Monday, February 14, 2011

Poor Atheist Arguments: The Multiverse Part 1


Atheists treat the muliverse as though it's a done deal and automatic disproof of any God Argument. Here's an exchange on carm between myself and some atheists.

Quote:here he quotes me from our argument before.
Meta (Before) generalized overstatement. you can't say that as though all physicists and cosmologists are just absolutely certain there are other universes. I know for fact there are many who don't. there's evdience to support it and I have 26 arguments against it.

Well I'm not going to go make an argument from majority, but I will say that more accept the multiverse than not. And I know that more accept a multiverse than god having been responsible for it.

Accept it in what way? As a certainty or a plausibility? That makes a big difference because it's not fair to say that an arguemnt that is merely "plausible" kills another argument that well grounded.

Inflation predicts a multiverse, each universe having a different set of parameters than ours. Inflation cosmology has made many spot on predictions before and is accepted almost universally by cosmologists. You don't seem to understand that this prediction isn't something cosmologists came up with in their sleep, it's something they can conclude based on the current data. Now if you want to disagree with their conclusion then show me some better data. Where is your data? Oh that's right you don't have one fucking scrap of evidence, how could I forget.
Ironically, the major source I use on my fine tuning page is Adre Linde. He invented the inflationary theory. So the argument you are using is invented by the guy I use to document my fine tuning argument. Now does mean by that that we can bank on Mlitiverse as a proven fact? I think you know beter. If you at the 26 arguments I qutoe several major leading physicists who say it can never be proved. You want to pretend that the little magic men have some magic data that guarontees that they are right. But that's stupid. Because those men themselves admit there's no proof.

Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa

"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."

Potty mouth SR
What do you offer up instead? Philosophy. Yep, a bunch of non experts that have explicative eleted clue what they're talking about. They are not using science they're using common philosophical sense, which in physics is useless. You're 26 “arguments” were piss poor straw men. It's obvious you don't understand what the multiverse even is! So why should I hold your fucking hand through it all and give you the old “and this is why this is wrong”?

It's clear this guy knows zip about philosophy. He think deductive reasoning is "common sense." He thinks philosophers like common sense! waht a dweebe. You can see waht a total ... he is because I just got through quoting through quoting an exerpt in physics.

notice of course he doesn't quote one. He asserts here are such people, he does not quote them. He has no understanding of debate whatsoever.

I have 26 arguments aginst multiverse. you have not answered one of hem.


I know what you're doing. You think that if you overwhelm me with bullshit that I won't address all of it and then you can bitch that I didn't answer, meaning I must of just not been able to answer.

is that an argument? does he even bother to look at one of them? No, he doesnt' even bother to check to see if even one makes sesnse. He also doesn't check to see how long the page has been there, he acts like I put it up just for him: it's been up 10 years.

I've linked to them several times.

SR (aka old potty mouth)
Yeah I'm aware of that. I've been liked to your shitty site about a thousand times, big whoop. Do you think that I have all the time in the world? Do you think I get up and go “today sounds like a good day to refute MetaCrocks bullshit”? Do ya? I will NOT waste my time and go through that bullshit. Spin it anyway you want..
Is that an argument? does he provide one single sentila of evidence ot prove anything that I say is "BS?" No he does not. He just asserts like he asserts everything else and you are supposed to believe him because he's so mature.

(1) show the hit rate for life in the MV


Hit rate? Again different parameters means different chemistry, so the hit rate is unknown.

well duh! the whole bleeding multiverse is unknown you dweebe! Guess what? you still don't get to assert it as a fact because it can't be proved, stupid!


Doesn't mean you get to make the conclusion that life couldn't exist, sorry that game doesn't work with me. You started this by claiming it to be true so you have the burden proof. You say the universe is fine tuned for life so it is up to you prove that such is this case.

I did that stupid. that's what all stuff way back in the op was about. that's what the stuff on the web page is around you little illiterate clod. You are so stupid you can't even understand how arguemnts are made.

