The question, Can atheists be wrong in their belief system?, was posted and led to the following discussions which shows that one Atheist fails and then the one that comes to that Atheist’s defense fails, and the next, and the next.
Mathijs Wijers, self-described as, “Hobby philosopher and critical thinker,” replied
Q: “Can atheists be wrong in their belief system?”
A: Atheist believe system:
I see no evidence for any god, therefore:
1b. I don’t believe in any gods.
Sure, we could be wrong. Prove us wrong by showing us some empirical peer-reviewed evidence…
A certain Smedley Farnsworth commented
That proof, such a simple request, but theists never do it.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Well, the very first step is for Atheists to justify their demand for proof on their worldview but Atheists never do it.
Smedley Farnsworth
Two people, a theist and an atheist, are standing in a pitch-dark room.
Atheist: It sure is dark in here. I can’t see a thing.
Theist: Well, there’s a light switch.
Atheist: How do you know?
Theist: I read it in a book.
Atheist: Ok, then go turn it on.
Theist: Why don’t you turn it on?
Atheist: Because I don’t think it exists.
Theist: Prove that it doesn’t exist.
Atheist: Easy. If it exists, go turn it on.
It’s all about the burden of proof (i.e., whose task it is to prove something). If someone asserts the existence of something for which there is neither logical argument nor empirical evidence, it’s not for anyone else to prove that they’re wrong. It’s for them to prove that they’re right.
Ken Ammi
Ironically, I noted, “the very first step is for Atheists to justify their demand for proof on their worldview but Atheists never do it” and you didn’t do it but rather just made up a fantasy and followed it by merely doubling down, “It’s all about the burden of proof” so now I have to ask you to justify the BoP on your worldview.
Likewise with your merely asserted “If someone asserts the existence of something…” since you keep beginning with conclusions so please back up to the first systematic critical thinking step.
Tom Hazelton chimed in with
Prove to me that there isn’t a bigger, better god out there who regularly [****]s and pisses into the mouth of your god. Cant do it? I guess that makes your god a pathetic [****]-guzzling toilet gimp for my god. That totally sucks for you. Good thing I don’t have any burden of proof here and that it s YOUR responsibility to disprove my claim. That’s your position, right?
Ken Ammi
Wow, please mind your manners. You appear to be suffering from pretty severe psycho-emotional problems. Have you read this thread?
Tom Hazelton
Just pointing out where your logic leads. It must suck knowing that you worship a [****]-guzzling toilet for my God. Prove that I’m wrong.
Ken Ammi
Wow, please mind your manners. So no, you didn’t read this thread but ignorantly jumped into a thread where three Atheists have failed to even begin to have a cogent discussion and are joining their failure. This time, you began with a conclusion so please first take the very first systematic critical thinking step and justify your demand for proof, on your worldview.
Tom Hazelton
Again, your God is obviously a [****]-guzzling toilet for my God. Prove me wrong.
Ken Ammi
Ok then, one proof that you’re wrong is that you violate basic systematic critical thinking principles such as justifying demanding proof before demanding it. Is your position that all there’s a universal imperative for all of humanity to do what you say just because thus saith Tom?
Tom Hazelton
You really don’t get it, do you? Theists are making the extraordinary claim that there exists some God who has all kinds of rules for us to follow and is willing to punish us for even small infractions. You need to provide evidence for that claim, otherwise it is just a claim. Atheists simply don’t believe you. There is no “atheist world view”. Atheists are not making any extraordinary claims. They just don’t buy your bull[****] because you have nothing to back it up.
Ken Ammi
Please mind your manners.
What’s fascinating is that you seem interested in discussing those issues but you utterly fail to take the very first step, step one, #1, and without it you disqualified yourself from complaining and so you debunk yourself.
Again, you violate basic systematic critical thinking principles such as justifying demanding proof before demanding it.
Again, is your position that all there’s a universal imperative for all of humanity to do what you say just because thus saith Tom?
Have you really never thought about it before and merely parroted Atheism 101 talking points?
What is your worldview’s premise for only believing in things which have been evidenced? Don’t you get it? If that’s not evidenced then you shouldn’t believe it, right?
