Tetehjewels:


In other words you know nothing. Thanks for your time

Bwahahahahaha! Yes hypocrisis is scary, not surprised you are running away.

Tetehjewels:


Kindly focus on the pointers from my first post and stop trying to drag me down the path of Gods existence or lack of because that is not the reason for this thread. Thanks

Lol. I didn't even mention God in that comment you just quoted.

My argument is consistent with a primary premise of your main post and is not about God.

Your premise which conclusively asserts the multiverse theory is false because it isn't inductive.

That's the premise I am contending.

I'm trying to do two things:

1. Show you how that position refutes your own conclusion of (something/someone) being outside the universe influencing it because it is as much deductive as the multiverse theory, so, if anything that isn't inductive is false as you imply then you'd have no basis to hold the position of (something/someone) because that would be a contradicting and self refuting distinct positions to hold.

2. To show you that something isn't inductive doesn't necessarily mean it is false. And to think otherwise (as implied in your argument that multi verse theory must be false because it isn't inductive) is a very flawed argument.

Tetehjewels:


Can you explain why the big bang is still a thing despite being rubbished by the law of conservation of mass? if yes, please do. if no then your attempts at shifting the goal post is not welcome

I actually have no business with explaining this or the multiverse theory, because neither of them is my argument.

My argument contends your basic premise of conclusively asserting a position is false because it is deductive and not inductive.

And the self refuting position of your conclusion being deductive still.

You seem to not be aware of that fundamental flaw in your argument.

johnydon22:


Lol. I didn't even mention God in that comment you just quoted.

My argument is consistent with a primary premise of your main post and is not about God.

Your premise which conclusively asserts the multiverse theory is false because it isn't inductive.

That's the premise I am contending.

I'm trying to do two things:

1. Show you how that position refutes your own conclusion of (something/someone) being outside the universe influencing it because it is as much deductive as the multiverse theory, so, if anything that isn't inductive is false as you imply then you'd have no basis to hold the position of (something/someone) because that would be a contradicting and self refuting distinct positions to hold.

2. To show you that something isn't inductive doesn't necessarily mean it is false. And to think otherwise (as implied in your argument that multi verse theory must be false because it isn't inductive) is a very flawed argument.

Took my time to go through your profile and came to the realization that you are an atheist which explains why you were a bit more fixated on using my post to try to shift things to Gods existence or lack of which is same as the other guy who earlier engaged me.

However, since you are on the self refuting wagon i guess your comment as quoted below here also refutes your God does not exist proposition

2. To show you that something isn't inductive doesn't necessarily mean it is false. And to think otherwise (as implied in your argument that multi verse theory must be false because it isn't inductive) is a very flawed argument.

Your words imply that since something isn't inductive does not mean it is false. Use this to refer to the existence of God or lack of and this shows your atheism is flawed.

The above was an aside and not meant to be a digression from the topic so now that we are both even on self refutations, Have a good morning.

Tetehjewels:


Took my time to go through your profile and came to the realization that you are an atheist which explains why you were a bit more fixated on using my post to try to shift things to Gods existence or lack of which is same as the other guy who earlier engaged me.

However, since you are on the self refuting wagon i guess your comment as quoted below here also refutes your God does not exist proposition



Your words imply that since something isn't inductive does not mean it is false. Use this to refer to the existence of God or lack of and this shows your atheism is flawed.

The above was an aside and not meant to be a digression from the topic so now that we are both even on self refutations, Have a good morning.

You are funny. Was it not you who mentioned god in your OP? Was it you who said NO SCIENTISTS held with the multiverse? Why are you now sounding like you never said these things?

LordReed:


You are funny. Was it not you who mentioned god in your OP? Was it you who said NO SCIENTISTS held with the multiverse? Why are you now sounding like you never said these things?

If you lack the ability to recognize an example then say so and it would be explained to you. My post was a comparison between two scientific positions which one cancels out the other in totality. Big bang theory and the law of the conservation of mass.

No scientist who is worth his weight holds the multiverse hypothesis as fact because it cannot be falsified scientifically thus making it something outside science since it is now fictional.

Do you understand better now?

Tetehjewels:


Took my time to go through your profile and came to the realization that you are an atheist which explains why you were a bit more fixated on using my post to try to shift things to Gods existence or lack of which is same as the other guy who earlier engaged me.

This is non sequitur, so I won't reply this statement.

Let's focus on the premise of the thread and the one I am refuting which is: You, implying that deduction is completely false.

However, since you are on the self refuting wagon i guess your comment as quoted below here also refutes your God does not exist proposition

If you know me well enough, you'd realise that I am a very open minded person who loves logic and philosophy.

Deduction (logic) or reason, makes approximation that may be true or not.

Induction empirically substantiates.

Deductive approach doesn't make multiverse theory true, it doesn't make it false, the problem is that you believe it makes it false, I am sure I have shown you the fault in that argument.

God also, derived through deduction, doesn't make it false. God may or may not exist. I can only be guilty of your flawed argument, if I insist that God is completely false because God as a transcendent quality cannot be observed but deduced, cannot be empirically proven rather conceived.

So, God is subject to deduction doesn't make God inexistent if God truly exist.

I'm guessing you didn't see this coming.

Your words imply that since something isn't inductive does not mean it is false.

"necessarily"

Mean it can be true or false.