You. Not me. You. Got that yet? Don't change the subject and say “well you poopy head atheists should prove you're right”. No, fuck you. I know you want me to show my hand but you don't plan on showing me yours. Your circle jerk logic isn't evidence okay? Get some data, then well talk.
learn something about argumentation you (explicative compounded and deleted). you cannot assert an argument without proving it. you have not proved the multiverse, you have not quoted a single authority or study or any shred of data that proves it. You have not quoted anything! So you have not proved your assertion. you assert the multiverse beats my argument. you must prove that it exists. that's the ruels of logic, stupid.

that's the way it works, you assert an argument you have to prove it. you can't hang the burden of proof on me to disprove your nonsense just because I'm asserting something else at another point.

You really need to study logic. you don't understand anything. I know you are not Ph.D. student. you are a liar. You are not a student.l you are far too stupid.

(2) each space/time in the MV would have to be fine tuned too to produce life, you just multiply the problem

This doesn't even make any (four letter word beginning with f and rhyming with puck) sense. Be more clear when you speak.

why doesn't it? because you are stupid to understand it are you really so dumb that you can't figure what "hit rate" is? God want a moron. How could you possibly be in graduate school?

It means. stupid, that before we know that the mulitiverse would kill the fine tuning argument we must know, after the fact that it exits, at what rate life appears in each universe. That is crucial becuase if none of then have life in them we can say the fine tuning argument is right, life is extremely improbable. The fewer that have life the more improbable it is. So we have to knw the hit rate, or the rate of how many universes have life.

you can't prove that. just because they have different ones doesn't mean those others don't have to fine tuned too.

That. Is . It.
Do you not understand that not being able to live in another universe does not mean that the one you live in is fine tuned for you? That's theism for ya, make assumption after assumption never to stop and test them.
you don't even understand what fine tuning means. that is not the arguemnt. no arguemnt says "we can't live in other universes." that has nothing to do wti hit. the issue is how improbable is life in a given universe? The other unvierse. if they exist, would have to be fine tunned to. So how does that beat fine tuning if they also to be fine tunned?


but that can't happen without proof. The reason the BB has been accepted universally and is seen as "good science" is exactly because we do have proof it. The background radiation and the expansion of the universe, we can't have that kind evidence of the MV not at all. probably never will.

I've already talked about why the multiverse IS good science. Only a theist that has an agenda will argue against it. That, or one that doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about(you).

you talked about it. You didnt offer any kind of proof. so it is not proved. just talking about it doesn't prove anything.

man this pathetic. this is his big "show down--this is the end I'm going to get you" thin and its' pathetic. I've seen restarted people follow issues better than this guy does.

Poo Poo on it all you like big guy, it won't make it go away. You are one dishonest (four leter ford ryming with suck). You use science when it supports your case but mock it when it contradicts you. Then you go on to say “ Ha that science and it's “evidence” pfffftt..”

Hes' also so grandiloquent isn't he? "you big bad guy (explicative deleted) that just says it all.


but you can't show a single case of any other kind of life, or a single case of another universe. all you have is total speculation. you argument is no better than saying "if you are wrong you are wrong" that's exactly all you are saying.

You can't show that other universes with different physical parameters can;t harbor life. Check mate.
But I don't have to show that. Because it's not my burden of proof to disprove the multivesre, since you have not proved it. It can't beat the fine tuning argument until we have basic reason to believe it exist. you have not provided a single quote form any source. I have given 26 reasons not to accept MV and I backed most of them up with quotes form either physicists or philosophers who are expert in cosmology. you on the other hand provide nothing.

if if if if you don't have any answers. you have no evidence.

If if if if you don't understand this subject keep your (explicative rhymes with mucking) mouth shut and stop C&P from other sites.
you have clearly demonstrated that you don't understand logic, argument, debate, or documentation.


Here are my 26 argumetns against the multiverse.

Again? Really? You're not some rocket scientist. You are a wanna be apologist. Shove that link up your ass.

read the list man. what are you afraid of?

we are cable of doing that. that's not the question. the question is now likely is it that a universe suitable for them came to be and hit all the proper trip wires right down the line when each one was extremely improbable.

Hey wait a minute! That's analogy!

Don't worry I know you wont admit you're full of (explieicative deleted by rymes with hit).

