No offense, but did you take any math classes in college?
Yeah about a quarter of my STEM program, you?
Very large numbers multiplied by very small numbers end up being somewhere between the two. This isn't complicated stuff.
You don’t seem to understand the argument if this is your response. Start again with the logical proposition in the title and disprove it if you can. From there we can move on to the fine tuning argument on the other side of the cross-post.
And it's all a moot point anyway, because the probability of an even that has already happened happening is 1.
Lol, all you’ve done, like the vast majority of people who’ve summoned what they think is a “counter argument” is restate the Anthropic Principle in other words. Here is Sir Roger Penrose on your “rebuttal”:
[The Anthropic Principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."
Did you get on the STEM course on a dodgeball scholarship or something? Because those math credits seem to have been utterly wasted, but you're an absolute pro at dodging questions.
If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.
Still waiting for you to deal with that argument. If you recall, all you’ve done so far is bitch, spout non-sequitors, and insult the intelligence of others
It's clause two that is an unprovable overstatement
Addressed that looong ago
The rest has been repeatedly trying to hammer into you that big number =/= infinite, no matter how much you repeat it arbitrarily as you gishgallop between irrelevant gibberish like lottery fraud instead of attempting a rigorous proof.
And you're the one flinging out retard instead of a rebuttal in a petulant little tantrum. Nothing I've said about your intelligence has been insulting, it's been quite charitable frankly given what's been demonstrated so far.
Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.
Yeah about a quarter of my STEM program, you?
You don’t seem to understand the argument if this is your response. Start again with the logical proposition in the title and disprove it if you can. From there we can move on to the fine tuning argument on the other side of the cross-post.
Lol, all you’ve done, like the vast majority of people who’ve summoned what they think is a “counter argument” is restate the Anthropic Principle in other words. Here is Sir Roger Penrose on your “rebuttal”:
Did you get on the STEM course on a dodgeball scholarship or something? Because those math credits seem to have been utterly wasted, but you're an absolute pro at dodging questions.
Still waiting for you to deal with that argument. If you recall, all you’ve done so far is bitch, spout non-sequitors, and insult the intelligence of others
Addressed that looong ago
The rest has been repeatedly trying to hammer into you that big number =/= infinite, no matter how much you repeat it arbitrarily as you gishgallop between irrelevant gibberish like lottery fraud instead of attempting a rigorous proof.
And you're the one flinging out retard instead of a rebuttal in a petulant little tantrum. Nothing I've said about your intelligence has been insulting, it's been quite charitable frankly given what's been demonstrated so far.
Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.