What is your worldview’s premise for demanding evidence? See how these things work together?
What universal imperatives are there on your worldview for the things to which you merely jump as merely asserted conclusions?
What, on your worldview, is wrong with, “it is just a claim”: which I have to ask since you seem to imply that something’s wrong with it but you merely implied it since you neglected THE most important part.
As for, “There is no ‘atheist world view’”: 1) are you the arbiter of Atheism dogmatheism, THE authority?
2) what about those Atheists, such as Dawkins who’s about a gazillion times more well know as an Atheist missionary then you are, who does claim that?
3) if, “There is no ‘atheist world view’” then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you believe in an actually existing God?
Mathijs Wijers
Sorry, but it’s not the atheist’s job to come up with evidence for the non-existence of your random deity of choice. Atheists just do not accept your god-claim, because you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim.
Your demand for proof that your preferred flavour of fairy tale isn’t true, is an implicit admission that you have no evidence to the contrary. If you did actually have any convincing empirical and independently verifiable evidence, you would present it, instead of endlessly beating around the bush.
On top of that, if you insist it is our job to prove the non-existence of your deity of choice, you commit yourself to believing in – or presenting proof of non-existence for – anything you or anyone else can think of. For example, but not excluded to:
Quezalcoatl
The flying spaghetti monster
The invisible pink unicorn
An invisible intangible dragon in my garage
A three-piece Mariachi band in my back garden
Exactly no more and no less than one unpasteurized Stilton cheese in the core of Jupiter
A number of unpasteurized Stilton cheeses in the core of Jupiter equal to or larger than two
No unpasteurized Stilton cheeses present in the core of Jupiter at all
A magnificent flying ferret responsible for maintaining the Earth’s atmosphere called Squortlebleep
A clay teapot in orbit within the rings around Saturn
Me being Yhwh Saboath, Allah El Elohim, your one true god, communicating to you through the medium of Quora
The spare tenner I keep in my wallet for emergencies
Either that, or you expose yourself as being a bit of a hypocrite.
Since you are clearly not a hypocrite (😏), I wonder… How do you manage believing that the core of Jupiter contains none, exactly one, *and* two or more unpasteurised Stilton cheeses?…
[[[NOTE: since Mathijs Wijers is literally incapable of even having a cogent discussion, he literally pasted that same comment time and time and time again so, hereinafter, rather than taking up our space with it, when he does so, I’ll just reduce it to, “Quezalcoatl comment”]]]
Ken Ammi
At this point it’s a case of that you’re literally a clown-troll or you’re SO very used to merely copying and pasting 101 level Atheist group think talking points du jour that you got in over your head.
Again, this has utterly nothing to do with, “the atheist’s job to come up with evidence for the non-existence of” anything rather, again, this is about that you illogically began by demanding evidence, I merely requested that you begin at the beginning and justify your demand for evidence, and you instantly collapsed.
So, again, please engage in systematic critical thinking and begin at the beginning by justifying your demand for evidence.
Mathijs Wijers
It is you who asserts there is something out there, therefore it is you who should bring the evidence for what you are claiming.
As long as you don’t bring any evidence to the table, I will just dismiss your claim.
To demand proof that your claim is untrue, is to commit to believing – or provide evidence in the contrary of – anything that anyone can think of.
This includes, but is not limited to…
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
Friend, that’s one of the cheapest Atheism 101 tactics: be tutored on how to engage in systematic critical logical rational reasonable philosophic thinking, merely ignore it, and copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste, etc.
So, again, please begin at the beginning by justifying your demand for evidence.
Or else, I have an idea, give me all of your money: you will do that just because I said so, right?
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Then Dirk Theurer got into it with
“unpasteurized Stilton cheeses present in the core of Jupiter”
Stilton cheeses present in the core of Jupiter? Sure. But, unpasteurized? C’mon; get real, man. You can’t expect someone who asks those who merely expect those making claims to support those claims rather than requiring those who simply don’t believe such claims to provide evidence the claim has no basis in fact to fall for that old trick, do you? I mean, horking up “Please mind your manners!” and “Friend” when they demonstrate no manners of their own and do nothing but attack you must be your “Friend”, amirite?!
