Mr_Anony:
Lol, A poor argument based on Ad Hominen and Speculative evidence.

Speculative Evidence: The argument draws a conclusion from an assertion about what the evidence would show if one were actually to find it; however, the argument appeals to evidence that has not actually been collected or does not actually exist.

e.g. "What about the possibility of many universes ba.nging with different cosmological constants until one or two comes out with life?" (absolutely no evidence for this)

[size=18pt]
Wait what?!! You are seriously disgusting. Your tactics make me sick. How can you complain about speculative evidence when we are all talking about a hypothesis(multiverse hypothesis) that has no evidence?

Hypocritically, the very basis of your arguments ie that the big bang is not compatible with the multiverse theory is speculative, or that there cant be space between two universes is also speculative. Or the very question "what is between universes" is already speculative in assuming without evidence that there are more than one universes[/size]

Mr_Anony:
Abusive Ad Hominen: The argument attacks a position by appealing to supposedly despicable qualities, moral turpitude, and over-all lowness and meanness of the person who holds the position

e.g."Anony is quite a dubious and shallow human being. After being debunked on souls and morality on two threads by both christians and atheists, he probably went to read on some apologist site about the fine tuned argument for God and the issues with a multiverse theory."(totally irrelevant to the argument and also false)

Disgusting tactics again. You took a quote that wasnt part of the the 4 arguments. See how you lie?

Mr_Anony:
Circumstantial Ad Hominen: The argument attacks a position by appealing to the vested interests of the people who hold the position.

e.g. "Notice that Anony has always been quite careful of entering cosmological arguments especially with numbers and cosmological technicalities. It is clear that he went to prepare somewhere. Victory loves preparation" (Also irrelevant to the argument: What matters are not Mr Anony's motivations but whether the argument is valid)

[size=18pt]
Disgusting tactics again. You took a quote that wasnt part of the the 4 arguments. See how you lie?



Why not address what is in the 4 arguments made and not the intro that was describing your dubious nature? And like a prophetic message of truth....you dubiously avoided tackling my rebuttals to your arguments;


-cyclical universe
-problems with fine tuned arguments for God/Life
-the multiverse being compatible with the big bang

Tackle the argument Anony! Stop the Anonyism!
[/size]

Logicboy03:
-cyclical universe

speculative argument (absolutely no observed evidence for this)

-problems with fine tuned arguments for God/Life

The fine-tuning argument points at fine-tuning as evidence for a fine-tuner in the same way a house points to an architect. All your objection was based on speculative evidence that you hope to find including the science fiction bit (transformers). You didn't say anything vaguely resembling a rebuttal

-the multiverse being compatible with the big bang

The big bang details the origin of space and time. A multiverse would mean that the big bang is not the origin of the cosmos rather a part of it. This is such a basic and trivial matter evidenced by the fact that a multiverse theory will call for some tweaking of the big bang theory.

Tackle the argument Anony! Stop the Anonyism!

Yawn.....What ever it is that you are calling an "argument" wasn't really worth tackling and I gave you reasons why.

.....and yeah, increasing the font size doesn't improve the quality of your argument in any way.

Mr_Anony:
speculative argument (absolutely no observed evidence for this)


The fine-tuning argument points at fine-tuning as evidence for a fine-tuner in the same way a house points to an architect. All your objection was based on speculative evidence that you hope to find including the science fiction bit (transformers). You didn't say anything vaguely resembling a rebuttal



The big bang details the origin of space and time. A multiverse would mean that the big bang is not the origin of the cosmos rather a part of it. This is such a basic and trivial matter evidenced by the fact that a multiverse theory will call for some tweaking of the big bang theory.


Yawn.....What ever it is that you are calling an "argument" wasn't really worth tackling and I gave you reasons why.

.....and yeah, increasing the font size doesn't improve the quality of your argument in any way.

Yawn....tackle the arguments not single lines......stop the dubious tactics!!!!!

Logicboy03: [size=18pt]4 arguments debunking all of Anonys arguments on this thread
[/size]

Anony is quite a dubious and shallow human being. After being debunked on souls and morality on two threads by both christians and atheists, he probably went to read on some apologist site about the fine tuned argument for God and the issues with a multiverse theory.

