It's not word salad, but you fit in with a particular crowd by saying so.
Earning an internet demerit badge?


Spontaneity and determination co-exist, just like it is simulated in a very specialized manner on poker stars. Hope this helps.

Yeah, he fits in with the crowds of literate posters.

It's just sounds like some no true Scotsman where you say "But that's not real spontaneity".

If one person has a problem understanding you, then that person had a problem. If everyone has a problem understanding you, you have a problem. Hope that helps.

You can deny your own responsibility to be understanding, but I reject your blame of me for it no matter how much social noise you can generate about it. Nothing personal.

Why on earth would you presume no true scotsman applies to drawing distinctions between reality and a simulation? Is the range of subject matters on this topic unfamiliar to you?

Because it's not at all apparent to me that the shuffle on Stars isn't real. And in spite of asking you several times I haven't had a coherent answer as to why.

Well if you want to presume the shuffle on stars is real, be my guest. I never had reason to doubt it was doing it's function correctly when I played on stars.

lol

I know, right!

If Bladesman begged his question any harder it might spontaneously spew blood. Maybe we should run an RNG-based simulation to see how many times he should beg before that happens.

Of course I'm not laughing at anyone but you. You tone police and refuse to answer basic questions about the topic at hand, you are literally providing nothing but nonsense to this conversation.

You accuse and stalk the people you accuse wherever. Your behavior across the forum is extremely untransparent at this point of accumulation.

Why not stop? Digging forever is really gonna tire you out when you are not actually digging at me in reality. It's laughable to me, but it is not reasonable to think it would be to anybody else.

Don't you have clown standards to hold up?

Forgive me for trying to have a conversation with you. It must really bug you that you couldn't uphold even the minimal standards you think the current mods maintain.

I told you a few days ago that you have disqualified yourself from my desire to have a conversation with you. That is assuming you have ever actually been conversational compared with argumentative.

My apologies if your behavior towards me is inconvient to you rather than me is the best I can offer. Clean slates always available to agree upon.

does providing a thread where other people aren't capable of discussing the topic at hand count as providing something?

Kerowo seems to be doing just that.

My take is that stuff like ID belongs in school, just in the appropriate class. I have no problem teaching every creation idea ever imagined though I prefer scientific basis.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I mean, I actually understand the sentences which is a plus, but I don't know what point, if any, you're attempting to make.

You seemed to be saying that designed things can't produce spontaneity. I asked if that's what you were saying, and amongst the spew I didn't find an obvious objection, so I'm assuming I understood that properly.

I suggested that use of an RNG, for example the shuffle and deal on Stars, was such a thing. You then said it was only a simulated version of spontaneity. And so I asked what the difference is between real spontaneity and this supposed simulation.

Now you're saying that the shuffle "functions correctly". Its ability to function was never in question. The question was: why don't you think it's an example of real spontaneity? You need to explain this otherwise we're back to that fake Scotsman thing again.

I don't know if I'm being trolled or if you're saying things you think are deep but are actually incomprehensible, or if maybe you actually have some kind of point but lack the ability to express it in English.

And this is before going back to my other objection at the start of all of this that we haven't had time for yet.

If you're referring to the US, religious instruction in American state schools would appear to fall foul of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, of course, was a dig at the established church in England, of which the Sovereign remains the head. But you still cannot teach 'intelligent design' in science classes in British schools. Because it is not science. It is not considered to have any place in religious instruction either, since nobody in their right mind takes the biblical creation story literally.

Are your finding the paradox I previously qualified difficult to observe? Why do you seem so emotionally invested in my opinion of the stars RNG? I said it seems to work to me.

You still have account for a RNG being a constructed object that executes preplanned operations. The concept of spontaneity in absolute precludes anything but the instant of a spontaneous event.

So while an RNG does it's job, a finer point can be made about if it's results qualify as ideal spontaneity. An RNG certainly helps observe the concept.

It does suggest that spontaneity can be part of a hypothetical intelligent design or it could be like I prefer that spontaneity is a rather hard to describe attribute of the scientific universe.

Educating about religions isn't equivalent to an endorsement of religion if the education methods avoid promotion and preference. Displaying information about religions is not equal to violating the first amendment.

Plus It's incomplete knowledge to learn history, for example, while avoiding the information it contains. Religion is part of the human condition as we know it and it can be taught inclusively.

Educating about religion with an inclusive method is also an inherent solution to religious zealotry.

Do you just dot the word inherent around arbitrarily? It's things like that that make your posts so tortuous.

Maybe it would help if you gave me an example of something that you think is spontaneous.

In my view much of the knowledge we have about the universe is completly abstract to humans. For instance, the distance of the sun from the earth is well known but humans can only discuss it in abstract terms. People have never traveled anywhere close to that distance so they have no experience that they can relate to in traveling that distance. You use abstract concepts to prove things in mathematics using logic. Kind of the same thing applies to acquiring knowledge of the universe. Human's knowledge of the universe has grown a lot but I think humans have only "scratched the surface" in acquiring knowledge to this point. There is a lot more to be learned FWIW.

Maybe it would help if you demonstrated that you are thinking for yourself, rather than whining like a troll and cherry picking.like an idiot.

Humans are the best evidence for spontaneity existing in the universe. Imagination is one attribute where spontaneity occurs. Say hi humans!

Your belief, something you have faith in. You can't possibly know this to be a fact.

Humans experience spontaneity. Look it up.

More to your point and the topic, I don't know (or state) for a fact that the universe itself is a spontaneous creation, however I do say that is on the menu.

It's possible spank also doesn't know what "intelligent", "design", or "spontaneous" means...