Of course Ken knows more about atheism than us atheists do. I mean, he knows to capitalize it as it is clearly a religion, and he has obviously figured out atheists’ nefarious “Atheism 101 tactics”. He understands fully that “You made a claim that I don’t believe” is a specious assertion requiring proof. He clearly groks that anyone making a claim is under precisely zero obligation to support that claim. …and I do mean “precisely zero”. Your request for him to provide proof that your numbered list of claims are false in no way, shape, or form resembles his request for you to provide proof that his claim is false. None. Whatsoever.
“unpasteurized Stilton cheeses present in the core of Jupiter” indeed.
Ken Ammi
Not surprisingly, you misrepresented the situation when you attempted to get an at’a’boy from a fellow Atheist.
You’ll find it’s impossible to quote me to the effect that “anyone making a claim is under precisely zero obligation to support that claim.”
Rather, as I have told you and Mathijs many times, it’s an issue of: what is your justification for the implication that you merely “anyone making a claim is under…obligation to support that claim” on your worldview (since you incoherently began with a conclusion), how and why is that an obligation on your worldview?
Since you have both independently failed to even make an attempt to begin dealing with that first, primary, most fundamental issue, perhaps you can team up and come up with something besides childishly embarrassing personal attacks as attempts at distracting from your proven failures.
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Dirk Theurer
Ken Ammi: “Not surprisingly, you misrepresented the situation when you attempted to get an at’a’boy from a fellow Atheist.
You’ll find it’s impossible to quote me to the effect that “anyone making a claim is under precisely zero obligation to support that claim.”
Rather, as I have told you and Mathijs many times, it’s an issue of: what is your justification for the implication that you merely “anyone making a claim is under…obligation to support that claim” on your worldview (since you incoherently began with a conclusion), how and why is that an obligation on your worldview?
Since you have both independently failed to even make an attempt to begin dealing with that first, primary, most fundamental issue, perhaps you can team up and come up with something besides childishly embarrassing personal attacks as attempts at distracting from your proven failures.”
—————
You don’t get sarcasm. Huh.
But, a (decidedly “missed the point”) comment of yours could use a response:
“You’ll find it’s impossible to quote me to the effect that “anyone making a claim is under precisely zero obligation to support that claim.”
That’d be because my comment here to that effect was entirely, utterly, 110% sarcasm. But, while we’re on the subject — and not sarcastically, — you seem to be under the (entirely mistaken) impression that someone who disbelieves someone else’s claim is under some obligation to prove that the claim that that someone else is making is false. OK; let’s play it your way:
Claim: Invisible, weightless flying pink elephants exist.
If you’re honest about it (which you have not demonstrated you’re capable of being), you disbelieve that claim. So, according to YOUR TERMS, you get to now prove that invisible, weightless flying pink elephants do not exist.
Go.
“you have both [that’d be Mathijs Wijers and me] independently failed to even make an attempt to begin dealing with that first, primary, most fundamental issue”
There are actually two “primary, most fundamental issue[s]”, Ken:
The “first, primary most fundamental issue” is that you have chosen to define atheism to serve your agenda. Atheism is merely disbelief of claims of god/God/gods existing. Atheists don’t give a single flying [****] about how you want to define it.
The “second, primary most fundamental issue” is that you are requiring those who disbelieve a claim be under obligation to prove a disbelieved claim as false. As soon as you prove that invisible, weightless flying pink elephants don’t exist, I’ll prove that whatever clearly indentified, with clearly noted characteristics, with clearly noted capabilities, etc. does not exist. I’ll wait.
Ken Ammi
Please mind your manners.
How could you have been sarcastic when you then “not sarcastically” paraphrased your supposedly sarcastic statement?
Let’s try it this way:
You’ll find it’s impossible to quote me to the effect that “someone who disbelieves someone else’s claim is under some obligation to prove that the claim that that someone else is making is false.”
So, that I “seem to be under the (entirely mistaken) impression” was just a fallacy on your part. Stop focusing on your imaginary “seem to” and focus on the statements I’ve made over and over and over and over which the Atheists have dodged and dodged and dodged.