But to assert that it is completely false is flawed.

Use this to refer to the existence of God or lack of and this shows your atheism is flawed.

Lol. I have already shown this on this board.

An atheist can say "I don't believe in God" this statement remains a reasonable unbelief to a concept derived through deduction.

But, if one says "God, does not exist because God can't be proven" then such a person has committed the same flawed argument as you. Because God isn't empirically proven (Can't be empirically proven) doesn't mean God doesn't exist if it actually exists.

This thread of mine Atheistic burden of proof Will help you: https://www.nairaland.com/5455876/atheistic-burden-proof

The above was an aside and not meant to be a digression from the topic

Lol. Your whole argument was built on that premise. When you base your argument on a faulty premise, your syllogism falls apart.

so now that we are both even on self refutations, Have a good morning.

Actually, we don't. I did not say "God, is completely false because it can't be proven through induction"

My atheistic stance is simply an unbelief not a counter claim to God existing.

johnydon22:
This is non sequitur, so I won't reply this statement.

Let's focus on the premise of the thread and the one I am refuting which is: You, implying that deduction is completely false.

If you know me well enough, you'd realise that I am a very open minded person who loves logic and philosophy.

Deduction (logic) or reason, makes approximation that may be true or not.

Induction empirically substantiates.

Deductive approach doesn't make multiverse theory true, it doesn't make it false, the problem is that you believe it makes it false, I am sure I have shown you the fault in that argument.

God also, derived through deduction, doesn't make it false. God may or may not exist. I can only be guilty of your flawed argument, if I insist that God is completely false because God as a transcendent quality cannot be observed but deduced, cannot be empirically proven rather conceived.

So, God is subject to deduction doesn't make God inexistent if God truly exist.

I'm guessing you didn't see this coming.


"necessarily"

Mean it can be true or false.

But to assert that it is completely false is flawed.

Lol. I have already shown this on this board.

An atheist can say "I don't believe in God" this statement remains a reasonable unbelief to a concept derived through deduction.

But, if one says "God, does not exist because God can't be proven" then such a person has committed the same flawed argument as you. Because God isn't empirically proven (Can't be empirically proven) doesn't mean God doesn't exist if it actually exists.

This thread of mine Atheistic burden of proof Will help you: https://www.nairaland.com/5455876/atheistic-burden-proof


Lol. Your whole argument was built on that premise. When you base your argument on a faulty premise, your syllogism falls apart.

Actually, we don't. I did not say "God, is completely false because it can't be proven through induction"

My atheistic stance is simply an unbelief not a counter claim to God existing.

in a nutshell you are a "Player". A logical Player with no foothold of your own.

Like i said, my comment was not meant to digress so you can stop trying to make this a God vs Atheism thing.

My question still remains, how come scientists still lean on the Big bang theory as the origin of our universe when the law of conservation of mass calls it a foolish theory?

Can you focus now?

Tetehjewels:


If you lack the ability to recognize an example then say so and it would be explained to you. My post was a comparison between two scientific positions which one cancels out the other in totality. Big bang theory and the law of the conservation of mass.

No scientist who is worth his weight holds the multiverse hypothesis as fact because it cannot be falsified scientifically thus making it something outside science since it is now fictional.

Do you understand better now?

Did you or did you not mention god in your OP? DId you not attempt to prop up your god proposition with what you perceived as the failure of science?

And when I answered you with the fact that we do not know what kind of system our universe is, was it not you who brought up multiverse? Is Stephen Hawking a scientist worth his weight? How about Brian Greene? Or Sean Carroll? Or Neil DeGrasse Tyson? are these people who are proponents of the multiverse hypothesis worth their weight?

Tetehjewels:


in a nutshell you are a "Player". A logical Player with no foothold of your own.

Lol. I'm an atheist meaning I do not believe in God.

Like i said, my comment was not meant to digress so you can stop trying to make this a God vs Atheism thing.

Once you accept the faultiness of your premise, then I'm good with you.

My question still remains, how come scientists still lean on the Big bang theory as the origin of our universe when the law of conservation of mass calls it a foolish theory?

Because yet again, you are basing your question on a faulty assumption.

If the Big Bang is true, then as propounded, space, time and every physical law was directly as a result of it.

Your question assumes that the big bang which by definition preceeds physical laws is subject to it.

Do you, yet again, see the flaw of this premise too?

Even so, the Big bang still doesn't in anyway contradict the law of conservation of mass you have been tauting around here.

Can you focus now?

What do you think I have been doing?

LordReed:


Did you or did you not mention god in your OP? DId you not attempt to prop up your god proposition with what you perceived as the failure of science?

And when I answered you with the fact that we do not know what kind of system our universe is, was it not you who brought up multiverse? Is Stephen Hawking a scientist worth his weight? How about Brian Greene? Or Sean Carroll? Or Neil DeGrasse Tyson? are these people who are proponents of the multiverse hypothesis worth their weight?

Sigh! This one is the definition of confusion itself.

Tetehjewels:


Sigh! This one is the definition of confusion itself.

What is obvious here is you are trapped in web of your own making. Can you deny you didn't do these things or that your position is falsified by simple facts?

LordReed:


What is obvious here is you are trapped in web of your own making. Can you deny you didn't do these things or that your position is falsified by simple facts?

face palm

Tetehjewels:


face palm

At least be honest to your palm.