And on what basis am I evaluating those possibilities? You suggested probability, mathematically, and yet you recognized that mathematically, W, X, Y, and Z are all zero.

You are standing at a welding table, with tool clamping your part to the bench, and you're asking me to tighten it up for you. I keep telling you that the tool you're using is a micrometer, not a C-clamp, and you keep calling me an idiot for not knowing how a clamp works.

I patiently explain that even if we ignore the idiocy of using an expensive, precision instrument for work holding, a micrometer is physically incapable of being tightened enough to secure your workpiece properly. And you tell me to shut up and crank it down.

I can think of three possible routes past this impasse. To stay with probability, we can find some way of limiting the infinite possibilities to a finite, (albeit unknown) number of possibilities, so that our probabilities are no longer 1/♾️, or "zero". Or, we can abandon probability and delve into a field of mathematics that can accept infinities. Or, we can leave mathematics behind, and move to philosophy.

I look forward to your next ad hominem.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I get it you keep a lot of words to convey very little meaning. I am fully able to use a micrometer, but you for some reason think its impossible, so you inability to do the task doesnt mean its impossible.

You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me. If you have no explaination for the existence of humans its fine, but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me.

I clearly explained why I was using infinite. This is the first time you have challenged my use of infinite. I eagerly await a rebuttal against my infinite argument.

If you have no explaination for the existence of humans

When did "existence of humans" enter the discussion? I thought we were discussing the existence of god(s). The probability of humans existing is 100%.

but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.

You brought math into the discussion, not I. I initially assumed you were speaking colloquially, and I responded with my "Pascal's wager" answer. Only when you doubled down and demanded probability did I respond with my mathematical, 1/♾️ answer.

If you don't like the answer, ask a different question.

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So long story short you will never be able to answer the original question? Too complicated?

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Indeed, it is a complex question.

How many answers do you want? I've given you the colloquial answer; I've given you a reasoned, rational answer, and I've given you the simple, mathematical answer 1/♾️, which you recognize and acknowledge to be zero.

I've answered you three separate times, respectfully and considerately, while ignoring your insults and denigration. I've patiently clarified and explained those answers, with reason and analogy, while you have mocked and belittled.

I'm going to move on from your question now, and ask one of my own: as a person you have mocked and denigrated and insulted and belittled, what would you now have me know about religion in general, and/or yours in particular?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was just looking for a simple answer a human would give to another, but you seem to just keep writing long comments with midwit logic.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Isn't that how it always goes? We look for simplicity, and find unexpected complexity.

So, what would you have this midwit understand about religion?

[–] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago

It was never even about religion, but you had such an inability to answer a simple question that it got lost in your feeling of being intelligent.