What evidence for God

[PolyHedral]

Require experience to make an assesment? Make it decades if you like. It's not important...a broad calculation of probability is all that is required.

No, the assessment requires knowing how many horse races I've seen. If I've seen a hundred trillion of them, then I've probably seen at least one where all the horses were killed by meteorites.

"It's unlikely" is not an argument against anything.

 

[Wombat]

No, the assessment requires knowing how many horse races I've seen.

Which is why I asked- "Require experience to make an assesment?"

How many horse races you've seen would constitute "experience".

And like I said-

Make it decades if you like. It's not important...a broad calculation of probability is all that is required.

If I've seen a hundred trillion of them, then I've probably seen at least one where all the horses were killed by meteorites..

Yea..."probably"......and you're probably also God because no one else has lived so long to see such a thing.

Is there a point to the obfuscation?.....Or fear that giving a straight simple answer to a straight simple question may lead to subsequent discomfort?

"It's unlikely" is not an argument against anything.

That's good to know.
Can it be taken from the obfuscating foreplay that "it's unlikely" that you can provide a straight simple answer?

 

[Commoner]

Require experience to make an assesment? Make it decades if you like. It's not important...a broad calculation of probability is all that is required.

It's an unlikely event in a particular race. So is the droplet of coffee landing on exactly the the spot on my shirt it did, creating a unique pattern of "brown" - even more so. However, the "likelyhood" of the event is only significant if that particular event, pattern had been assigned some significance prior to it happening. Otherwise, no matter how infinitely unlikely the event is, that's completely irrelevant and any event after the fact is just as likely as any other, no matter how much significance you ascribe to it post festum.

So I hope this isn't going where I think it's going...

 

[tumbleweed41]

You quote the invitation to explore the evidence as you simultaneously ignore the invitation-

Willing to explore them?
The offer has been on the table since #870
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...7-post870.html
and repeated in #875

Here...I'll make it even easier-

My first objective would be to establish some (broad) mutual agreement on what is random/chance and what degree of 'pattern' would prompt suspicion.

(Three simple scenario/questions should achieve this end)

Imagine you are a Track Steward at a racecourse. A ten race steeplechase event. A dozen+ horses in the first race.

All horses fall... bar one that completes the course.

On a scale of zero to ten, zero representing- probable/not suspicious...ten being improbable/highly suspicious...how would you rate your response to all horses bar one falling and failing to complete?

Statistical probability-evidence is hardly convincing evidence when it comes to the question of God.
Now before you start complaining about "moving the Goalposts", let's clarify that evidence in this discussion should point clearly to God.

What evidence points clearly to God?
What concept of God are we speaking about?

 

[Wombat]

Frequency probability
Frequency probability is the interpretation of probability that defines an event's probability as the limit of its relative frequency in a large number of trials. The development of the frequentist account was motivated by the problems and paradoxes of the previously dominant viewpoint, the classical interpretation. The shift from the classical view to the frequentist view represents a paradigm shift in the progression of statistical thought. This school is often associated with the names of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson who described the logic of statistical hypothesis testing
Frequentists talk about probabilities only when dealing with well-defined randomexperiments. The set of all possible outcomes of a random experiment is called the sample space of the experiment. An event is defined as a particular subset of the sample space that you want to consider. For any event only one of two possibilities can happen; it occurs or it does not occur. The relative frequency of occurrence of an event, in a number of repetitions of the experiment, is a measure of the probability of that event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_probability

In this instance the ‘sample space’ is a horse race. The ‘event’ is- all horses bar one falling and failing to complete the race.
To establish the most broad and basic mutual understanding of the probability of such an event you (all) are invited to place the event on a scale of zero to ten, zero representing- probable/not suspicious...ten being improbable/highly suspicious...how would you rate your response to all horses bar one falling and failing to complete?

Statistical probability-evidence is hardly convincing evidence when it comes to the question of God.

That would depend on the nature of the “Statistical probability-evidence” and who is to be “convinced”.

let's clarify that evidence in this discussion should point clearly to God.

Yup. That’s what the exploration/inquiry is about. Three simple questions to establish the broad parameters of probability.
But at this point my money is on the probability that there is insufficient critical thinking curiosity or intellectual integrity to see answer to the questions. The first having already been put four times over without answer. In all probability obfuscation and evasion will continue to be the order of the day.

What evidence points clearly to God?

