1HHrdYxRSN1vmDHr4wfW9v5vQgshfEqqND

Fixed that for you.  If by "game" you mean giving proper consideration to someone's post and showing respect and thoughtfulness by actually responding to its specific contents, then yeah...what a complex game, huh?

If you've been following me at virtually any point in this thread, you know that I already purport there is a means of quantifying the certainty of God's existence.  That's why I'm asking for *your* thoughts and your method, although you obviously don't have a clue how to calculate or quantify the "far greater odds" that God exists.  You just say flowery crap and lie to/convince yourself that you know what you're talking about.  You lack any ability to answer a direct question on the topic and instead just say "blah blah you don't need me to do that for you," which is correct; I don't -- but really, it's probably more like, "I don't even understand what he just asked me to do.  Crap! Dodge-mode activate!  Alert! Alert!"

Not logical proof for the existence of God, no.  But logical proof of a Universal utility function for something along the lines of self-actualization, yes.

By what method do you calculate your odds, and what exactly are those odds?  And, if you can't quantify those odds precisely, then how do you know they are greater?

It's impossible to prove whether God exists via empirical evidence, i.e. via observation.  It is not impossible via logical proof.  Logical proof is proof of a higher order.

By the way, you conveniently ignored my response to your foot-in-mouth comment:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg11715833#msg11715833

Bump!  Buy my stuff!

Breakfast?

Correct, NDEs and stories are not evidence, but a doctor's empirical explanation of these events is non-comprehensive right from the get-go.  There are inherent problems with assuming that these experience can be comprehensively explained in terms of brain activity.  Surely you know this.

In many cases, I think "yes."  I know that I can't directly do much about anything that doesn't happen in my proximal environment.  The closer events happen to my locality, the better I can approximate the effects of my actions if I want to do something about them.  I think it's also important to note that good things are overwhelmed by bad ones in the media, and so by just focusing on things that are happening right around me, I think I can make a bigger impact on the world, and do it with a more positive attitude.

If no faith = doubt, or uncrtainty (e.g. I don't have faith in the Cubs)...

Then pure faith = lack of doubt, or certainty

To what degree this is just semantics, I don't know.

Potatoes:



Potahtoes:


Would you make up your mind already?

Try again, hot shot.

Science is predicated upon Empiricism, which is merely a theory of knowledge acquisition, i.e. that all we can possibly know is known through observational experience.  

Sounds lovely, but unfortunately this is a purely philosophical assumption and is empirically unfalsifiable.  In other words, Science doesn't even have the capacity to explore and conclude upon its own assumptions.  However, Philosophy does, and this very assumption was logically falsified thousands of years ago.  The only reason Science works is because it defers to Philosophy and an understanding of the limits of inductive reasoning in order to control for observer participation, i.e. it gains the ability to dismiss any effect an observer may have upon that which he observes, but must concede comprehensive explanation as part of the bargain.

In other words, yes, there is a better standard.  It's called logic.

The archetype I'm talking about would be, in your scenario, isomorphic to the Programmer himself.  Omnipotence corresponds to total, unbound freedom relative to something.  The humble programmer, who could omnipotently introduce the creation of a 'higher self' to "maintain separation from the machine" introduces an omnipotence paradox within the systemic relationship between himself and the machine that can only be resolved at a higher level, and in the same way that metalanguages can be used to resolve paradoxes at an object-oriented level.  An omnipotence 'archetype' can thus be modeled as an algebraic construct that distributes to all systems in which such paradoxes necessarily arise, and that has the absolute capacity to resolve them.

Because a comprehensive explanation capable of resolving these paradoxes once-and-for-all would seem to introduce its own paradox (i.e. the algebraic construct itself is introduced as separate from its negation, and the two can never be rationally synthesized from within a rational argumentative context which could be modeled as an object-oriented system), we must conclude, for the sake of consistency, that the archetype itself is an absolute limit of explanation.  Any attempt to deny this limit would only serve to reinforce it, as the denial itself would necessarily assume the distributive characteristics of the archetype.

Logic soundly shows us that that which is "objective" is fundamentally inseparable from the abstract theories/models we create about it.  In other words, it's ultimately not true that we can't really know anything.  Consider, for example, that even calling something "objective" is itself an abstract theory of what constitutes objective.

The government only knows you are mentally ill if there is a record of it.  Mental illness in this case applies only to those who have been diagnosed as having one.  There are potentially millions of people who meet the criteria for such a diagnosis but have not actually received one.  It's easy to understand how a mentally ill person can legally obtain a firearm in the absence of a diagnosis.  But are we going to place limits on everyone simply because of what they might possibly do?  Here's the thing about freedom -- you have the right to screw up and do something stupid.  So long as freedom exists, people will always have an opportunity to abuse that freedom.  This isn't a bad thing, it's just the nature of freedom.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotally

You try again.  For example:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1093806.msg11663882#msg11663882

What I said makes sense, e.g. when you make casual observations or indications on the data you have selected.  "Says it all," eh?  Yeah...no it doesn't.

Edit:  Data corresponds to a data set.  A scientific data set is purely observational information.  The data, such as that indicated in your loaded (no pun intended) infographic, is not the result of rigorous analysis -- only mere observation.  That data can then be subjected to rigorous analysis to arrive at some kind of conclusion.  I had quit engaging you because you were unwilling to do such a thing, but instead preferred to keep pasting more infographics as if they somehow mean something all by themselves.  They don't (at least not in a way that is relevant to forming a reasonable conclusion about gun control issues).

Then why do you use your data anecdotally (i.e. pulling isolated data points and drawing conclusions without ever subjecting those data points to a formal reasoning process)?

1)  You have not posted a consistent definition for "science" (evident by the fact you interchangeably refer to it as both a method and a data set without knowing when you switch between the two), and the ones you have posted for "proof" do not match the evidence you describe as such.  Additionally the scientific method is precise and unchanging (i.e. it is absolutely certain to know when you have violated it).  In other words, the definition for the scientific method is also unchanging.

2)  Yes, some of us do absolutely know the rules of logic, and one of those rules is that it is concrete and unchanging -- if it weren't, then you could never be certain about anything, ever (i.e. if that were the case, you might as well just never think or speak).  If you don't know the rules -- and this much is absurdly clear --  then that's your own lack of understanding.  You would be wise to acknowledge that people know more about it than you do.  Sorry, but the truth doesn't care how right you think you are.  Think about the fact you don't even know what an inductive fallacy is, and that you thought it meant something about poor electrical superconductors.  You need to assume less and learn more.

3)  No.  It's more like you don't care about the truth, but only care that everything reinforces what you already believe is true.  Even the Christians and church-goers in this thread think you're totally off your rocker.  That in itself doesn't totally mean you are, but you'd have to be a fool to ignore the "evidence."  Nobody gets what you're saying because it doesn't make logical sense, and so what we do know is that whatever you are trying to say is wrong.  That which is logically inconsistent is irrelevant to reality.  This is another logical rule.

4)   Um, okay.