|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #5435 on ContentLevel 124 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
OfflineSend mail to wetturtle Block wetturtle Invite wetturtle to be your friend
- Views: 22559(untitled)
421 36 Total: +385
- Views: 9775(untitled)
164 31 Total: +133
- Views: 3633Pokemon Pokedex Entries
48 9 Total: +39
- Views: 994(untitled)
7 2 Total: +5
- Views: 2252(untitled)
8 4 Total: +4
- Views: 1023Title
8 13 Total: -5
latest user's comments
|#53 - What comic is this called?||03/01/2014 on Wat?||0|
|#4 - Comment deleted [+] (5 new replies)||01/06/2014 on Dilemma||-1|
|#2 - Comment deleted [+] (7 new replies)||01/06/2014 on Dilemma||0|
|#85 - thank you||01/05/2014 on dracula||0|
|#60 - **wetturtle rolls 6,658**||01/05/2014 on go get that gym pass!||0|
|#71 - **wetturtle rolled a random image posted in comment #683370 …||11/02/2013 on IM ON A BOAT||0|
|#5 - Picture||11/02/2013 on You Know I'm Right||+5|
|#2 - Guess that's true, but people repost too much. Thats what I'm … [+] (1 new reply)||11/02/2013 on You Know I'm Right||0|
|#1 - Picture||11/02/2013 on Help meh out||+1|
|#225 - Knowledge of something isnt wrong, if I know how to kill am I … [+] (14 new replies)||10/30/2013 on yes, yes we should!||+1|
#419 - hoskins (10/31/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand how the concept of a deity works.
God big. Humans little.
You do understand that those laws, "Thou shalt not covet" for example, are made for people. Not deities. Not angels. Not nephilim. People. This isn't exactly the greatest argument in a lot of cases, but I feel that it works well here. God is God, and he'll do as he pleases. Just because he says something is wrong for humans does not necessarily mean that it is wrong for him.
#438 - robinwilliamson (11/03/2013) [-]
Then the words good or just become meaningless. There is no justice if no concept of injustice is present. And you can no longer apply any human created meanings if it's just a totally different ballpark, putting the complications at a way higher level, and the more complicated something gets in a claim, the less probable it becomes, like a logarithmic graph.
#440 - hoskins (11/04/2013) [-]
Regardless, that's not always true. And you basically hit the nail on the head. If we're to believe even a fraction of the Bible, we may as well believe all of it. That's relevant because if we believe the actions that were detailed in the Bible really happened, we may as well believe that he is just. (Philosophies aside, of course.) But of course, I respect your opinion, my apologies if I seemed hostile, I'm just really burnt out on these debates.
#450 - robinwilliamson (11/05/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about Occum's Razor, I'm talking about something that's actually true. It was a math theorem produced in nice detail by one of our own FJ'ers here, I'll post below, but in short If I said there's a red half eaten granny smith apple under the shade of an oak tree in Central Park New York, it would be a lot more likely that I was right if I said there's an apple in New York.
"Okay so i've been pretty interested in mathematics lately and i decided to do a formulation regarding the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument.
Let's assume that X is an extraordinary or arbitrary belief or event such as " the christian god exists"
Let's assume that ¬X is "not X" so for example "the christian god does not exist"
Let E represent the existence of a set of evidences that would verify X
Let ¬E represent the absence of such evidence
Let P(X) denote the probability of event X
Let P (X\E) denote the conditional probability of X given E.
So this is the joint probability of X and E divided by the probability of E
If event X were to really happen, then it is very likely that it left some evidence, otherwise how are we supposed to tell that it happened in the first place. Which means that P(E|X) > P(¬E|X) in other words the probability of E, given X, is greater than not E, given X. Understood it so far?
Okay so since event X is an extraordinary claim about a specific god, and there are thousands of other religions claiming a god. It follows that all things equal the probability of event X is very small.
P(X) << 1
Now let's look at P(¬E), what can we say about the likihood of evidence for X? Let's say we have searched for evidence but failed to find any.
P(¬E) ≈ 1 in other words the probability of no evidence existing for X is very high. And the more we search for E but fail to find any the closer this value gets to 1. "
#451 - hoskins (11/05/2013) [-]
I understand what you're saying from your short (thank you so much for the short one, I literally just finished calculus homework and i really don't want to read the long one) description.
And Occum's Razor, that's what it is. Thanks.
But yeah, I get what you're saying, like I said. But again, that's your belief and I'm gonna refrain from being a dick like a certain someone else in the thread (starts with a k). But good day to you sir, and thank you for remaining civil.