Materialists believe in magic

[Jorge]

You made the bet Clucky

You lost the bet.

You welshed on paying the money you owe.

It's all recorded in posts for anyone to see Clucky. What you hope to gain by lying about the issue is the mystery.

You are supposed to be OFF this thread, you bombastic moron.
Or is it that you actually never learned how to read? Yeah, that must be it!

Jorge

[Jorge]

It's always so funny to watch you go up against an expert in a field Jorge. It always goes just like this. In spite of the fact you are nothing more than a self-studied layman, you always think you know more than they do, are better able to analyze the technical data than they are. Unless, of course, they happen to agree with you. Every time I watch you do this, I take stock of my own sense of what I think I know. It is easy for any of us that study many different fields of science to get an overinflated sense of our own accomplishments, but you take that kind of over-assessment of one's own stature to a level that simply can't be matched.

Jim

Jim ............. just shut up! You're not even entertaining any more (as you once were).

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Jim ............. just shut up! You're not even entertaining any more (as you once were).

Jorge

Not likely Jorge. Somebody has to keep you honest.

Jim

[Roy]

Not likely Jorge. Somebody has to keep you honest.

Good luck with that.

[TheLurch]

You have a PhD in your field and I suggest you stick to that because in other fields (e.g., philosophy), bluntly, you stink.The Materialistic presuppositions are right there in front of you - immersed in the "current state of research" - but you cannot even see them. And the cop-out answer "we don't know yet" is totally dishonest (or at least naive) because while the person claims to "not know yet" they will nonetheless live out their lives AS IF the answer is fully covered by Materialism. IOW, "We don't know what the answer is so in the meantime we will live as if Materialism is the answer."

How someone chooses to live is just that - a choice. It has no influence on the current state of scientific knowledge, or how the process of science functions.

You're saying i stink at philosophy, and yet you're flunking basic logic here.

[HMS_Beagle]

You are supposed to be OFF this thread, you bombastic moron.
Or is it that you actually never learned how to read? Yeah, that must be it!

As long as you keep addressing me I have the right to respond Clucky. I guess that fact never penetrated your welsher brain.

[Jorge]

How someone chooses to live is just that - a choice. It has no influence on the current state of scientific knowledge, or how the process of science functions.

You're saying i stink at philosophy, and yet you're flunking basic logic here.

Hehe ... yeah ... right ... whatever you say.

BTW, the above is known as a non sequitur.

Jorge

[Jorge]

As long as you keep addressing me I have the right to respond Clucky. I guess that fact never penetrated your welsher brain.

Wrong, you lying moron. Even when I do NOT address you at
all you just jump right in with or without permission to do so.

Try to keep your lies straight, okay?

Fortunately for you, just as there is presently no rule of law in the U.S.,
there is also no rule of law here on TWeb. The people that are supposed
to be enforcing the rules do so but only selectively - just as is being
done by the FBI and DOJ regarding the latest Clinton crimes.

Jorge

[rwatts]

Agreed - you aren't aware. Don't make your ignorance my responsibility.

You have no example Jorge.

[rwatts]

It's all part of the voodoo sorcery. You're also mixing apples with aardvarks.

Jorge,

I asked:-

Besides how does "nothing" = "universal chance", where "nothing" is the layman's understaning of the term?

How does this:-

"It's all part of the voodoo sorcery. You're also mixing apples with aardvarks."

- form a coherent, reasoned explanation to my question?

What I am asking you is how nothing can be equivalent to universal chance (where "nothing" is the layman's understanding which seems to be the utter absence of absolutely everything and anything). Calling it "voodoo sorcery" is nothing more than name calling.


++++


Perpaps you don't understand the simple concept of explanation. So let me explain by providing an example.

To the question:-

"How does one make a sponge cake?",

- the following is not considered a valid answer:-

"You are a moron for asking such a question."

However, the following is considered a valid answer:-

"You take two eggs, half a pound of self-raising flour, ... , set the oven to 220 degrees C, ...."


Does that help you understand better?

[Jorge]

Jorge,

I asked:-



How does this:-

"It's all part of the voodoo sorcery. You're also mixing apples with aardvarks."

- form a coherent, reasoned explanation to my question?

What I am asking you is how nothing can be equivalent to universal chance (where "nothing" is the layman's understanding which seems to be the utter absence of absolutely everything and anything). Calling it "voodoo sorcery" is nothing more than name calling.


++++


Perpaps you don't understand the simple concept of explanation. So let me explain by providing an example.

To the question:-

"How does one make a sponge cake?",

- the following is not considered a valid answer:-

"You are a moron for asking such a question."

However, the following is considered a valid answer:-

"You take two eggs, half a pound of self-raising flour, ... , set the oven to 220 degrees C, ...."


Does that help you understand better?

Yeah, I understand "better" ... now go away, you Dodo!
.
.
.
.
.
.

Seriously, your question was dumb, stupid, ill-stated and loaded with a truckload of nonsense which I refrain to engage. For example, asking "how does nothing = universal chance" is a misrepresentation/distortion of what I had stated. In fact, if I recall what you did was conflate content from one post with content from a different post. I won't even waste my time to see if it was content from the same post.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, I understand "better" ... now go away, you Dodo!
.
.
.
.
.
.

Seriously, your question was dumb, stupid, ill-stated and loaded with a truckload of nonsense which I refrain to engage. For example, asking "how does nothing = universal chance" is a misrepresentation/distortion of what I had stated. In fact, if I recall what you did was conflate content from one post with content from a different post. I won't even waste my time to see if it was content from the same post.

Jorge

Jorge dictionary: Distortion: 27: pointing out any unforeseen or even just unwanted consequence of my words.

[Jorge]

Jorge dictionary: Distortion: 27: pointing out any unforeseen or even just unwanted consequence of my words.

Work must be slow at the ol' shop for O-Mudd to come a'haunting.

Jorge

[Roy]

Seriously, your question was dumb, stupid, ill-stated and loaded with a truckload of nonsense which I refrain to engage.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.

For example, anyone who expects the above screed not to be recognised as empty bluster from some-one who has no answer.

[Jorge]

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.

No, there are indeed stupid questions. Of course, stupid people will not recognize them
as stupid questions and so they parrot the urban myth that, "There are no stupid questions."

Jorge