I know the Atheists are desperate to conveniently sidestep issues that are devastating to their worldview and Atheist missionary endeavors (as this thread literally proves every time they comment) but again:
“…it’s an issue of: what is your justification for the implication that you merely ‘anyone making a claim is under…obligation to support that claim’ on your worldview (since you incoherently began with a conclusion), how and why is that an obligation on your worldview?”
How you missed that 100% is certainly flummoxing.
As for, “Atheism is merely disbelief of claims of god/God/gods existing” which is tragically myopic and misrepresents the history of Atheism. As for, “Atheists don’t give a single flying…about how you want to define it” then don’t, just listen to other Atheists such as those of the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination.
In fact, besides being an anti-Christian support group, Atheism is a worldview. Again, forget me, listen to your fellow comrades.
Again, when you merely assert that I am, “requiring those who disbelieve a claim be under obligation to prove a disbelieved claim as false” you’re just making up stuff and will find it literally impossible to back your assertions via any quote from anything I’ve ever written anywhere: including my books on Atheism.
So, now there are three of you desperate to avoid the issue at all costs: you demand evidence, I’m asking you to take the very first systematic critical thinking step which is that you justify your demand for evidence. I’ll wait.
Ken Ammi to Dirk Theurer
I keep saying, “Please mind your manners” because you keep typing filth. A best practice would be to stop typing filth: the internet is filthy enough without your continuous input.
You merely asserted I’m contradicting myself but, as always, you began with a conclusion so what, on your worldview, is wrong with the logical fallacy of contradiction?
Glad you agree and admit that one can be a, “not fairy tales.” But we’re getting ahead of things again since you began with a conclusion so what, on your worldview, is wrong with the believing in fairy tales, especially when on an Atheistic-Evolution view they are great survival mechanisms?
I’ve no idea what this incoherence means, “You’re just keen on redefining worldview as being exclusively about fairy tales.” Rather, I’m pointing out that you myopically misrepresent Atheism by being dogmatic.
As for, “verifiable elements of reality” well, you began with a conclusion so what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for adhering to accidental reality?
Why not try searching my comments for just how many questions I asked that you conveniently sidestepped since they are devastating to your Atheistic missionary endeavors?
Oh, and this time around you did all of that ranting to, yet again, avoid the issues so, again, “what according to whatever you want to call it, is the justification for demanding evidence? Follow-up, then comes what according to whatever you want to call it, is the premise for implying that we ought to only hold to views that can be evidenced?”
See, you’ve consistently failed from day one since you’ve been ranting non-stop while still being stuck on the step one, the very first one.
Dirk Theurer
You’re just a broken record, Ken. I’ve answered all your concerns, but you’re just plugging your ears and saying “lalalalalalala I can’t hear you”.
“I keep saying, “Please mind your manners” because you keep typing filth.”
Awww… Is the po’ lil snowflake offended by some lil’ ol’ words?
“A best practice would be to stop typing filth”
An even better practice would be to not let the door hit ya where your — speaking of filth — omnicidal, misogynistic, child-raping, baby-killing, human sacrificial, anti-intellectual, megalomaniacal, war-mongering, jealous, sadistic, jejune, adulterous, petulant, all-around juvenile psychopath with an impulse control problem that can’t keep its story straight that is the anthropomorphized emotionally stunted caricature variously known as “El”, “YHWH/Yahweh/יהוה/Elohim/‘we aren’t allowed to spell out ‘God’ in case someone deletes it G_d’”, “God”, “Jehovah”, “يا بهاء الأبهى”, “Allah”, “ٱلْرَّحْمَـٰنُ”, etc. [****]wit “LORD” hit ya.
But, g’head, Ken. Keep puking up the same ol’ blinkered [****]. I’m done with you.
—————
Ken Ammi: “Dirk Theurer
I keep saying, “Please mind your manners” because you keep typing filth. A best practice would be to stop typing filth: the internet is filthy enough without your continuous input.
You merely asserted I’m contradicting myself but, as always, you began with a conclusion so what, on your worldview, is wrong with the logical fallacy of contradiction?
Glad you agree and admit that one can be a, “not fairy tales.” But we’re getting ahead of things again since you began with a conclusion so what, on your worldview, is wrong with the believing in fairy tales, especially when on an Atheistic-Evolution view they are great survival mechanisms?
