high probability" and "certainty". Your claim, if I'm reading your post correctly, is that since it's highly unlikely that a unicorn exists, therefore no unicorns exist. Frank's position (and mine) is that even though it's doubtful that unicorns exist, we cannot be sure because we have never seen evidence that they don't exist.

More precisely, I find it pointless to philosophize about the difference between "super-high probability" and "certainty", because we have no empirical way of asking questions about that difference in practice.

Thomas wrote:

atheists are falling prey to a logical fallacy, since, while they recognize the absence of proof supporting God's existence, they incorrectly assume that translates into proof supporting God's non-existence, which is a fallacious assumption.

Perhaps you overgeneralize, because this atheist happens to think that statements about goddess's existence are so meaningless they aren't even wrong. Probably my first disagreement with the two of you is that you rank "too meaningless to be even wrong" as closer to "true" than "false", while I rank it beyond "false" -- even farther from "true" than "false". Assuming that disagreement can be resolved by agreeing on some meaning for the word "god", my next disagreement is the one about the meaninglessness of certainty. I find it meaningless to ask my chances of living forever are exactly zero or 0.0000000001 percent, because I have no way of asking the question in practice. For all I can ask questions about, I will die. The same logic applies to unicorns and gods.

I can be agnostic about questions I can ask but whose answers I don't know. Whether Goddess exists is a question I can't ask, except as an excercise in empty semantics.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Taliesin181 wrote:
Thomas: The crux of your argument with Frank, as I see it, is the difference between "high probability" and "certainty". Your claim, if I'm reading your post correctly, is that since it's highly unlikely that a unicorn exists, therefore no unicorns exist. Frank's position (and mine) is that even though it's doubtful that unicorns exist, we cannot be sure because we have never seen evidence that they don't exist.

More precisely, I find it pointless to philosophize about the difference between "super-high probability" and "certainty", because we have no empirical way of asking questions about that difference in practice.

And what Thomas wants to do is to take something that he has absolutely no idea as to its probability....and assign a "super high probability" to it....so that he can assert that it is close enough to certain to no longer need pointless philosophizing.

He shares that trait with the Christians who assert that the super high probability is that a god exists.

Both are simply too silly to be able to acknowledge "I do not know."

Quote:

Thomas wrote:
atheists are falling prey to a logical fallacy, since, while they recognize the absence of proof supporting God's existence, they incorrectly assume that translates into proof supporting God's non-existence, which is a fallacious assumption.

Perhaps you overgeneralize, because this atheist happens to think that statements about goddess's existence are so meaningless they aren't even wrong. Probably my first disagreement with the two of you is that you rank "too meaningless to be even wrong" as closer to "true" than "false", while I rank it beyond "false" -- even farther from "true" than "false". Assuming that disagreement can be resolved by agreeing on some meaning for the word "god", my next disagreement is the one about the meaninglessness of certainty. I find it meaningless to ask my chances of living forever are exactly zero or 0.0000000001 percent, because I have no way of asking the question in practice. For all I can ask questions about, I will die. The same logic applies to unicorns and gods.

[/quote]

This bullshyt of pretending that "I do not know" is so far from wrong that it can't truly be called wrong is so trite..it is a wonder anyone would trot it out in a forum where humans participate.

It appears from all the evidence that homas does not know what the true nature of REALITY is. But he doesn't have the guts or the integrity to simply acknowledge that he does not know....so now, in an attempt to make his wild, grabbed-from-the-sky guesses seem reasonable, he is arbitrarily assigning a high probability to those guesses.

Then they trot out this stale nonsense about unicorns, tooth fairies, and purple accountants working on a moon of Saturn.

It is interesting that this kind of nonsense is both so sad and, at the same time, so humorous (or perhaps "laughable" would be a better word.)

I think that ought to be explored.

Quote:

I can be agnostic about questions I can ask but whose answers I don't know. Whether Goddess exists is a question I can't ask, except as an excercise in empty semantics.

And then when one's arguments are shown to be vacuous, what one can do is to pretend one is not interested in discussing it further becasue it si an excercise in empty semantics.

There is nothing so interesting to watch than a reasonable intelligent person trying to defend stupidity.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

It is interesting that this kind of nonsense is both so sad and, at the same time, so humorous (or perhaps "laughable" would be a better word.)

Always glad to brighten your day and make you laugh, Frank Smile

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is nothing so interesting to watch than a reasonable intelligent person trying to defend stupidity.

It's nice to see we agree. We only disagree on this itty bitty detail of what constitutes stupidity here.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
It is interesting that this kind of nonsense is both so sad and, at the same time, so humorous (or perhaps "laughable" would be a better word.)

Always glad to brighten your day and make you laugh, Frank

Frank Apisa wrote:
There is nothing so interesting to watch than a reasonable intelligent person trying to defend stupidity.

It's nice to see we agree. We only disagree on this itty bitty detail of what constitutes stupidity here.

Nice try, Thomas.

BOTTOM LINE: It is fairly obvious that you do not KNOW what the true nature of REALITY is....so the exclusion of gods is gratuitous and self-serving....nothing more than a guess.

It is also is fairly obvious that you cannot come up with a reasonable probability for or against the existence of a God or gods....so any that you assert are gratuitous and self-serving...nothing more than a guess.

It also is becoming painfully obvious that you do not have the integrity to simply acknowledge all this....and let it go at that.

But you are providing laughs....and that pleases you.

So we have a win/win situation.

Gotta be happy with that.

0 Replies

but Frank........I don't care if there's a God or not.

Are you guys coming over here today?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Are you guys coming over here today?

I have to say it's a bit inconvenient for me. Why don't you guys come over here today?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

but Frank........I don't care if there's a God or not.

Are you guys coming over here today?

It is a delightful thought....and I truly appreciate the invitation.

However, one of the reasons I come into town is for the long walk....and to spend time on the Frying Pan.

Gimme a bit more time.

If the weather turns (it is possible, since the sun is shining at the moment)...I will come into town. If it looks as though the thunder storms are gonna hit...I won't.

But I will let yez know.

0 Replies

Ok Frank.........but we could walk around the apartment a few times to give you a bit of exercise....or run over to the health club and put you on the tread mill..............or we could make use of an umbrella, that works sometimes. You really shouldn't disappoint me........I remember these things. Laughing

And Thomas, we'll have to come to your house another day. I'm so weary of being on airplanes.......I wish you could come though. Wouldn't that be fun?

0 Replies

the forecast is for scattered t-storms........so if it rains, we'll just take cover for a while and then the sun will come out again.........

0 Replies

Can someone remind me - is Frank made out of sugar?

~~~~~~~~~

Frankie, yer not gonna melt.

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know