Your claim was "There is a 50/50 chance of a god existing" not, "I think there is a 50/50 chance of a god existing" so my point is "no that's fucking retarded"
I said you shouldn't put down NUMBERS on a probability you have no idea about. ( and you're STILL doing it! )
saying something is improbable and saying that something has 90% chance of improbability are two DIFFERENT things
I still don't think you understand what it means to say 50/50 nor how probability with numbers work.
If there was a jar with 1 blue marvel and 1 red marvel, THEN you have a 50/50 chance of picking either one of them.
If 5 out of 10 people survived the operation, THEN you have a 50/50.
This shit is easy cmon man
The expression that something is more likely =/= (insert numbers) / (insert numbers)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^do you get that?
Yeah, I understand. I understood before page 10 weeks ago when this thread was made. Read it all if you want to carry on the discussion on this particular topic, because as far as I'm concerned, you're addressing something that's already been addressed. I'm OK with people continuing the discussion on the actual OP, but only if something new is being brought to the table.
You're create a logical fallacy by eliminating the choices down to 2. You don't know shit about other religion you just disregard ( and just put them under ONE category. that is a heavy step bro) them and some how magically come up with the number 50/50.
why are you being so hostile? If you read my posts you'd see that grouping gods together is logical for the specifications that I gave. "You don't know shit about other religion you just disregard"? What does that even mean? I didn't disregard any religion, and I certainly do know about other religions...
I AM mocking your belief because it gives an absolute answer to an unanswerable question just like any other fucking religion. Not only that, you went as arrogant as to make a statement that "there IS a 50/50 chance"
Here's a mystery box.
Theist: there's a cat in there.
Agnostic: we are uncertain of what is in there
You: there's a 50/50 chance that a cat is in there.
Yes, this has been discussed. I agree. Still, no reason to mock it.
You don't know any information about the said God you claim to have a 50% chance of existing just abstract concepts that are commonly used as mere beliefs.
You might as well form your own 50/50 religion and have people half worship a god that has a 50% chance of existing just like you said boy.
Make a book about how there is an absolute 50% chance that a creator exists.
Now you're just making yourself look like a dick, "boy". How do you know I don't have any information about the God I claim to have a 50% chance of existing? Also I didn't claim that a specific god had a 50% chance, I claimed that there's a 50% chance of ANY god existing (i.e. just something that's intelligent), get it right. Make a book about it? Why would I make a book about something that I disagree with? Clearly you just skipped over the post where I told you that this has been discussed before and I changed my mind, and continued to post in order to boost your ego and prove what an "idiot" I am. Arguing for arguing's sake.
If it has huge flaws like any other religion, what's the point of distinguishing yourself to be different from beliefs based on faith?
The whole point of distinguishing between what I believed and what a religious person believed is that:
1) What I was arguing was the case of a Deity, NOT a specific god which is by DEFINITION, more unlikely than a Deity.
2) I wasn't arguing for the existence of it, I was arguing against the idea that the non-existence of a deity is more likely than the existence of it. You said to me that I shouldn't bring numbers into it, but if I say "a god isn't more unlikely than likely, but it also isn't more likely than unlikely", then what I've just said fits what you allow but is EXACTLY the same as saying 50/50.
THIS IS SO STUUUUUUPPPPIIIIIIIDDDDD
A lot of what you said isn't even relevant to what I was actually arguing, and the fact that you're even arguing it when it's been argued and resolved before is stupid.