I’ve no idea what this incoherence means, “You’re just keen on redefining worldview as being exclusively about fairy tales.” Rather, I’m pointing out that you myopically misrepresent Atheism by being dogmatic.
As for, “verifiable elements of reality” well, you began with a conclusion so what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for adhering to accidental reality?
Why not try searching my comments for just how many questions I asked that you conveniently sidestepped since they are devastating to your Atheistic missionary endeavors?
Oh, and this time around you did all of that ranting to, yet again, avoid the issues so, again, “what according to whatever you want to call it, is the justification for demanding evidence? Follow-up, then comes what according to whatever you want to call it, is the premise for implying that we ought to only hold to views that can be evidenced?”
See, you’ve consistently failed from day one since you’ve been ranting non-stop while still being stuck on the step one, the very first one.”
Ken Ammi
What’s fascinating is that you’ve been running away all along but this time around you realized you can just take the approach of merely asserting that demanding evidence doesn’t equal demanding evidence.
Let’s try to comprehend your latest attempt at moving the goalpost (again, is there anything wrong with committing such logical fallacies, on your worldview?—something I already asked and you conveniently ignored).
You included yourself amongst those “who merely expect those making claims to support those claims.”
The question then becomes then how, pray tell, would someone support those claims?
Well, you positively affirmed, “NO ONE is demanding evidence…No demand.”
The question then becomes then how, pray tell, would someone support those claims?
Well, you then demanded, “PRODUCE EVIDENCE.”
So, this time around you’ve talked yourself into incoherently believing that demanding, “PRODUCE EVIDENCE” equals, “No demand.”
So now, please come up with a synonym for what you’re doing so I can keep begging you to justify it first since you like to begin with conclusions.
Dirk Theurer
What’s fascinating is that you’re replying to a tongue-in-cheek comment of mine to someone else.
Ken, you are merely continuing to demonstrate that you’re capable of nothing but obtuseness.
Ken Ammi: “What’s fascinating is that you’ve been running away all along but this time around you realized you can just take the approach of merely asserting that demanding evidence doesn’t equal demanding evidence.
Let’s try to comprehend your latest attempt at moving the goalpost (again, is there anything wrong with committing such logical fallacies, on your worldview?—something I already asked and you conveniently ignored).
You included yourself amongst those “who merely expect those making claims to support those claims.”
The question then becomes then how, pray tell, would someone support those claims?
Well, you positively affirmed, “NO ONE is demanding evidence…No demand.”
The question then becomes then how, pray tell, would someone support those claims?
Well, you then demanded, “PRODUCE EVIDENCE.”
So, this time around you’ve talked yourself into incoherently believing that demanding, “PRODUCE EVIDENCE” equals, “No demand.”
So now, please come up with a synonym for what you’re doing so I can keep begging you to justify it first since you like to begin with conclusions.”
Ken Ammi
So, basically, you are conveniently sidestepping those issues that are absolutely devastating to your worldview since you know they’re absolutely devastating to your worldview and you’re a zealously faithful believer.
And, of course, you don’t answer any of the key questions since your know you’re literally incapable of doing so since you’re worldview is a collapsed failure.
So, this is the way it works: since you’ve no justification for demanding (or, replaced that with whatever word-game you want to play) evidence then you disqualified yourself from demanding (or, replaced that with whatever word-game you want to play) any and debunked yourself from rejecting God due to (merely asserted) lack of evidence.
Likewise, you’re literally incapable of providing the universal imperative, on your worldview, for only basing our views on that which can be evidence so, again, you disqualified yourself from implying that such is the only acceptable epistemology since you debunked yourself again.
Now that’s the case if, that is, you’re consistent, that is, but since being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on your worldview, which is why Atheists are only ever consistently inconsistent.
You provided more proof for two of Ammi’s Laws: 1) Atheist will begin with conclusions 100% of the time and 2) the best way to debunk Atheists is to simply ensure they have their say.
Reminder: you’re supposed to be a more evolved and enlightened being but you literally can’t just take one simple little epistemic step. Please take that out on your collapsed failure of a worldview, not on the people who point out the collapsed failure of your worldview.
