OK. I don't get that from my reading.
And that's a problem because over the years people have shown that there's a
lot you don't get about statistics. You took part of a course back in the 70s, and it's clear you haven't done much if anything since then or beyond that to develop expertise in statistical problem-solving. Objectively speaking, you're no good at it, and you're wrong to think that people can't tell. Your argument entails quite a lot of bluffery, pretending to be the teacher or commentator, and so forth -- roles that are not appropriate to your meager background.
That in turn is a problem because you're trying to paint yourself otherwise. You tell everyone you're a "certified statistician" in hopes that they'll believe you when you say you've solved a vexing philosophy problem using statistics. in fact you've accomplished no such thing, but you clearly intend to lie and say you have. That lie starts with claiming expertise you obviously don't have, and it continues with your rewriting and publishing debates over your alleged proof, edited to make it seem like you won. You're hunting for a "neutral jury" who -- as you say -- will "just agree." That is not an honest proof.
In the marketplace of ideas, skeptics are the consumer advocates. As much as you've tried to brush away skeptical criticism as intellectually inferior or ideologically entrenched, the fact remains that your proof comes nowhere close to passing mathematical muster. If you want to believe you're an unsung genius, that's your business. But if you try to sell that concept to others, your proof is going to have to meet a standard you can see it does not meet.
I'll go back to my reading, to see where I went wrong. If you could point me to an explanation, I'll go there.
No, Jabba. Your critics are not responsible for holding your hand for the remedial education you now admit you need. At this point, if you agree you cannot address the major criticisms against your proof, and if you agree further that you lack the appropriate knowledge, then what you need to do here is concede that your proof has failed and then thank your critics for the inordinate amount of time they have spent collectively trying to educate you.
But more to the point, you haven't shown the slightest interest in being educated. You admit you have a strong emotional attachment to this belief, and additionally to belief that you can prove it objectively. All your efforts to date have been focused not on testing your proof or acquiring the expertise to test it, but rather to cherry-pick facts that seem to support it. When your proof comes up with the wrong answer given the inputs we finally get you to see must be the case, you go back and fiddle with the inputs with no other goal in mind than to get the answer that pleases you.
It's useless to pretend this is an intellectual exercise with you. You want to use math to fool people into thinking you're a genius over and above those hated atheists, and you seem to wonder why rational people have a problem with that plan.