The statistical probability (Frequency probability) evidence that is ascertained once the broad parameters of event probability are established and understood. The latter being your input...for it is possible that you have no conception of event probability and believe that all horses bar one falling is something that occurs all day every day.

“Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data). Research design varies by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions which cannot be studied in laboratory settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.
In some fields, quantitative research may begin with a research question.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

What concept of God are we speaking about?

The Abrahamic.

 

[Wombat]

It's an unlikely event in a particular race.

So...On a scale of zero to ten, zero representing- probable/not suspicious...ten being improbable/highly suspicious...how would you rate your response to all horses bar one falling and failing to complete...

I'm guessing "It's an unlikely event" would make it somewhere between 1 and 5?

"an unlikely" and unusual event.....but nothing that would cause suspicion.?

Yes? No?

Thank you for being the first one to provide any kind of answer to the simple question

However, the "likelyhood" of the event is only significant if that particular event, pattern had been assigned some significance prior to it happening. Otherwise, no matter how infinitely unlikely the event is, that's completely irrelevant and any event after the fact is just as likely as any other, no matter how much significance you ascribe to it post festum..

Might I humbly suggest...Go to your nearest Casino,bet upon and roll 'cats eyes' three, four, five, six times in a row... then advise Security- "no matter how infinitely unlikely the event is, that's completely irrelevant and any event after the fact is just as likely as any other, no matter how much significance you ascribe to it post festum"

And my hearty best wishes with that.:yes:

So I hope this isn't going where I think it's going...

Well...having not stated "where you think it's going" the 'probability' is you can always shout "Oh! I knew it all along!".....where ever it goes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Abrahamic.

So we are looking at the statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.


I'll bite.

Please present your statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.

 

[McBell]

opcorn:

 

[Wombat]

So we are looking at the statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.


I'll bite.

Please present your statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.

#906 (Fith time across same ground)-

"Yup. That’s what the exploration/inquiry is about. Three simple questions to establish the broad parameters of probability.
But at this point my money is on the probability that there is insufficient critical thinking curiosity or intellectual integrity to see answer to the questions. The first having already been put four times over without answer. In all probability obfuscation and evasion will continue to be the order of the day."

 

[Commoner]

So...On a scale of zero to ten, zero representing- probable/not suspicious...ten being improbable/highly suspicious...how would you rate your response to all horses bar one falling and failing to complete...

I'm guessing "It's an unlikely event" would make it somewhere between 1 and 5?

"an unlikely" and unusual event.....but nothing that would cause suspicion.?

Yes? No?

Thank you for being the first one to provide any kind of answer to the simple question

To tell you the truth, I don't know much about horse racing, but assuming that cases of horses falling are rare and independent from one another (so that one horse falling doesn't freak other horses out, for instance), let's say three out of ten for the sake of argument. The steward should be suspecious, but he should also realize that when the number of horse races increases, it will get increasingly improbable for such events not to occur. So unless there's evidence of foul play, this was in fact just something to tell your fellow stewards about over a cold glass of beer.

Might I humbly suggest...Go to your nearest Casino,bet upon and roll 'cats eyes' three, four, five, six times in a row... then advise Security- "no matter how infinitely unlikely the event is, that's completely irrelevant and any event after the fact is just as likely as any other, no matter how much significance you ascribe to it post festum"

And my hearty best wishes with that.:yes:

Snake eyes? Anyway, that's not the case... The game is structured and has rules, the "significance" is already there before I play the game. But if you were to ask someone what the chances were of you having rolled a six, a five, a five, a three and a six in that exact order, the only response you would probably get would be a blank confused stare. But 65536 is actually the maximum number of rows per sheet in excel (prior to 2007), omg! And my coffee stain looks exactly like Che-Quevara. Tho wholly unlikely events, yet - makes no difference whatsoever how unlikely they are.

Now, if you're a casino manager that oversees tens or hundreds of casinos (let's say there are suche people), where every day hundreds of thousands of dice rolls are "rolled" every day, you shouldn't be surprised when you get a weekly report stating that on two seperate instances, snake eyes were rolled four times in a row. In fact, you should expect it.

If you want some numbers, rolling snake-eyes three times in a row on your very next three rolls is about a 46.000:1 event, whereas the frequency of a royal flush in poker can be expressed with 650.000:1 odds. While I have not had any experience playing dice, I do have plenty of experience playing poker - includig winning a hand with a royal flush. Nobody freaked out though...