Notice that Anony has always been quite careful of entering cosmological arguments especially with numbers and cosmological technicalities. It is clear that he went to prepare somewhere. Victory loves preparation but Anony still made a flaw, he assumed that atheists do not read and wont see through his apologist arguments.


1)Hypothesis vs theory
Now, the first problem with his argument is that like Dinesh D'souza, he believes that atheists think the multiverse theory is a proper scientific theory. He tried to corner me into saying that it was well established theory so that he could lay the knock out punch that there is no evidence or little possibility for the multiverse hypothesis to be true. I made it clear to him that the multiverse is a hypothesisnot a theory


2)Answers to question of things between universes
The second problem with his argument is that his question is easily answered. What is between two universes? Simple, space or wormholes or blackholes. The wormholes or balckholes are sceintific hypothesis that alternate universes in different timelines and they serve as gateways to universese in different timelines.Furthermore, between two universes, there could only be space or distance- the universe might have different natural laws, so the gravity, temparature, speed of light etc might be just different.


3) The multiverse and the big bang are compatible
The third problem with his argument is that, after being answered on his original questions, he then shifted to the claim that the multiverse hypothesis is not compatible with the big bang. How dubious of Anony. First off, this shows a poor understanding of the big bang.

-The earliest conditions of the big b.ang are not described in the big bang theory. There could have been alternate timelines created by the same expansion, we just were placed in one timeline. There could be multiple b.anging- multiple universes created.
-Furthemore a cyclical model of mutliverses could mean that our expanding universe could have come out of a contraction of another preceding universe.


4)The problems with a fine-tuned argument for life/God/intelligent designer
The fourth problem is Anony linking the fine tuned argument to the multiverse and big bang theory. First off, his fine tuned argument for life/god is a heavily flawed one. He claims that the universe is so fine tuned for life that the most minute change will cause life to cease to exist, therefore it must be designed by some being. Anony then puts some numbers behind his claim

-"Think of it. you tweak gravity by as little as 1x10-20 your have a totally different universe, you tweak the cosmological constant by as little as 1x10-120 an entirely different non life permitting"- Anony.


This claim is very dubious for the following reasons;

a) We know the laws of this universe and that the laws of the universe allow life to exist on earth. We know what works for one universe. How then can we claim that the laws of our universe should apply to all other universes if they exist? What if life can be created with a different set of cosmological constants?

b) What about the possibility of many universes ba.nging with different cosmological constants until one or two comes out with life?

c) What about universes without life? Or at least without carbon based life? Like the transformers?

d) For thousands of years sperm has been necessary to procreate human life. Sperm has to fertilize the egg. Imagine someone claiming that sperm has been fine-tuned by an intelligent designer that any reproduction without sperm is impossible. We discovered cloning techniques that do not need sperm.

What if we discover non-carbon life? Or other laws of the universe that could create life? Hmm? A god of the gaps leads one to a close minded state. Stop using intelligent design

Logicboy03:
Yawn....tackle the arguments not single lines......stop the dubious tactics!!!!!

Lol, there is no need to waste words unnecessarily. Your "arguments" don't require long responses.

...... and yeah, calling me "dubious" doesn't improve your arguments either.

As I said earlier, even if I showed you your logical failings, you won't see them but will try to fanatically defend your failings at all costs. Consider the above as an example of me showing you how your arguments failed. You can either go back and do some reasoning or you can call me "dubious" (with large font for extra effect) until you are blue in the face.

The choice is yours all yours my friend.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, there is no need to waste words unnecessarily. Your "arguments" don't require long responses.

...... and yeah, calling me "dubious" doesn't improve your arguments either.

As I said earlier, even if I showed you your logical failings, you won't see them but will try to fanatically defend your failings at all costs. Consider the above as an example of me showing you how your arguments failed. You can either go back and do some reasoning or you can call me "dubious" (with large font for extra effect) until you are blue in the face.

The choice is yours all yours my friend.

Anony sir,

I bow in awe of your sheer dubiousness! No one this forum can match your anonyism

Logicboy03:


Anony sir,

I bow in awe of your sheer dubiousness! No one this forum can match your anonyism

Lololololol. This knight logic!

