Ah, and Donald Trump is going to make the universe great again too. It's been getting rather shabby lately.
We get it frank. You can't address it because you know how absurd your position is. of course it is. correct, so with no evidence to suggest there is sentient life on any planet or moon anywhere near us, it is more likely than not there isn't any. Just like the existence of a god or gods. or the easter bunny. true, but we know the likelihood. I will continue correcting you when I see you post frank.
What you don't get...and should...is if you want to talk about the Easter Bunny...seek out a two year old toddler...or an atheist. They both go ga ga over the Easter Bunny. If you are just stalling because you see your "logic" being laughed at...stick with it. You will never outlast me. It does not suggest that at all. Ask any logician. He/she will explain it to you. That does not make it more likely that here are no gods...or no sentient beings on any of those bodies. It makes it an unknown. You'll eventually get it...I'll stick with ya. Two year olds...maybe three year olders...and atheists. They will discuss the Easter Bunny with you. No...we do not. And at some point, you should develop the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that. Or don't. The world will go on. You will continue to delude yourself. I will attempt to help you see the truth.
We get it frank. You can't address it because you know how absurd your position is. of course it does frank. no, it makes it less likely I already get it. why do you think I keep correcting you? We get it frank. You can't address it because you know how absurd your position is. of course we do frank. It's as likely as the existence of the easter bunny. You can't address this, because it shows how absurd your position is. I understand frank, I really do I don't do delusions frank, you know that. I simply correct you when you make incorrect arguments.
Your desire to talk about the Easter Bunny is what is absurd. But...you have a right. Ya gotta choose correctly, though. Choose a two year old...or a fellow atheist. Both love the Easter Bunny. Nope. Obviously you do not understand logic. It does not make it less likely...nor does it make it more likely. You will get that eventually. Because you enjoy being wrong? The Easter Bunny does not impact on my position, Rahl. You are just obsessed with the Easter Bunny. Two year olders and atheists often have that problem. The Easter Bunny does not impact on my position in any way. You are using it as an avoidance device. In any case...you ought to contact a toddler or an atheist to talk about the Easter Bunny. You not only delude yourself, Rahl...you insist on the right to continue to delude yourself. Hey...I'm here to defend you right to be wrong.
We get it, Rahl. You want to talk about the Easter Bunny...but realize that dealing with two year olds and atheist is boring. Much better to stick around with ole Frank...and pretend there is a discussion going on.
Absolutely. - - - Updated - - - In a sense that is the underlying concept of many religions - that all of reality was merely created in the mind of God (or gods), ie reality is God's thoughts and that we are all part of that evolving thought process.
We all understand that when you say, "it is more probable that there are no gods than that there are"...all you are doing is sharing a blind guess about the REALITY. You have never shown anything that amounts to confirmation of that blind guess. (Mostly because there is no way to confirm it.) So now you are trying to evade acknowledging that you are merely guessing...just like the guy who is guessing in the opposite direction. But that's okay. I'll be here for ya.
Sans evidence all that remains are baseless allegations that have no substance whatsoever. We do have scientific evidence that people are capable of deluding themselves about a great many things that lack any evidence whatsoever. Science deals with reality instead.
Now frank, we both know it's more than a blind guess. We both know it is the logical conclusion based on the evidence at hand. We both know it is more likely than not that gods don't exist. Just like the easter bunny. We both know this frank.
That is circular logic. You can claim we don't have scientific evidence. But to claim all "allegations" have no substance, is a conclusion based on an assertion.
Yes I know some people have delusions that shrinks can explain, but I just wondered specifically which sort of delusions you mean? PS- My solicitor sent me to a shrink 14 years ago in connection with a vigilante court case i was facing; perhaps he thought the shrink would pronounce me "guilty but insane" and i'd get a lighter sentence, but to my surprise the shrink pronounced me sane and I got a 3-month sentence! His report ended with the words- "Mr X is a strong-minded individual which would account for the charge he now faces, but i can find no reason to assume he was acting under any kind of mental impairment"..
We both KNOW that all you are doing is to make a blind guess that it is more probable that there are no gods than that there is at least one. No problem with making blind guesses. Some people make the blind guess in the opposite direction. I get a big kick out of you thinking it is more than a guess. Yer a funny guy!
Now frank, we both know it's more than a blind guess. We both know it is the logical conclusion based on the evidence at hand. We both know it is more likely than not that gods don't exist. Just like the easter bunny. We both know this frank.
A valid logical conclusion derived from the fact that there is no scientific evidence is not an assertion, it is a statement of fact.
The only "blind guess" is the one made WITHOUT any evidence whatsoever to support the belief that there is some omnipotent creator of the universe. The logical conclusion reached based upon the current level of scientific knowledge available is that the universe does not need an omnipotent creator in order to exist. The former is based upon upon nothing whatsoever while the latter is based upon scientific data so it is a false equivalence to pretend that they are identical.
No, it isn't. That is a basic error in logic. Your error is a cliche, so much so that we have a little diddy to make the point: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thirty years ago we had no evidence for dark energy. Does that mean it didn't exist until we discovered it?
