Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Will Bouwman]

Belief: Either: A > B OR B > A

So: A+bee fart > B therefore Skepdick, the bee fart counting wanker, believes A
OR B+bee fart > A therefore Skepdick, the bee fart counting wanker, believes B

[Skepdick]

Belief: Either: A > B OR B > A

So: A+bee fart > B therefore Skepdick, the bee fart counting wanker, believes A
OR B+bee fart > A therefore Skepdick, the bee fart counting wanker, believes B

The "bee fart" is ε.

Yes, indeed. Even a bee fart would sway me (future tense), and yet I haven't been swayed yet! In mathematics, we call the beefart ε.
It's an infinitesimal.

Must have been quite the explosion that swayed (past tense) you Mr 49/51. A pre-supposition of a Big Bang, perhaps? Who knows...
It's mighty suspicious to me that the Big Bang goes exactly where a Mathematician would put an axiom/assumption... right at "the beginning".

I mean, if I had to bias myself I'd probably lean towards my inner Reverse Mathematician. I prefer Theorems (at the end) instead of axioms (at the beginning).

But I don't have to bias myself so here we are.

[Will Bouwman]

Even a bee fart would sway me (future tense)...

QED

[Skepdick]

Even a bee fart would sway me (future tense)...

QED

So you can't even comprehend basic English ?!?

A bee fart would sway me - (future tense)
A bee fart has not yet swayed me (present tense)

Show me the "bee fart" that swayed you (past tense) Mr 49/51

Q.E.D

[Will Bouwman]

A bee fart would sway me - (future tense)

Q.E.D

Show me the "bee fart" that swayed you (past tense) Mr 49/51

Skepdick is a bee fart counting wanker, who lives in his mum's basement and has the memory of a goldfish. Just a coupla hours ago, I asked you the same thing:

Skepdick old boy, if you want to play properly, could you kindly dig up the quote you think has me saying that 49/51 HAS toppled me.

[Skepdick]

A bee fart would sway me - (future tense)

Q.E.D

Show me the "bee fart" that swayed you (past tense) Mr 49/51

Skepdick is a bee fart counting wanker, who lives in his mum's basement and has the memory of a goldfish. Just a coupla hours ago, I asked you the same thing:

Skepdick old boy, if you want to play properly, could you kindly dig up the quote you think has me saying that 49/51 HAS toppled me.

Willus Ignoramus, 49/51 was your expression from your head.
It was also your expression that the difference between 50/50 and 49/51 is negilgible. A "bee fart".
Your "bee fart" is The Big Bang (and more) in my number system - I don't feel like explaining infinitesimals to you again.

And it was also your expression...

Magic: perhaps. Mystery: certainly. Unified singularity: probably not.

50/50 = perhaps/perhaps not
50/50 = certainly/certainly not
50/50 = probably/probably not

Those are three bee farts.

[Skepdick]

A bee fart would sway me - (future tense)

Q.E.D

Willus Ignoramus, it looks like I have to repeat myself. It's usually what happens with stupid kids in the classroom.

If I ever arrive at 49/51 it WOULD topple me. That is a future perfect tense.

This is a principled statement. IF. Conditional.

You don't appear to understand the Mathematical challenge of going from monad(0.5) to 49/51 in the Hyperreal number system.
The entire joke and the irony of the "bee fart" went over your idiot-head.

You lack any and all Mathematical intuition about the difference between big and small things.

[Will Bouwman]

Willus Ignoramus, 49/51 was your expression from your head.

And where might I have got that from?

Surely as a fence-sitter such as yourself it would make sense to weigh the evidence as being 50/50?

What split would cause you to commit? Is your balance so precarious that 49/51 would topple you?

Nowhere have I said that 49/51 has, or even would cause me to commit to a belief, get off the fence or be blown off. If you get to make nonsense up, so do I.

It was also your expression that the difference between 50/50 and 49/51 is negilgible. A "bee fart".

Didn't say that either. It was you that brought negligible factors into the game:

I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have an effectively infinite number of datapoints.

49.000...1/51.999..9 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...2/51.999..8 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...3/51.999..7 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...4/51.999..6 wouldn't topple me.
....
49.9/51.1 wouldn't topple me.

But 49/51 just breaks the camel's back.

Your "bee fart" is The Big Bang (and more) in my number system - I don't feel like explaining infinitesimals to you again.

And it was also your expression...

Magic: perhaps. Mystery: certainly. Unified singularity: probably not.

50/50 = perhaps/perhaps not
50/50 = certainly/certainly not
50/50 = probably/probably not

Those are three bee farts.

Skepdick, you are mad as a box of frogs.

[Will Bouwman]

If I ever arrive at 49/51 it WOULD topple me. That is a future perfect tense.

This is a principled statement. IF. Conditional.

That's right Skepdick. IF a bee fart blew your way, it would knock you off the fence. You keep affirming the very thing you are denying. You can only do that if you are completely batshit crazy.

[Skepdick]

If I ever arrive at 49/51 it WOULD topple me. That is a future perfect tense.

This is a principled statement. IF. Conditional.

That's right Skepdick. IF a bee fart blew your way, it would knock you off the fence. You keep affirming the very thing you are denying. You can only do that if you are completely batshit crazy.

Willus Ignoramus.

49/51 is a "bee fart" in your paradigm.
In my paradigm 49/51 exists in the same place as the God you don't believe in.

I stole your position, you amateur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy- ... g_argument

[Will Bouwman]

49/51 is a "bee fart" in YOUR paradigm. Not in mine.

Duh!

I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have an effectively infinite number of datapoints.