Ken Ammi
But friend, you’re beginning with merely jumped to mere assertions based on mere hidden assumptions.
See, before jumping to, “I see no evidence for any god, therefore…Prove us wrong by showing us some empirical peer-reviewed evidence” you need to take the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview.
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
Friend, you’re talking very fast and are fast-talking so let’s slow things down systematically, as I attempted to get you to do at the outset.
You merely asserted, “Sorry, but it’s not the atheist’s job to prove they are correct” so is that because thus saith Mathijs and so all of humanity must adhere to your domgatheism?
You also conveniently ignored the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.
Also, I noted, “But friend, you’re beginning with merely jumped to mere assertions based on mere hidden assumptions” and you merely doubled down on that.
For example, I noted, “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview” but rather than taking that very first step you merely doubled down, “you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim” so you’re actually going backward rather than taking step number one.
But I see that you don’t even understand by sentence, “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview” which you took to have something to do with, “Your demand for proof that your preferred flavour of fairy tale isn’t true…if you insist it is our job to prove the non-existence” but I’m unsure how you got that from “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview.”
So, before jumping all the way to the bottom of your bottomless pit via the non sequitur, “an implicit admission that you have no evidence to the contrary” please take the very first step first: again, slow it down, please.
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
Friend, you’re misrepresenting Atheism—and logic. You merely asserted, “it’s not the atheist’s job to prove they are correct” but you’re still doing what I already noted to you, “conveniently ignored the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.”
So, again, when you merely assert, “Atheists just do not accept your god-claim” you’re ignoring many of your comrades who were the original modern day Atheists.
As for, “you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim” you’re spinning circles since I already noted, “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview.”
You clearly misread that since you incoherently merely asserted, “Your demand for proof that your preferred flavour of fairy tale isn’t true” which has nothing to do with what I said—as you just saw, again.
So, please start at the start by taking the very first step, step #1.
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
Please start at the start by taking the very first step, step #1.
Mathijs Wijers
The very first step is to gather evidence for your claim.
Ken Ammi
It would appear that you finally realized that you’re literally incapable of justifying your demand for evidence and so pulled a trick out of the Atheism 101 talking points and opted for a styled tu quoque logical fallacy.
Yet, you’re still merely asserting so you gained nothing by further discrediting yourself since “The very first step is to gather evidence for your claim” is just a paraphrase of your initial mere assertion in question.
Please start at the start by taking the very first step, step #1.
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi at Dirk Theurer
Please mind your manners.
It’s fascinating that you now decided to desperately attempt to deviate attention from your literal incapability to even begin having a systematic critical thinking based discussion complaining that I note you’re being filthy when you’re being filthy.
It’s also fascinating that you ran away to your safe-space by censoring me from replying directly to you but you keep on ranting against me: not what a cogent person would consider a fair fight.
Still, you didn’t seem to be aware that I can keep replying to you by finding a way around your reliance of censorship.
Now, you also attempted to run away—again—by merely listing things you don’t emotively subjectively like based on hidden assumptions such as, “omnicidal, misogynistic, child-raping, baby-killing, human sacrificial, anti-intellectual, megalomaniacal, war-mongering, jealous, sadistic, jejune, adulterous, petulant, all-around juvenile psychopath with an impulse control problem.”
Yet, once again, you failed to include THE key aspect since, once again, you began with conclusions.
Did you not notice that you just listed stuff but didn’t even say there’s anything wrong with those things?
Are you really so blinded by Atheism 101 talking points du jour that you don’t even understand your own MO?
Well, here we go again, what, on your worldview, is wrong with those things—since you didn’t get around to THE most important part?
You were actually done the very first time I replied to your comment since you’ve been literally incapable of doing anything but be childishly abusive since then.
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for you to take the very first step, step #1: what according to whatever you want to call it, is the justification for demanding evidence?
Follow-up, then comes what according to whatever you want to call it, is the premise for implying that we ought to only hold to views that can be evidenced?”
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
You’ve been copying and pasting that incoherence since Mar 5th and I’ve already corrected you. I realize you’re literally incapable of engaging the actual issues since you’re unreliably relying on a collapsed failure of a worldview. So, a best practice is to give it up.
