Deadly_Nightshade

Sorry, but that's not an ad hominem attack - mainly because, obviously, it was not directed against you but at your statements. You might want to look up the meaning of that along with the maths.

So he's like you, you don't know math but still know of it.

And when, exactly, did I do that?

Hey, just because he doesn't understand Dagon-Maths

An ad hominem attack? Really Dagon? Really? EDIT: And Pidesco, I agree this thread is epic.

Full of yourself much? Sure they were, Dagon. Sure the were.

I know, I know! .

However, if you claim your god manifests himself in the real, natural world, it would work - you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Uhhh... No, it's not. In fact, as I said, even if you proved that this was supernatural, something you have failed repeatably to do by the way, you would then have to provided further proof that this was your god and not something else (like Bob's Monkey).

Yes.

Massive, massive maths fail there Dagon. That's great, you're still wrong though.

I believe that he is, based on other posts, but if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt that's up to you (personally, I've come to the conclusion that he knows bollocks about math)

EDIT: Never mind.

And you have? Oh, but wait, I forgot that you like pulling stuff out of your ass and not getting called on it. Then how about you learn some math* and come back after you've done that? *And by math I mean real math and not Dagon-Maths™.

How about this? Or this? Or this? Or even, given the probably of a group of atoms occupying any specific quantum state at a certain time is remote, some magnetic phenomenae occur that rely on the existence of certain quantum states. And how, exactly, is this about feeling better? This is about you getting math wrong and making asinine claims, nothing more and nothing less.

Sure, but they do happen - exceptionally improbable events happen regardless of how improbable they are. Also, just because the odds say something is likely to occur, to use your example, once in the trillion years does not mean that they cannot occur more than once in that time-frame. Except when you do see it happen. Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that you're utterly and completely incorrect about this. EDIT: I just happen to be talking to a friend who has a physics degree, with mathematics and computer science minors, and he agrees that you're mistaken - just tossing that out there since you seem so focused on proving that you're so good with the maths.

Except that this does nothing to change the individual odds of each person, you all have the same chance of drawing the card as you you would if you were the only person - the difference is that, in your situation, you would win if anyone in your party drew the correct card and that is what raised the odds of that happening. The lottery, unless you go in as a group, does not function that way and thus your example is flawed. EDIT: And you still have yet to support your claim that things with extremely bad odds cannot happen in nature.

It's an independent Pazaak program.

Sadly, I suspect that Dagon will continue to follow Dagon-Maths

I think you mean improbable... Anyways, I was going to go into more detail about why you're mistaken about how unlikely it was, but Alanschu just described it in more detail and more eloquently than I would have.

I think that he's thinking of the common usage, in this case simply "an extremely small number that's hard for the lay person to tell from zero", and not the stricter mathematical sense.

Wouldn't that depend on if you're using the vernacular or mathematic sense of the word? Evidently.

You know, if you want support your Dagon-Maths

No, you are mistaken. A probability that is, quote, "infinitesimally close to 0" might be functionally be treated as zero for piratical purposes -hence the functional-, but that, however, does not mean that the actual odds themselves change. There is still a chance that the event would occur even if the functional, likely outcome is different. The odds say no such thing. Sorry, but, again, you're wrong. Chance can, and does, explain many things that are improbable - including this. I doubt that.