Enigma:

Yep, (in light of post above) 'directed panspermia' is now on its way to the thread - as I had expected; in fact reading back I see that there were a couple of indirect references to it or to a similar concept at least.

On another note, I see a claim that in a multiverse theory there would be no 'space' between universes but a 'void'! Obvious question: what is this 'void' or what is a 'void'?

Further, it also touches on the perrennial question of what is the known universe itself expanding into. I vary that a little: the 'singularity' itself existed in what dimension --- some 'space' or some 'void'? And at the big slam itself the 'singularity' expanded into what exactly?

lol.

Enigma, you read what sinlessness some finite fellow will say and wishes to believe you just cant help wandering why?

The other aspect is that they are constantly spining the norton that it loses all rational basis for considering it.
Smh for them.

Enigma:
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.

Have you no shame, Enigma? A full grown man like you telling lies on a public forum just to score cheap points? Are you friggin' kidding me??

For anyone that is interested, here's the post Enigma is referring to: https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11175237

Your argument was NEVER an attempt to explain how atheism had ever been held at law to be a religion. That explanation itself would have been totally unnecessary as no one ever disputed that for a moment. Instead, your duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

In other words, you argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion, therefore, atheism IS a religion. Everyone, including I, pointed out to you that even though that was the case, you cannot use that solitary example to impose a universal definition of what atheism connotes, especially as it was a legal interpretation restricted to a particular jurisdiction.

You then ridiculously went ahead to recall my previous Bill Maher quote to attempt to save face. You implied that since I quoted an American earlier, I was being hypocritical to condemn you for quoting an American law. Unfortunately for you, you failed to recognize the sheer idiocy of this comparison. People quote others all the time if the words resonate with their convictions, and it wouldn't matter if they were American, Chinese or Namibian. You, on the other hand, attempted to impose a universal definition with a legal interpretation that was CLEARLY SPECIFIC and restricted to a certain jurisdiction.

Even Deep Sight who is a theist like yourself destroyed your idiotic arguments completely on that thread, so much that all you could muster at the end was a feeble "tell that to the birds".

If you're going to misrepresent people and be telling lies all over the place, you should at least have a good memory to boot.

===
Sorry for going off-topic guys.

^^^ You always were a dunce and remain a dunce. Yep the link is there; in fact this is where my involvement started:

https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/1#11156971

I am happy for any intelligent person (can't be bothered about dunces) to read through and form their own conclusions.

Enigma: ^^^ You always were a dunce and remain a dunce. Yep the link is there; in fact this is where my involvement started:

https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/1#11156971

I am happy for any intelligent person (can't be bothered about dunces) to read through and form their own conclusions.

An everlasting dunce projecting himself on others. Lol. . . the irony.

At least you did not deny that you told lies. Lying Christian. Oh wait, isn't that a tautology?

What a foolish human being.

Purist: . . . .

At least you did not deny that you told lies. Lying Christian. Oh wait, isn't that a tautology? . . .

As I said, any intelligent person can go to the link and make their own conclusions; they can also decide whether/when I was "lying".

It is irrelevant that some dunce makes a false accusation against me -- neither here nor there.

Enigma:

As I said, any intelligent person can go to the link and make their own conclusions; they can also decisde when I was "lying".

It is irrelevant that some dunce makes a false accusation against me -- neither here nor there.

Of course the link is there for all to see. Lol. . . I brought out the link first, so don't even try to start painting some picture of persecution here.

Any intelligent person can easily see through your lies, and yes, they will. Your silly attempts to play the victim won't save you at all.

Cool that the link is there; I can in fact give quite a number of other links where the issue was again discussed ---- specifically in two and peripherally in the others.

I am never afraid of what an intelligent person will make of my posts; and I am never bothered about what a dunce makes of them.

"Those who matter do not mind; those who mind do not matter."

Enigma: Cool that the link is there; I can in fact give quite a number of other links where the issue was again discussed ---- specifically in two and peripherally in the others.

I am never afraid of what an intelligent person will make of my posts; and I am never bothered about what a dunce makes of them.