I already told you, “Friend, that’s one of the cheapest Atheism 101 tactics: be tutored on how to engage in systematic critical logical rational reasonable philosophic thinking, merely ignore it, and copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste, etc.
So, again, please begin at the beginning by justifying your demand for evidence.
Or else, I have an idea, give me all of your money: you will do that just because I said so, right?”
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
You’ve been copying and pasting that incoherence since Mar 5th and I’ve already corrected you. I realize you’re literally incapable of engaging the actual issues since you’re unreliably relying on a collapsed failure of a worldview. So, a best practice is to give it up.
I already told you, “Friend, that’s one of the cheapest Atheism 101 tactics: be tutored on how to engage in systematic critical logical rational reasonable philosophic thinking, merely ignore it, and copy and paste copy and paste copy and paste, etc.
So, again, please begin at the beginning by justifying your demand for evidence.
Or else, I have an idea, give me all of your money: you will do that just because I said so, right?”
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
Why do you think that it is that three of you Atheists ganged up on me in this thread and three of you Atheist failed to even make an attempt at systematic critical thinking and three of you Atheist failed at the same key point?
Hint: because your worldview is such a collapsed failure that it actually failed before it even began: that’s why you’re literally incapable of taking step number one, the very first one, #1.
Mathijs Wijers
Found it!
Random search – Wikipedia
Random search (RS) is a family of numerical optimization methods that do not require the gradient of the problem to be optimized, and RS can hence be used on functions that are not continuous or differentiable . Such optimization methods are also known as direct-search, derivative-free, or black-box methods. Anderson in 1953 reviewed the progress of methods in finding maximum or minimum of problems using a series of guesses distributed with a certain order or pattern in the parameter searching space, e.g. a confounded design with exponentially distributed spacings/steps. [ 1 ] This search goes on sequentially on each parameter and refines iteratively on the best guesses from the last sequence. The pattern can be a grid (factorial) search of all parameters, a sequential search on each parameter, or a combination of both. The method was developed to screen the experimental conditions in chemical reactions by a number of scientists listed in Anderson’s paper. A MATLAB code reproducing the sequential procedure for the general non-linear regression of an example mathematical model can be found here (JCFit @ GitHub). [ 2 ] The name “random search” is attributed to Rastrigin [ 3 ] who made an early presentation of RS along with basic mathematical analysis. RS works by iteratively moving to better positions in the search space, which are sampled from a hypersphere surrounding the current position. The algorithm described herein is a type of local random search, where every iteration is dependent on the prior iteration’s candidate solution. There are alternative random search methods that sample from the entirety of the search space (for example pure random search or uniform global random search), but these are not described in this article. Random search has been used in artificial neural network for hyper-parameter optimization. [ 4 ] If good parts of the search space occupy 5% of the volume the chances of hitting a good configuration in search space is 5%. The probability of finding at least one good configuration is above 95% after trying out 60 configurations ( 1 − 0.95 60 = 0.953 > 0.95 {displaystyle 1-0.95^{60}=0.953>0.95} , making use of the counterprobability). Let f : ℝ n → ℝ be the fitness or cost function which must be minimized. Let x ∈ ℝ n designate a position or candidate solution in the search-space. The basic RS algorithm can then be described as: Initialize x with a random position in the search-space. Until a termination criterion is met (e.g. number of iterations performed, or adequate fitness reached), repeat the following: Sample a new position y from the hypersphere of a given radius surrounding the current position x (see e.g. Marsaglia’s technique for sampling a hypersphere.) If f ( y ) < f ( x ) then move to the new position by setting x = y Scheme of random search using a non-linear regression problem as an example. The goal is to minimize the value of the penalty function. The right bottom shows a few example methods: 1. Non-s
Now what?
Ken Ammi
Now what? Well, now begin at the beginning by justifying your demand for evidence.
Mathijs Wijers
Quezalcoatl comment
Ken Ammi
Begin at the beginning by justifying your demand for evidence.
Well, that ended that since no one was capable of taking the very first step, no Atheist ever is.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply