I'm not playing a silly game, you seem to be, because I have already addressed your issue in your one and only discussion, which I've already referred you to, and you could have easily found my answer to your silly questions yourself. It's another false dilemma. Here is what I already told you, in reply to you, on the very first page of your one and only discussion:

Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists. — S

So stop acting like an 82 year old child. What's funny about that? I am not a mathematician, and I doubt whether even a mathematician could give a credible assessment based on probability. Each of those assertions about probability are, as you would say, guesswork. I don't go by guesswork, I go by reason.

The "whatever we name it" was also important. But your approach has yet to develop around that realisation.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
I'm not playing a silly game, you seem to be, because I have already addressed your issue in your one and only discussion, which I've already referred you to, and you could have easily found my answer to your silly questions yourself. It's another false dilemma. Here is what I already told you, in reply to you, on the very first page of your one and only discussion:

Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists. — S


So stop acting like an 82 year old child. What's funny about that? I am not a mathematician, and I doubt whether even a mathematician could give a credible assessment based on probability.

The "whatever we name it" was also important. But your approach has yet to developed around that realisation. — S

You seem upset.

Calm down. We're just discussing.

Very often I say something somewhere...and have to repeat it. No big deal. Sorry it seems to be that for you.

You still haven't answered the question...even in that comment from my one and only discussion.

There you talk about "plausibility or evidence or good reason."

I personally cannot see a reasonable "plausibility estimate" that impacts on which is more likely or if they should be considered equal.

I personally cannot see ANY unambiguous evidence that impacts on which is more likely or if they are should be considered equal.

I personally cannot see any "good reason" that impacts on which is more likely or if they should be considered equal.

My point all along is to determine if YOU see it more likely that "there are no gods" than that "at least one god exists"...or if YOU see it more likely that "at least one god exists" than that "no gods exist"...

...or if you see it as a toss up.

Why are YOU having so much trouble with this.

I have no trouble answering the question clearly. Why do you?

That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

You were taking exception to that. — Frank Apisa

We do not know if there is life on Mars but this does not mean that it is as likely to be true that there is as it is that there is not. We do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, but that does not mean that it is as likely to not rise as it is that it will rise. Not knowing something does not mean that it is as likely to be true as false. We need to consider why someone thinks something is or is not likely to be the case.

Fooloso4
278

That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

You were taking exception to that. — Frank Apisa


We do not know if there is life on Mars but this does not mean that it is as likely to be true that there is as it is that there is not. We do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, but that does not mean that it is as likely to not rise as it is that it will rise. Not knowing something does not mean that it is as likely to be true as false. We need to consider why someone thinks something is or is not likely to be the case. — Fooloso4

Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments.

What part of "I talk about this in terms besides probability" don't you understand? Or are you acting deliberately morose in order to be combative? I do not judge the matter in terms of likelihood. I do not judge there to be any warrant for making any assessment in those terms. I make no assertions about 50/50, 60/40, 80/20, or any other likelihood.

You genuinely seem ignorant on the basics of how probability works, as others have suggested. I am no expert, but I at least know that ignorance of likelihood does not logically imply or equate to 50/50.

Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments. — Frank Apisa

Really? I think it is quite clear. Not knowing whether God exists or not does not mean we should conclude that it is as likely that he does as it is that he does not.

Fooloso4
279

Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments. — Frank Apisa


Really? I think it is quite clear. Not knowing whether God exists or not does not mean we should conclude that it is as likely that he does as it is that he does not. — Fooloso4

But that has been my point right along.

Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing?

But that has been my point right along.

Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing? — Frank Apisa

If that has been your point right along then I am agreeing, although I have been known to disagree with myself.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
What part of "I talk about this in terms besides probability" don't you understand? Or are you acting deliberately morose in order to be combative? I do not judge the matter in terms of likelihood. I do not judge there to be any warrant for making any assessment in those terms. No, 50/50, 60/40, 80/20, or any other likelihood.

You genuinely seem ignorant on the basics of how probability works, as others have suggested. I am no expert, but I at least know that ignorance of likelihood does not logically imply or equate to 50/50. — S

Still need insults to help you get by.

Interesting.

Anyway...I had to take statistic three times in university. One for my undergrad major of economics; one for a math requirement that I needed. In graduate school my major was psychology...and, as luck would have it, I had to take an advanced statistics course.

Lots and lots of probability theory...an essential to all statistics courses.

Okay...I'm an old guy and university is way back. But I do have an understanding of probability.

Anyway...discussing with you is like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling of a room.

You chose to confront me. You also indicated that I am not worthy of your attention...but still...here you are.