The royal flush is the strongest holding in poker (texas hold'em at least) as per the rules, yet any combination of five cards is just as unlikely as a specific royal flush. Like - being dealt exactly 3c 5d Ac 6s 9s is just as unlikely as being dealt a spade royal flush. Yet, since we did not assign any significance to 3c5dAc6s9s prior to it having been dealt, it's "unlikely nature" is irrelevant.

Well...having not stated "where you think it's going" the 'probability' is you can always shout "Oh! I knew it all along!".....where ever it goes.

Just make sure you don't make an argument that could be analogous to Che-Guevara appearing on your shirt and I'll be happy to admit I didn't have any idea what you were about to say.

 

[Wombat]

let's say three out of ten for the sake of argument..

Thank you. A straight answer to a straight question. Much appreciated.

The steward should be suspecious, but he should also realize that when the number of horse races increases, it will get increasingly improbable for such events not to occur..

Precisely. You have a clear and logical appreciation of probability. (If only it was possible to ascertain such understanding from the noncommittal others who will, in all probability, ride in at the end to declare the Frequency probability is false/rigged)
That is question one out of the way, one more following on the race scenario and a suplimental-
2/ If in the next race the same thing happens, all fall, one horse runs on...how would the Steward rate the probability? And repeat probability assessment for each successive race with same outcome. Take it to ten or stop at the point at which you believe a Race Steward would take action.

So unless there's evidence of foul play, this was in fact just something to tell your fellow stewards about over a cold glass of beer..

One, two, three, four races in succession, all starters in each race fall bar one horse in each race that runs on... Is the Steward having a cold one with his mates or back late talking to management/police?

3/Supplemental.
From any single realm of human endeavour- Politics, Art, Warfare, Music, Science...please pick eight or nine figures in from one field who represent ‘the Greatest’ in history. i.e The nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history.
Again, your preparedness to answer the simple pertinent questions that seek to establish broadly agreed parameters of probability is much appreciated. I will present my argument/gambit on the foundation of your answers and the popcorn gallery may howl from the sideline



Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Might I humbly suggest...Go to your nearest Casino,bet upon and roll 'cats eyes' three, four, five, six times in a row... then advise Security- "no matter how infinitely unlikely the event is, that's completely irrelevant and any event after the fact is just as likely as any other, no matter how much significance you ascribe to it post festum"

And my hearty best wishes with that.

Snake eyes? Anyway, that's not the case... The game is structured and has rules, the "significance" is already there before I play the game..

Snake eyes/Cats eyes/Deuce. The "significance" is already there before I play the game.” Because the Casino knows the odds/probability to the nth degree.
Probability-
Rolling two 6-sided dice gives you a chance of 1 in 36 chance of getting snake eyes each time you roll the dice.
Rolling two 6-sided dice 25 times gives a probability of .505532 that at least once, snake eyes will appear.[3]
Snake eyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“roll 'Snake eyes' three, four, five, six times in a row” and you will certainly be having an interesting conversation with Management and Security.

Just make sure you don't make an argument that could be analogous to Che-Guevara appearing on your shirt and I'll be happy to admit I didn't have any idea what you were about to say.

No.Che-Guevara appearing on my shirt is a frequent and well documented event/phenomena occuring in the 'sample space' of 'Beer and Pie' night Frequency probability- certainty- every second Friday.

 

[Commoner]

Thank you. A straight answer to a straight question. Much appreciated.

Precisely. You have a clear and logical appreciation of probability. (If only it was possible to ascertain such understanding from the noncommittal others who will, in all probability, ride in at the end to declare the Frequency probability is false/rigged)
That is question one out of the way, one more following on the race scenario and a suplimental-
2/ If in the next race the same thing happens, all fall, one horse runs on...how would the Steward rate the probability? And repeat probability assessment for each successive race with same outcome. Take it to ten or stop at the point at which you believe a Race Steward would take action.

One, two, three, four races in succession, all starters in each race fall bar one horse in each race that runs on... Is the Steward having a cold one with his mates or back late talking to management/police?

Look, we can do this all night. The probability of such an event happening on the next race is exactly the same as the probability of it happening on the first race if we assume the events are independent and the probability of such an event happening on the next two races is significantly lower than it hapenning just once in the next two races. You're talking about a game with rules, where different outcomes are assigned different values and therefore have some significance in that realm. The steward should absolutely investigate. Would you get to the point, please?

