Mr_Anony:
In all honesty, I've read these responses of yours twice now and I can't make the head or tail of it.

Escapism.....not surprising

davidylan: The ink had barely dried on my post when i saw this on another thread...



Sagan's wise words have never been more apt. The argument here being that evolution MUST NEEDS be true since no "reputable scientist" denies it?

Atheists are a joke.

Lololol.............funny how folks accuse others for their crimes

Mr_Anony:
In all honesty, I've read these responses of yours twice now and I can't make the head or tail of it.

If you talked to most atheists in private, they dont understand logicboy's posts either. they just play along... its the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game.

Mr_Anony:
Lololol.............funny how folks accuse others for their crimes

Anony, dont piss me off! Davidylan clearly quote mined my comment to make seem as if I was defending evolution solely on the authority of scientists

https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/3#13914514

davidylan:

If you talked to most atheists in private, they dont understand logicboy's posts either. they just play along... its the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game.

Divide and conquer abi?


lololol

^^

Logicboy03:

Divide and conquer abi?


lololol

What? Afraid to lose their ephemeral "support"?

davidylan:

What? Afraid to lose their ephemeral "support"?

Mtchew...empty barrel has nothing.


You couldnt win the argument

then you went to quote mine and it didnt work

then you went to try to use divide and conquer, it didnt work


now you want to try mockery?

Logicboy03:
Escapism.....not surprising

Not so, Actually you didn't make sense at all. I struggled to find a clear pointed argument in all your rambling.

Remember the thread is about the argument that the explanation for a fine tuned universe is a designer. The objection usually raised is that we probably exist in a multiverse whose many universes are tuned differently so that different natural laws apply in different universes.
My contention is that for this to be true, the proponent must explain what is inbetween any two universes. If the universes are 'within' each other or there is space between them, then there is no reason why the same natural laws won't apply across that space. Michio Kaku's hypotheses do not explain away fine-tuning.

This thread is all about scrutinizing the multiverse argument. All you have done is say that there are many multiverse models (which one helps the argument?) and then hint at an oscillating universe (red herring) but none of what you've said vaguely helps explain why/how these other separate universes can exist in such a way that they are separately tuned and totally independent from our universe because if they are not, then there's no point bringing them into the argument since they won't help it.

Logicboy03:

Mtchew...empty barrel has nothing.


You couldnt win the argument

then you went to quote mine and it didnt work

then you went to try to use divide and conquer, it didnt work


now you want to try mockery?

How old are you? 2?

Especially considering that the name of Carl Sagan has been mentioned at some point, I am surprised that 'directed panspermia' has not come up yet!

Some things are simply too daft to be taken seriously.

In any event, assuming even that a multiverse theory is true, will the problem of infinite regress not still come up?

Logicboy03:


Anony, dont piss me off! Davidylan clearly quote mined my comment to make seem as if I was defending evolution solely on the authority of scientists

https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/3#13914514

My apologies then

Mr_Anony:
Not so, Actually you didn't make sense at all. I struggled to find a clear pointed argument in all your rambling.

Remember the thread is about the argument that the explanation for a fine tuned universe is a designer. The objection usually raised is that we probably exist in a multiverse whose many universes are tuned differently so that different natural laws apply in different universes.
My contention is that for this to be true, the proponent must explain what is inbetween any two universes. If the universes are 'within' each other or there is space between them, then there is no reason why the same natural laws won't apply across that space. Michio Kaku's hypotheses do not explain away fine-tuning.

This thread is all about scrutinizing the multiverse argument. All you have done is say that there are many multiverse models (which one helps the argument?) and then hint at an oscillating universe (red herring) but none of what you've said vaguely helps explain why/how these other separate universes can exist in such a way that they are separately tuned and totally independent from our universe because if they are not, then there's no point bringing them into the argument since they won't help it.

I did not read past the bold which is your first premise and a blatant lie

cyrexx: ^^

Is it just me or has cyrexx become the atheist version of Olaadegbu with his endless cartoons memes

Mr_Anony:
My apologies then

Nice one.



Davidylan, this is how you divide and conquer- with evidence and truth!

Mr_Anony:
Is it just me or has cyrexx become the atheist version of Olaadegbu with his endless cartoons memes

Pictures speak a thousand words.....and Olaadegbu uses cartoons which is different from using memes and quotes

Logicboy03:


Pictures speak a thousand words.....and Olaadegbu uses cartoons which is different from using memes and quotes

Meaningless distinction.

davidylan:

Meaningless distinction.

A reetarded reply


You do realise that an internet meme/quote is not necessarily a cartoon?

Logicboy03:


Anony, dont piss me off! Davidylan clearly quote mined my comment to make seem as if I was defending evolution solely on the authority of scientists

https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/3#13914514

didnt want to waste time earlier defending this. Obviously you are this strident because it exposed the hypocrisy of cyrexx quoting Sagan to insult christians only to find out fellow atheists are the worst offenders.