"Those who matter do not mind; those who mind do not matter."

LOL. . . keep trying to deflect attention. Maybe someone will fall for your gimmicks. Just hope.

Meanwhile, your ability to tell lies and still keep a straight face when confronted with it is quite legendary on this forum. You, sir, deserve a medal.

Purist:

LOL. . . keep trying to deflect attention. Maybe someone will fall for your gimmicks. Just hope.

Meanwhile, your ability to tell lies and still keep a straight face when confronted with it is quite legendary on this forum. You, sir, deserve a medal.

And in those very words you are lying as is natural to dunces.

Otherwise, point to my lying and keeping a straight face.

Purist:

Have you no shame, Enigma? A full grown man like you telling lies on a public forum just to score cheap points? Are you friggin' kidding me??

For anyone that is interested, here's the post Enigma is referring to: https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11175237

Your argument was NEVER an attempt to explain how atheism had ever been held at law to be a religion. That explanation itself would have been totally unnecessary as no one ever disputed that for a moment. Instead, your duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

In other words, you argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion, therefore, atheism IS a religion. Everyone, including I, pointed out to you that even though that was the case, you cannot use that solitary example to impose a universal definition of what atheism connotes, especially as it was a legal interpretation restricted to a particular jurisdiction.

You then ridiculously went ahead to recall my previous Bill Maher quote to attempt to save face. You implied that since I quoted an American earlier, I was being hypocritical to condemn you for quoting an American law. Unfortunately for you, you failed to recognize the sheer idiocy of this comparison. People quote others all the time if the words resonate with their convictions, and it wouldn't matter if they were American, Chinese or Namibian. You, on the other hand, attempted to impose a universal definition with a legal interpretation that was CLEARLY SPECIFIC and restricted to a certain jurisdiction.

Even Deep Sight who is a theist like yourself destroyed your idiotic arguments completely on that thread, so much that all you could muster at the end was a feeble "tell that to the birds".

If you're going to misrepresent people and be telling lies all over the place, you should at least have a good memory to boot.

===
Sorry for going off-topic guys.

PURIST!!! GADDEM! You sabi finish person ooo!!



Abeg, Enigma, this is the second person (the first was me) that has exposed your lies here and on that thread in detail. In detail.



You are not fooling anybody here. Go away

^^^ And you contradict one another on what I said about atheism being held to be a religion, lol.

Anyway, remember that my warning and condition to you still stands.

Enigma: Cool that the link is there; I can in fact give quite a number of other links where the issue was again discussed ---- specifically in two and peripherally in the others.

I am never afraid of what an intelligent person will make of my posts; and I am never bothered about what a dunce makes of them.

"Those who matter do not mind; those who mind do not matter."

Wow, acting like you put the links up by yourself in the first place.

Is Anony teaching you christians how to be dubious?

Enigma: ^^^ And you contradict one another on what I said about atheism being held to be a religion, lol.

Anyway, remember that my warning and condition to you still stands.

I didnt contradict anybody. Your lies were numerous on that thread. Nice try.

The best thing for you would be to shut up and save face.

Logicboy03:



I didnt contradict anybody. Your lies were numerous on that thread. Nice try.

The best thing for you would be to shut up and save face.

Look, earlier I deliberately saved your blushes i.e. saved you embarassment when you pretended you could not find the thread. Remember that you in fact lied that the atheists brought up many cases. But I let you off.

If I was afraid of the link being brought up, why did I challenge you to bring the link up?

Oh, by the way and for the avoidance of doubt: I stand completely by the arguments I made on that thread and the related threads about atheism being held to be a religon.

Enigma:


Look, earlier I deliberately saved your blushes i.e. saved you embarassment when you pretended you could not find the thread. Remember that you in fact lied that the atheists brought up many cases. But I let you off.

If I was afraid of the link being brought up, why did I challenge you to bring the link up?

Save my embarrassment? You made the claim here first that atheists are hypocritical when agreeing with Davidylan. I then went to tell you that you were debunked on that thread.

You were the one to bring up the thread. You made the claim first not me.