3/Supplemental.
From any single realm of human endeavour- Politics, Art, Warfare, Music, Science...please pick eight or nine figures in from one field who represent ‘the Greatest’ in history. i.e The nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history.
Again, your preparedness to answer the simple pertinent questions that seek to establish broadly agreed parameters of probability is much appreciated. I will present my argument/gambit on the foundation of your answers and the popcorn gallery may howl from the sideline

This is getting boring, please get to the point...

US "top nine":
Lady Gaga

Katy Perry

Rihanna

Cee Lo Green

The Black Eyed Peas

Glee Cast

P!nk

Chris Brown

Bruno Mars

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wombat
Might I humbly suggest...Go to your nearest Casino,bet upon and roll 'cats eyes' three, four, five, six times in a row... then advise Security- "no matter how infinitely unlikely the event is, that's completely irrelevant and any event after the fact is just as likely as any other, no matter how much significance you ascribe to it post festum"

And my hearty best wishes with that.


Snake eyes/Cats eyes/Deuce. The "significance" is already there before I play the game.” Because the Casino knows the odds/probability to the nth degree.
Probability-
Rolling two 6-sided dice gives you a chance of 1 in 36 chance of getting snake eyes each time you roll the dice.
Rolling two 6-sided dice 25 times gives a probability of .505532 that at least once, snake eyes will appear.[3]
Snake eyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“roll 'Snake eyes' three, four, five, six times in a row” and you will certainly be having an interesting conversation with Management and Security.

You haven't addressed my point. Also, the probability of rolling snake eyes is the same as the probability of rolling any other combination where both dice fall on the same number - i.e. two threes. The decision to assign significance to exactly two ones is therefore arbitrary.

No.Che-Guevara appearing on my shirt is a frequent and well documented event/phenomena occuring in the 'sample space' of 'Beer and Pie' night Frequency probability- certainty- every second Friday.

I have an ice-cold beer in the fridge and am nervously anticipating your mind-blowing argument. Could we get to it?

 

[Wombat]

The probability of such an event happening on the next race is exactly the same as the probability of it happening on the first race if we assume the events are independent and the probability of such an event happening on the next two races is significantly lower than it hapenning just once in the next two races.

And this is the very reason I ask two simple questions to establish what can reasonably be considered &#8216;probable&#8217;. The >improbability< of two- three- four- five- six+ races in succession in which all horses running fall bar one in each race is >ASTRONOMICAL<. Stewards would be shutting down the race meeting by the second or third race and searching for the trip wire on the track or the guys with dart guns in the trees!

You're talking about a game with rules, where different outcomes are assigned different values and therefore have some significance in that realm. The steward should absolutely investigate. Would you get to the point, please?

I&#8217;m talking about distinguishing between events that are random/chance and events that are so unlikely/improbable the steward would be shutting the whole show down, retaining Bookies on course, cancelling all bets and calling the police because >obviously< something well beyond reasonable probability is going on.
Sure I would like to &#8220;get to the point&#8221;...Your &#8220;bored&#8221;?...Try being the one asking the same simple straight scenario question and getting nothing but fartaround obfuscation.

These are your &#8220;nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history&#8221;.?


US "top nine":
Lady Gaga Katy Perry Rihanna Cee Lo Green The Black Eyed Peas

Glee Cast P!nk Chris Brown Bruno Mars
[/quote]

Gives me some indication of the age and maturity of who I&#8217;m talking to at least...
You wanna stick with that as representative of &#8220;nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history&#8221;?

You haven't addressed my point. Also, the probability of rolling snake eyes is the same as the probability of rolling any other combination where both dice fall on the same number - i.e. two threes. The decision to assign significance to exactly two ones is therefore arbitrary.

God...it&#8217;s like pulling teeth...I understand the math, I understand your point, I understand the probability.....Do you understand that taking all else into consideration- When you roll Deuce twice in succession you have the Casinos attention, when you roll it thrice in succession you have their suspicion and they are checking the dice, if you&#8217;re brave/stupid enough to roll Deuce 4-5-6 times in succession (excuse me) YOU ARE HAVING EXACTLY THE SAME SERIOUS AND POTENTIALY DEADLY CONVERSATION WITH CASINO SECURITY AS THE OWNERS OF THE SINGLE WINNING HORSES ARE HAVING WITH THE STEWARDS!
Because clearly and obviously some interference in taking place and all reasonable &#8216;chance/probability&#8217; is out the window.
Is that understood and agreed or does this get dragged out further?
I'm happy to leave it at- responding Atheists could not even establish reasonable parameters of probability and couldn't identify any 'greats' in a given field outside their own lifetime.