Fooloso4
281

But that has been my point right along.

Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing? — Frank Apisa


If that has been your point right along then I am agreeing, although I have been known to disagree with myself. — Fooloso4

Touche'.

I've done that myself.

I've been an op ed writer for decades...and there are times when I look back at some of the stuff I wrote earlier in my life, where I wonder, "What the hell was I thinking that day?"

Whether you find what I said insulting or otherwise, one thing you'll pick up about me is that I speak my mind. And I like to have the last word.

Now, as often happens, what you've done there is you've said much without really saying anything at all. I have indicated my scepticism. I have said that I do not believe there to be any assessment of probability that is warranted. You have three options: attempt to provide warrant, concede, or continue to produce text which says nothing at all. So what's it to be?

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Whether you find what I said insulting or otherwise, one thing you'll pick up about me is that I speak my mind. And I like to have the last word. — S

Okay.

Now, as often happens, what you've done there is said much without really saying anything at all. — S.

I've been very clear. Your comments are muddy. But then again...you are speaking your mind.

I have indicated my scepticism. I have said that I do not believe there to be any assessment of probability that is warranted. — S.

You cannot even spell it correctly; it is preposterous to suppose you have indicated it.

You have three options: attempt to provide warrant, concede, or continue to produce text which says nothing at all. So what's it to be? — S.

I also like to have the last word.

That may say it all.

So you have chosen the last option, which is the least dignified. What I said is as clear as day, and there are two acceptable spellings of "scepticism", that being one of them. Also, I am English, so my preference for that spelling is understandable. Do your research next time.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
So you have chosen the last option, which is the least dignified. — S

You seem unable to understand reasonable commentary...so why should I offer it.

As for dignity...you are the guy who said he was through here...and yet...HERE YOU ARE.

What I said is as clear as day... — S.

Almost nothing you say is clear as day.

Perhaps you meant "muddy as the Mississippi."

"...and there are two acceptable spellings of "scepticism", that being one of them. Also, I am English, so my preference for that spelling is understandable. Do your research next time. — S.

I'm just going to laugh at your shenanigans...so research would be wasted effort.

I am an Anglophile...and in my opinion, you give Englishmen a bad name.

What you're doing speaks for itself. When I offer you a chance to be reasonable, you demonstrate only that you are all talk and no substance. You talk of mud, yet you're the only one continuing to sling it, whereas I've washed my hands.

There is much irony here given the context. In a discussion about rationality, you refuse to be rational.

S
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa
What you're doing speaks for itself. — S

Yes it does. And I am proud of myself.

What you are doing speaks of you.

My condolences.

When I offer you a chance to be reasonable, you demonstrate only that you are all talk and no substance. — S.

Don't flatter yourself. You do not offer me a chance to be reasonable...I AM REASONABLE.

And there's plenty of substance in what I have to say. I have had substantive thoughts and considerations published in tens of dozens of newspapers across the US...and even in England (The Lincolnshire Echo). The New York Times published an essay sized piece...without a comma being changed. (Challenging something A. M. Rosenthal wrote!). NEWSWEEK Magazine published a full-page MY TURN of mine.

So don't give me that no substance nonsense.

You talk of mud, yet you're the only one continuing to sling it, whereas I've washed my hands. — S.

What you have done is to declare I am not worthy of your responses...and have continued to respond as I was sure you would. If anyone has a problem with a big mouth and no action...you have proved it is you.

There is much irony here given the context. In a discussion about rationality, you refuse to be rational. — S.

You wouldn't recognize rational discussion if you tripped over it. You lecturing me how to write rationally is like Theresa May lecturing on how to get Brexit legislation passed.

You do realise that by substance, I mean actual content, like an argument, and not boasting about publications?

Making an assessment about probability in this context is warranted because...???

S
8.8k
↪Frank Apisa
You do realise that by substance, I mean actual content, like an argument, and not boasting about publications?

Making an assessment about probability in this context is warranted because...??? — S

S, you do realize that I do not much care about what you mean, right?

The moment you dismissively told me that I did not meet your standards for replies and that you were finished with me...and then continued to reply...I realized you were an Inernet toy.

Now...I am playing with you. Anything more substantial would be a waste.

Funny how everyone in this thread is trying to rationally explain why rationality isnt necessary.

If one really wanted to claim that rationality isnt always necessary or sufficient, wouldnt they do it irrationally, and then would they even make any sense?

It seems to me that whenever someone wants to refer to what is true then they have to speak rationally.

And to make sense of, and to identify some sensation or emotion, requires the implementation of reason.