Funny enough, you cant even see how silly you are claiming that atheism is a religion. Even if you are right (which you are clearly not) it would make atheism only a religion in America.

^^^ OK now you have the thread and link: show us the "cases" that atheists brought up to refute me.

Enigma: Oh, by the way and for the avoidance of doubt: I stand completely by the arguments I made on that thread and the related threads about atheism being held to be a religon.

Yes, even the christians here have started moving away from that position. Some have tried to move on to claim that EVANGELICAL atheism not atheism on its own is a religion.

Of course, there is no such thing as evangelical atheism.

Enigma:

And in those very words you are lying as is natural to dunces.

Otherwise, point to my lying and keeping a straight face.

Look, my business here is done. I already elaborated your argument in detail and recalled all that transpired on that thread including what led to the post I first responded to on this particular thread. I have shown how you dubiously attempted to accuse me and others of appealing to authority when all we did was quote the words of people that buttressed our points. It's all there for everyone to see and reach their conclusions accordingly.

Be assured though, that whatever intelligent conclusions that will be reached by anybody will certainly not portray you in a good light. There's no wriggling your way out of this one this time.

Logicboy03:


PURIST!!! GADDEM! You sabi finish person ooo!!


Abeg, Enigma, this is the second person (the first was me) that has exposed your lies here and on that thread in detail. In detail.


You are not fooling anybody here. Go away

Enigma tells lies for a living.

(apologies to jayriginal and Deep Sight)

Logicboy03:


Yes, even the christians here have started moving away from that position. Some have tried to move on to claim that EVANGELICAL atheism not atheism on its own is a religion.

Of course, there is no such thing as evangelical atheism.

After I showed that the American Court of Appeal and Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion, Kay asked and I responded:

Kay 17: 3. Which do you contend to be the religion?? Atheism or evangelical atheism??

Enigma: I prefer to be specific to evangelical atheism. The reason is simple: to distinguish the kind of atheism of passive atheists, dogs, cows, monkeys etc from the active evangelising and miltant atheism that is evangelical atheism. Afterall, atheists sometimes proffer the duplicitous argument that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God; well that is true of dogs, cows, monkeys, passive atheists etc but you don't see them going to court to declare their form of atheism to be a religion.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11173552


Now this exchange is making me laugh because the evangelical atheists are desperate and want to bully, bamboozle non-discerning people into not seeing that they too are now religionists.

Nah, don't work with someone like me I'm afraid; evangelical atheism is now a religion and evangelical atheists are religionists --- some of them fundamentalists aka fundagelical atheists at that.

Purist:

Look, my business here is done. I already elaborated your argument in detail and recalled all that transpired on that thread including what led to the post I first responded to on this particular thread. I have shown how you dubiously attempted to accuse me and others of appealing to authority when all we did was quote the words of people that buttressed our points. It's all there for everyone to see and reach their conclusions accordingly.

Be assured though, that whatever intelligent conclusions that will be reached by anybody will certainly not portray you in a good light. There's no wriggling your way out of this one this time.

You are too thick and too much of a dunce to be able to present my argument properly; so I couldn't be bothered.

Addendum: apart from being a thicko and a dunce, the mumu is also a liar and a slanderer otherwise by now he would have produced evidence of his accusation about me lying and keeping straight face ------ which is supposed to be "legendary".

Enigma:

I am too thick and too much of a dunce to be able to refute your post properly; so I couldn't be bothered.

There, corrected.

Enigma: Addendum: apart from being a thicko and a dunce, the mumu is also a liar and a slanderer otherwise by now he would have produced evidence of his accusation about me lying and keeping straight face ------ which is supposed to be "legendary".

The evidence you seek is just a few posts ago. Are you so obtuse that you do not realize when you've been exposed as the reprobate charlatan that you are?

Damn, this is getting too embarrassing. I'm beginning to feel like a bully.

^ You see that you are the unashamed liar now.

So where is the evidence of this "legendary" lying with straight face on my part.

As I said before, on the substantive matter you are too thick and dense and too much of a dunce to be able to understand let alone present my argument. I will not even waste my time in that regard.

However, you could show me to be this "legendary liar" ------ by producing evidence.