 

[Commoner]

And this is the very reason I ask two simple questions to establish what can reasonably be considered &#8216;probable&#8217;. The >improbability< of two- three- four- five- six+ races in succession in which all horses running fall bar one in each race is >ASTRONOMICAL<. Stewards would be shutting down the race meeting by the second or third race and searching for the trip wire on the track or the guys with dart guns in the trees!

Have I disagreed with you? I'm still waiting for the point...

I&#8217;m talking about distinguishing between events that are random/chance and events that are so unlikely/improbable the steward would be shutting the whole show down, retaining Bookies on course, cancelling all bets and calling the police because >obviously< something well beyond reasonable probability is going on.
Sure I would like to &#8220;get to the point&#8221;...Your &#8220;bored&#8221;?...Try being the one asking the same simple straight scenario question and getting nothing but fartaround obfuscation.

These are your &#8220;nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history&#8221;.?

US "top nine":
Lady Gaga Katy Perry Rihanna Cee Lo Green The Black Eyed Peas

Glee Cast P!nk Chris Brown Bruno Mars

Gives me some indication of the age and maturity of who I&#8217;m talking to at least...
You wanna stick with that as representative of &#8220;nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history&#8221;?

So now we're resorting to ad hominem? I was patient enough to provide you with a list of people for you to do your magic with and now you're getting an attitude?

God...it&#8217;s like pulling teeth...I understand the math, I understand your point, I understand the probability.....Do you understand that taking all else into consideration- When you roll Deuce twice in succession you have the Casinos attention, when you roll it thrice in succession you have their suspicion and they are checking the dice, if you&#8217;re brave/stupid enough to roll Deuce 4-5-6 times in succession (excuse me) YOU ARE HAVING EXACTLY THE SAME SERIOUS AND POTENTIALY DEADLY CONVERSATION WITH CASINO SECURITY AS THE OWNERS OF THE SINGLE WINNING HORSES ARE HAVING WITH THE STEWARDS!
Because clearly and obviously some interference in taking place and all reasonable &#8216;chance/probability&#8217; is out the window.
Is that understood and agreed or does this get dragged out further?

I'm waiting for you to get to the point. I'm just reminding you that you are talking about a game where certain outcomes have been assigned a certain value beforehand and therefore have significance - arbitrarily assigned significance, but nevertheless. So take care when stepping outside the realm of casino games. Otherwise, I agree.

I'm happy to leave it at- responding Atheists could not even establish reasonable parameters of probability and couldn't identify any 'greats' in a given field outside their own lifetime.

Stop the ad hominem attacks and get to the point...

 

[Mellonhead]

Suspicions of weighted dice are a lot different than believing in magic. If you are talking about the odds of our existence, then probable chance is on our side.

 

[tumbleweed41]

#906 (Fith time across same ground)-

"Yup. That’s what the exploration/inquiry is about. Three simple questions to establish the broad parameters of probability.
But at this point my money is on the probability that there is insufficient critical thinking curiosity or intellectual integrity to see answer to the questions. The first having already been put four times over without answer. In all probability obfuscation and evasion will continue to be the order of the day."

Please present your statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Please present your statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.

We've asked that several times. So far, none has been presented.

 

[Wombat]

&#8220;Please present your statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham.&#8221;Tumbleweed41
&#8220;We've asked that several times. So far, none has been presented.&#8221;RitalinO.D.

YAWN....The pretence of courtesy inherent in &#8220;please&#8221; is greatly diminished by the fact that you have (both) been asked three simple, basic pertinent questions as a preface to exploring the evidence...and both made a clear and obvious obfuscating game of ignoring same.
All have paid lip service to the principles of empirical evidence...yet only one shows even the slightest inclination to respecting the process- open minded investigation and active patient inquiry, the setting of parameters, the gathering of evidence.
&#8220;Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data). Research design varies by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions which cannot be studied in laboratory settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.
In some fields, quantitative research may begin with a research question.&#8221;

In over half a dozen posts the invitation/request to establish mutually understood and agreed parameters of probability has been cut and ignored. When the request is repeated- it is cut and ignored again...with the compounding insistence that you are somehow entitled, both to an answer and to evidence for God that is reduced to a single blipvert post.
Such behaviour, as rude-closed minded- shallow and conflicting with Empirical research principles and procedures as it can get...goes a long way to explain why Atheism remains such a minority position.

