Mr_Anony:
Lol, you really think yourself rational?

Logicboy03:

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

Logicboy03:

Simple example.


What is wrong with my evolutionary basis for evolution? What is irrational about that argument that I have pushed forward on this forum?


This will be entertaining

Enigma:

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.

Mr_Anony:
Red herring.....I'm sure I and Uyi Iredia have pointed the errors in the same threads where you've made that proposition.

Mr_Anony:
And so? What you are not telling me is how apologizing translates into "division" and "conquering"

Logicboy03:



1) You indirectly accepted Davidylan's lie about an atheist (me) appealing to science by quoting his comment and then going on to complain about scientism and other atheists appealing to science.

2) Atheism is not a religion. I and other atheists explained that the case showed that atheism is treated like a religion when it comes to free speech/freedom of expression purposes. Simple. Atheism is not a religion


3) The thread is long agao. I dont have time to be digging up threads at your will.

Enigma:

Whenever you find this case please bring it up --- except it does not exist.

And in that specific thread, I showed that all the lay people and sadly even the lawyer among them were ignorant and arguing blindly. And it was quite easy to do too. Still makes me laugh when I remember hat thread (and a couple that preceded it on a similar point actually).

thehomer:
Intelligent design creationism as a hypothesis is testable and has so far failed.

How do you know the universe is fine-tuned if you do not know what it was fine-tuned for? So no, it isn't a scientific fact. The scientific fact is that we've been able to precisely measure certain characteristics it has.

No, the big bang is the explanation for the origin of our own space and time. What it means is that other universes would have their own space and time.

Okay. But it isn't that the other universes are expanding within space because space is found within the universe not outside it.

For me, the fine-tuning argument is simply a poor argument based on hubris and puddle thinking so I don't see a need to introduce a multiverse though I've read somethings about the idea.

Again, not if the singularities that universes arise from are far enough apart.

And that is one of the problems with the fine-tuning argument. It assumes that the universe was created for the purpose of generating life while someone else who looks at the universe can easily come to a different conclusion.

Mr_Anony:
Red herring.....I'm sure I and Uyi Iredia have pointed the errors in the same threads where you've made that proposition.

Logicboy03:

Name one of these errors. I dare you.


You implied that I was irrational and incoherent especially to my atheist buddies. This should be simple to prove. You seem to be sweating.

Logicboy03:
You didnt support his statement that I appealed to authority...a division that butthurt Davidylan.

Mr_Anony:
There is nothing to sweat about. I don't see the need to drag this thread along an unnecessary tangent. The link is posted below for those who want to read through the thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/1104194/evolutionary-basis-morality-lesson-christians

No reason to drag this one on a tagent

Mr_Anony:
And how is that a division? we both still have the same opinion of your arguments. That you didn't appeal to authority in that instant doesn't make your arguments overall any less silly.

Mr_Anony: Assuming you Cyrexx and I were playing poker and I consistently got 4 Aces consecutively over 20 rounds of dealing, would you accept it if I gave the explanation that the same poker game is currently taking place in an infinite number of alternate realities and this just happens to be the one where Anony gets 4 aces 20 consecutive times? or would you infer that I was cheating i.e either I designed it to be that way or someone else designed it to be that way for me?

By the way, the odds of me getting 4 Aces 20 consecutive times is roughly 1 in 10¹¹. The odds of the universe being how it is so that it permits conscious life is more than 1 in 10¹²⁰

You be the judge.

Logicboy03:



lies....is it so hard to point out something that is irrational?


For instance, I can easily point out that belief in God is irrational because there is no evidence for him; he is timeless, spaceless and invisible to us. God can not be measured by science or our 5 senses.

[size=18pt]
Anony.....I dare you to point on something that is irrational about my argument on morality. Very simple. Point it out or forever hold your peace that I'm not irrational[/size]




Note that Anony didnt point a specific post of his on that thread.

Logicboy03:
you are divided on that issue of appealing to authority.....end of story

Mr_Anony:
Yawn............

[size=24pt]1. It is futile showing you your irrationality because you will irrationally and fanatically defend it[/size]

2. I see you have lost steam on this argument so you are trying hard to get the thread derailed

3. The link to the thread has been posted so anyone who wants can go read it.

You have no point.

Mr_Anony:
Yawn......seeking cheap points now are we?

Mr_Anony:
Wow! a void you say? Exactly how would you go about describing this "void"? Remember that space is within the universes so I'd like to see you describe this void non-spatially. Thank you.

Mr_Anony:
First of all, Intelligent Design and creationism are two different things plus I'll be really interested in this "test" you are talking about. Care to tell me about it?

Mr_Anony:
Characteristics which if they differed in accuracy by as much as 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (120 decimal places), conscious life wouldn't exist. Yeah I'd say the universe was fine tuned to give rise to conscious life.

Mr_Anony:
Good


Good too




Really how so?

Mr_Anony:
I can't understand how you can talk of "far apart" outside the universes if space only exists within the universes

Mr_Anony:
I think you have misconstrued the argument ever so slightly. It is a fact that the universe permits life. It is also a fact that if the initial conditions that govern the universe were even slightly different to the tune of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (a very conservative estimate by the way) life simply wouldn't exist and not only that, we would also have an entirely different kind of universe.