What do you mean by "reputable scientists" if that wasnt an appeal to authority? Puhlease.

davidylan:

didnt want to waste time earlier defending this. Obviously you are this strident because it exposed the hypocrisy of cyrexx quoting Sagan to insult christians only to find out fellow atheists are the worst offenders.

What do you mean by "reputable scientists" if that wasnt an appeal to authority? Puhlease.

You claimed that some unbelievers were now laughing at evolution (you made the appeal to authority first- if these unbelievers dont believe in this godless evolution, why should I as a theist/christian?)



I then told you to clarify your claim by showing which reputable scientist was laughing at evolution. I didnt want you to claim some random person that no one knows

davidylan:

didnt want to waste time earlier defending this. Obviously you are this strident because it exposed the hypocrisy of cyrexx quoting Sagan to insult christians only to find out fellow atheists are the worst offenders.

What do you mean by "reputable scientists" if that wasnt an appeal to authority? Puhlease.

The double standards of the Nairaland evangelical atheists should be rather glaring to any perceptive person.

On the science, obviously the question you have posed to them repeatedly of what experiments they themselves have conducted quite exposes them as nothing but people of faith; and not even faith in science, properly speaking, but simply in scientism.

In another respect, I remember one of them quoting some American nonces and at the same time complaining that a couple of us were using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion.

davidylan:
If you talked to most atheists in private, they dont understand logicboy's posts either. they just play along... its the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game.

Lol, I agree with this judging from the quality of logicboy's arguments in comparison with the those of other atheists on this forum.

Logicboy is kinda like the loud eccentric friend they have to accommodate not because of his wit - which is extremely lacking - but because he serves their purposes as his loudness creates a distraction that they hope gives some dignity to their poor arguments and allows them to slip through without much scrutiny since everyone is busy telling logicboy just how silly he is..

Logicboy03:


Pictures speak a thousand words.....and Olaadegbu uses cartoons which is different from using memes and quotes

And the big difference is......?

Enigma:

The double standards of the Nairaland evangelical atheists should be rather glaring to any perceptive person.

On the science, obviously the question you have posed to them repeatedly of what experiments they themselves have conducted quite exposes them as nothing but people of faith; and not even faith in science, properly speaking, but simply in scientism.

In another respect, I remember one of them quoting some American nonces and complaining that a couple of us were using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion.

Wait, even Anony has clearly moved away from Davidylan's lies of me appealing to authority. You then go on to agree with him and then give an example where you brought up an American court case first to claim that atheism is a religion (by misinterpreting the case) but atheists rebutted you with the case and more cases.


Mtchew

Logicboy03:
I did not read past the bold which is your first premise and a blatant lie

Really? Perhaps you should have.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I agree with this judging from the quality of logicboy's arguments in comparison with the those of other atheists on this forum.

Logicboy is kinda like the loud eccentric friend they have to accommodate not because of his wit - which is extremely lacking - but because he serves their purposes as his loudness creates a distraction that they hope gives some dignity to their poor arguments and allows them to slip through without much scrutiny since everyone is busy telling logicboy just how silly he is..

lololololololololololololololol


This is the master of Anonyism complaining about someone elses arguments.


Excuse me while I and other rational people take your comment with a grain of salt

Mr_Anony:
Really? Perhaps you should have.

lol...of course, you know its a lie and you dont bother to defend it

Logicboy03:


Nice one.



Davidylan, this is how you divide and conquer- with evidence and truth!

what exactly did you "divide" and what exactly did you "conquer"?

Logicboy03:

lol...of course, you know its a lie and you dont bother to defend it

There's nothing to defend since you haven't show how it is a lie

Logicboy03:


Wait, even Anony has clearly moved away from Davidylan's lies of me appealing to authority. You then go on to agree with him and then give an example where you brought up an American court case first to claim that atheism is a religion (by misinterpreting the case) but atheists rebutted you with the case and more cases. Mtchew

I will indulge you on this occasion since you were at least not rude.

1. I said nothing about accusations of you and appeals to authority; it is not my business and I am not interested.

2. Find any decent lawyer; show them my explanation of the American cases that I brought up (with thanks to toba) and ask them if I misinterpreted them.

3. It is totally false what you say that the atheists brought up any case to rebut the point that atheism was held to be a religion. Please name or point to just one case that they brought up.

Logicboy03:


lololololololololololololololol


This is the master of Anonyism complaining about someone elses arguments.


Excuse me while I and other rational people take your comment with a grain of salt

Lol, you really think yourself rational?

Mr_Anony:
what exactly did you divide and what exactly did you conquer?

You apologized for accepting his lie/quote mining.


Did Davidylan lie about me appealing to authority, yes or no?

Evidence
https://www.nairaland.com/1165701/laymans-question-multiverse-theory/3#13914514