One non theist respondent has (in a manner) answered my first two questions regarding probability.
The third and final has received no satisfactory answer-
3/ From any single realm of human endeavour- Politics, Art, Warfare, Music, Science...please pick eight or nine figures in from one field who represent &#8216;the Greatest&#8217; in history. i.e The nine greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in all history.
(Much and all as the likes of Gaga are &#8216;popular&#8217; I doubt that any other than the most addled fan could consider her among the most influential musicians in history)

The question remains open and unanswered, the parameters of investigation incomplete.
If >any< of the Atheist respondents would care to dig deep into their vast analytical intellectual and critical thinking capacities and come up with 8-9 &#8216;Greats/geniuses&#8217; (any field) from throughout history (So their influence can be seen/determined) then &#8220;the quantitative research may begin with a research question&#8221; and parameters answered.
It&#8217;s Thursday today and I will be away from Monday...that gives the collective Brains Trust four days to see if they can come up with 8-9 Greatest in history, influential geniuses in their field.

You claim to want &#8220;statistical probability-evidence that points directly to the God of Abraham&#8221;? ...then earn it with a basic display of manners and open intellectual inquiry.

Otherwise- &#8220;Frankly my dears...I don&#8217;t give a.....&#8221;

 

[Wombat]

So now we're resorting to ad hominem? ...

Nope. You're asked for the greatest and most influential in a field throughout history and you thow off the current US top nine. As fine a display of impatient contempt as one could get.
I gave my honest assesment thereof...no "ad hominem" involved or in evidence.

I was patient enough to provide you with a list of people for you to do your magic with and now you're getting an attitude? ...

Your "I'm bored" "patience and generosity of spirit and intellectual inquiry overwhelm me.
"attitude"?...Have a good look at the last dozen+ posts in this thread...atheist and non theist responses couldn't get more evasive, rude and closed minded impatient/self centered/demanding if they tried.

They want evidence of the intangible God but wont even acknowledge or consider or respond to tangible evidence of their own behaviour...and if I weary of it after a dozen displays of clear contempt I'm "getting attitude"?

Log.......own eye....try removing first guys.

I'm waiting for you to get to the point....

Yea...And I'm waiting for you (any of you) to stop whining like toddlers who can't get immediate gratification of your narcissistic expectations, grow up, and display something of the adherence to critical thinking so frequently claimed.

I'm just reminding you that you are talking about a game where certain outcomes have been assigned a certain value beforehand and therefore have significance - arbitrarily assigned significance, ....

It >does not matter< if the event described (repeated sequential Duece) occurs in a "game where certain outcomes have been assigned " or in a Lab- randon dice throwing experiment in which >no< "outcomes have been assigned a certain value beforehand"....if the dice keep comming up Deuce 6, 7 , 8, 9times in a row you are in the realms of profound improbability.
The parameters of "chance" have been long and well established...they are relied upon in all tests of claims of 'remote viewing' and other claimed 'psychic' abilities.
If >ANY< claimed psychic >ever< came up with 9 remote viewing hits out of a field of ten we would have a declared/confirmed psychic- we >don't< because the results, despite extensive and protracted testing, have never shown variation above 'chance'.

So take care when stepping outside the realm of casino games.....

No. Take care in assuming the probability principles only apply in 'casino games'...they apply in the Lab and a host of fields of investigation and research...See Rhine experiments-
Extrasensory perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop the ad hominem attacks

Describing respondents refusal/unwillingness to "establish reasonable parameters of probability" is not an "ad hominem attack"...unless you draw a conclusion about character....I have not done so.

and get to the point...

Try being less flippant/dismissive than US- Top nine and I would be encouraged to "do my magic".

At this stage of the Atheist/non theist- evasion, obfuscation and anti inquiry contempt game regarding a question they posed....I couldn't give a fat rats if it's drawn to a conclusion or not.

I'll give it a couple of days to see if anyone wants to lift their game.

 

[McBell]

then earn it with a basic display of manners and open intellectual inquiry.

Otherwise- “Frankly my dears...I don’t give a.....”

Wow.
All that talk must have been nothing but talk.
I mean, you go on and on yet do not produce.


Perhaps you think you can hold something that you do not have as a hostage?