Mr_Anony:
In order to legitimately write this off as chance, one must propose a world of an infinite number of universes (multiverse) all tuned differently so that ours just happens to be the one that permits life.
The problem with it is that not only is the theory untested, and has a few problems, It is also a very unreasonable way to argue and seems that its sole purpose is not to follow the evidence but to grasp for any reason no matter how far fetched that helps it deny the evidence and wriggle out of it's implications. As Alvin Platinga puts it and I paraphrase

Assuming you Cyrexx and I were playing poker and I consistently got 4 Aces consecutively over 20 rounds of dealing, would you accept it if I gave the explanation that the same poker game is currently taking place in an infinite number of alternate realities and this just happens to be the one where Anony gets 4 aces 20 consecutive times? or would you infer that I was cheating i.e either I designed it to be that way or someone else designed it to be that way for me?

By the way, the odds of me getting 4 Aces 20 consecutive times is roughly 1 in 10¹¹. The odds of the universe being how it is so that it permits conscious life is more than 1 in 10¹²⁰

You be the judge.

cyrexx:

Anony,

our universe is composed of billions of superclusters of galaxies, each superclusters contains billilions of galaxies, each galaxies are composed of billions of stars and our sun is just a star with eight planets.

Just imagine how many possible trillions upon trillions of planets are possible. It would be a miracle if at least one of those planets does not have a lucky combination of conditions necessary for life.

Using your analogy of poker games, it is indeed possible to arrive at that results (20aces); if the cards are dealt in an extremely long sequence of billions upon billions of times; just similar to the one planet among billions upon billions of planets having the lucky combinations of elements to support life.

This is not a miracle, it is probability, however slim it is. And improbability is not impossibility

Logicboy03:


You didnt support his statement that I appealed to authority...a division that butthurt Davidylan.

davidylan:

huh? butt hurt? I had to wash my car and run errands. Many of us have lives you know.

thehomer:

I'm describing it as devoid of matter.

You're welcome.

Mr_Anony:
Yawn............

[size=14pt]1. It is futile showing you your irrationality because you will irrationally and fanatically defend it[/size]

Logicboy03:

1) So, in other words you have just called me a foolish fool, that has no reasoning to see a valid criticism of my statement. Note that Anony will later go on hypocritically to claim that I am abusive and no christian will call Anony out on this



I repeat one last time;


Anony.....I dare you to point on something that is irrational about my argument on morality. Very simple. Point it out or forever hold your peace that I'm not irrational

Never call me irrational again because I will take it as an insult and I will abuse you back mercilessly

thehomer:
No they're not really different things. They're generally the same idea simply made to look different. "Irreducible complexity" of the eye has been shown not to be so.

You cannot make that conclusion unless you've actually examined enough of the universe to know this. How do you know that the universe wasn't fine tuned to give rise to say diamonds? Given the fact that there are some characteristics that if they differed by the small figure you've given above, it would have made no difference how do you know it was made for life?

It is puddle thinking because the fact that we find ourselves in a universe and think that it suits us so well doesn't mean it was made for us. Just as it is justifiable for an amoeba that finds itself in a puddle think that the puddle was made for it.

I'm using it as a relative term i.e they're not occupying the same space that this one is occupies.

I haven't misconstrued it. You claimed that it was made for life.

No, one doesn't need to propose such a world because because you simply cannot calculate these probabilities that you're claiming.

You don't even know that there is a multiverse in the first place.

You are assuming that the values that we've calculated must be mutable because we've assigned numbers and units to them but guess what, it may not be so. We simply don't have enough information to make such conclusions so the probability claims simply go out the window.

Logicboy03: @Anony,
Since you have ignored my comment, I take it that oyu have no basis to call me irrational since you couldnt back up your claim

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I didn't ignore your comment because I can't back up my claim - one only needs to look through your posts on this forum to see your irrationality - I ignored your comment because I didn't want to derail this thread.

As for you being irrational, that's a fact and I am sure I've pointed that out to you many times on numerous threads. If you were unable to get it then, I see no reason why you'll get it now.

I just don't think it is worth my while for me to derail this thread in favour of comments about your rationality (or lack of it rather)

Mr_Anony: Hi everyone, just a question I've been pondering over. Here it is:


If the multiverse theory is true, what exists between any two universes?

Mr_Anony:
Lol this does not help you at all. . . . . . . .devoid of matter means nothing because even if it were just empty space, the same cosmological constants will still apply. gravitational pull from matter in our universe will still reach across the space to have an effect on the matter in the other universe and vice versa so that essentially you really only have one massive universe larger than we once thought and all our known universe would be is one mega-galaxy with smaller galaxies, stars and planets all in the same space. You would have only succeeded in pushing the question back one step.

Mr_Anony:
The only way you can have universes with completely different natural laws is if this void you are talking about is a spaceless entity for which I'll ask you to explain exactly what the nature of this void is.