49.000...1/51.999..9 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...2/51.999..8 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...3/51.999..7 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...4/51.999..6 wouldn't topple me.
....
49.9/51.1 wouldn't topple me.

But 49/51 just breaks the camel's back.

Thick as a brick, memory of a goldfish and mad as a box of frogs. Have that in your wank bank and enjoy your weekend.

It's all in the wank bank. I'll use it on the weekend.

[Skepdick]

49/51 is a "bee fart" in YOUR paradigm. Not in mine.

Duh!

Q.E.D The ignoramus lacks any and all sense of proportion.

He equates the English meaning of "bee fart" (connoting small and insignificant) with the Computational meaning of 49/51 failing to grasp the infinite, humanely unconquerable chasm between monad(49/51) and the actual fence: monad(0.5).

Willus Ignoramus is so tone-deaf and cant even differentiate between Big is Small.

Thick as a brick, memory of a goldfish and mad as a box of frogs.

Idiot-philosopher rejects the first law of logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

[Will Bouwman]

49/51 is a "bee fart" in YOUR paradigm. Not in mine.

Duh!

Q.E.D The ignoramus lacks any and all sense of proportion.

He equates the English meaning of "bee fart" (connoting small and insignificant) with the Computational meaning of 49/51 failing to grasp the infinite, humanely unconquerable chasm between monad(49/51) and the actual fence: monad(0.5).

That's just bollocks. The problem is your compulsive personality and fragile ego. You shoot your mouth off without really thinking, as demonstrated by the frequency of your edits. Here are some reminders of earlier versions you quickly regretted writing:

49/51 exists in the paradigm of monad(0.5) exactly where God exists in the paradigm of atheism.

Nowhere. Maybe beyond...

Willus Ignoramus equates the English meaning of "bee fart" with the Mathematical meaning of 49/51.

Your 49/51 exists in my paradigm (a.k.a monad(0.5) ) exactly where God exists in yours. Nowhere.

Willus Ignoramus equates the English meaning of "bee fart" with the Computational meaning of 49/51.

Your "bee fart" (49/51) exists in the paradigm fence-sitting (a.k.a monad(0.5) ) exactly where God exists in yours. Nowhere.

Your "bee fart" is my "impossible"...
In order to believe anything you need a theory! A lens via which to interpret the data/evidence. No lens - no belief.

Now tell us how you are on "the fence" about The Big Bang…

None of that can distract from this ridiculous claim:

I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have an effectively infinite number of datapoints.

49.000...1/51.999..9 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...2/51.999..8 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...3/51.999..7 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...4/51.999..6 wouldn't topple me.
....
49.9/51.1 wouldn't topple me.

But 49/51 just breaks the camel's back.

[Skepdick]

That's just bollocks. The problem is your compulsive personality and fragile ego. You shoot your mouth off without really thinking, as demonstrated by the frequency of your edits. Here are some reminders of earlier versions you quickly regretted writing:

49/51 exists in the paradigm of monad(0.5) exactly where God exists in the paradigm of atheism.

Nowhere. Maybe beyond...

Willus Ignoramus equates the English meaning of "bee fart" with the Mathematical meaning of 49/51.

Your 49/51 exists in my paradigm (a.k.a monad(0.5) ) exactly where God exists in yours. Nowhere.

Willus Ignoramus equates the English meaning of "bee fart" with the Computational meaning of 49/51.

Your "bee fart" (49/51) exists in the paradigm fence-sitting (a.k.a monad(0.5) ) exactly where God exists in yours. Nowhere.

Your "bee fart" is my "impossible"...
In order to believe anything you need a theory! A lens via which to interpret the data/evidence. No lens - no belief.

Now tell us how you are on "the fence" about The Big Bang…

None of that can distract from this ridiculous claim:

I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have an effectively infinite number of datapoints.

49.000...1/51.999..9 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...2/51.999..8 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...3/51.999..7 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...4/51.999..6 wouldn't topple me.
....
49.9/51.1 wouldn't topple me.

But 49/51 just breaks the camel's back.

Willus Ignoramus, you are so far removed form understanding it's difficult to convince you that you are tilting at a strawman of your own making.

It's hardly my fault that your shoulders have to endure the weight of the God-sized arrogance
contained in your head. DIdn't they teach you how to count both ways? Up and down?

49/51 is a bee fart.
(49/51) / 10 is a 10th of a bee fart.
(49/51) / 100 is a 100th of a bee fart.
...
(49/51) / ω is an infinitely smaller bee fart.
...
(49/51) / (ω ^ ω) is approaching a paradigm where the multiverse is The Bee God's fart.
...
...
...
My fence.

"Small" and "Big" are relative, ignoramus.

Do you have an objective metric for where the fence is; or are you just being a dumb philosopher?

Here's my objective metric for where my fence is: monad(0.5)

And your "bee fart" is nowhere to be seen anywhere near that fence.

So tell us all about that bowling ball you are holding.

[Will Bouwman]

Do you have an objective metric for where the fence is; or are you just being a dumb philosopher?

If those are the only options, then I am just being a dumb philosopher.

Here's my objective metric for where my fence is: monad(0.5)

Hence:

Belief: Either: A > B OR B > A

So: A+bee fart > B therefore Skepdick, the bee fart counting wanker, believes A
OR B+bee fart > A therefore Skepdick, the bee fart counting wanker, believes B

And:

This is a principled statement. IF. Conditional.

That's right Skepdick. IF a bee fart blew your way, it would knock you off the fence. You keep affirming the very thing you are denying. You can only do that if you are completely batshit crazy.