No its not an analogy that's exactly literally what the argument is. btw I think you are full of hit too. hit rate. what it rate on your illiteracy?

It's just silly to think that other universes would not have vast improbabilities. the only example we have of a universe is a vast web of great improbabilities. Why wouldn't another be also?

You stupid little man. Every atom, every proton, every electron, everything is improbable but has zero to (ryhmes with wucking) g do with whether it is designed. If you think that improbability=design then you sir are a massive fuckhead.
aha (1) you pathetic little retardate, the fine tuning argument is not about deisgn per se. tis' not a design argument.

(2) your chilcish little outburst is not an argument. I know you haven't' the intellect to understand this,but what you said just now has nothing to do with anything. Its not any kind of answer. you did not answer the argument stupid.


I want to know what you mean by "creation theists?" anyone who believes in god of any kind would believe in creation, even a theist evolutionist would believe God created. That's like saying "one of them God believing Christians." You know as opposed to all those atheist Christians.

If you believe the universe was designed then you are a creation theist.
O there's true brilliance for you. He thinks it's a design argument. he thinks belief in design means you don't believe in evolution. so he hasn't figured out what I knew in second grade. that evolution can be part of design.


Claiming it looks design= It is designed doesn't always follow(ask Paley).
I don't argue Paley that is not the FT argument

you are clutching at straws. that's NOT even an argument I made. You are trying to answer that because you are not sure you answered the other one? I never said anything about it "looking designed." I agree that's one of the weaknesses of the conventional design argument that's not a weakness of the fine tuning argument.

what a devastating come back! I tell him he's got the wrong end of the stick and he says "really." I am just reeling from that pugilistic pelting!

look at the facts man, you just answered an argument I never made! that's clearly you don't understand anything I'm saying!

its' clear atheists hate this augment so deeply because it works, it proves God. they are scared to death of it, so they ridicule it with all their feeble little potty mouths.

From your very site...

All the invocation of the multiverse really shows is that the atheist or anti-design critic will never accept ANY evidence for design at all. That is why I love it so much. Consider an example: We look into a distant galaxy and find that a cluster of stars perfectly spells out the first 3 chapters of the Gospel of John in Greek. Above it is the phrase: "No, this is not due to chance. It is designed. Don't even try to invoke the multiverse." The skeptic COULD STILL invoke the multiverse and claim that if there are an infinite number of universes that exhaust all possible configurations of matter, this one was BOUND to come up. MOREOVER, it it were true, it would mean that there must be universes out there where the Greek verses are spelled out by the stars and yet, mispelled, as the stars in that universe just didin't quite hit the target, so it would say "Toe, Dish et nog du to pance. Fit met Degine. Don't even fry to enpoke the Multisource." This reductio ad absurdum just shows how absurd it is to assume the multiverse when the only reason to do so is to answer the anthropic argument.

Hmmm wonder what you're trying to suggest. Oh that's right...ID. Don't pussy foot around and try and ignore what you are clearly promoting guy. I can see it, others can see it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The design argument is clearly apart of the fine tuning argument,.
that's from my site, but you took it out of context. that's not my argument. I didn't write it, I was quoting someone and Its not part of the argument as I make it in the intro. I quote for a different reason, not agree with everything it says.

Oh I almost forgot. Get someone to correct your spelling for your site. Just a thought.
you are still distorting what I said. look cloely in this and the previous post. you just waxed. you got your butt kicked.

O yea the ultimate coup de gras. So he's talked to the idiots on CARM who give him the lo down "here's all you gotta do to handle that guy, just make a crack about his spelling and say he didn'g go to graduate school and he will go to pieces."

He's just worked himself into an even deeper hole by proving he doesn't anything about argument. His logic is so weak he has to resort to cheats like spelling to make any sort of points to save face, goofy and stupid though that face may be.

Only you and your buds are going to think that, but the rest of the crowd knows that you are full of fail. You suck at apologetics, give it up.

get this straight little poofter, I do not have "buds." I have friends. something you don't have.

(1)you admitted you have not gone over the major parts of the argument.

You haven't gone over mine. You ignored all of my scientific arguments and threw a big philosophy tantrum. That's all you did. So (four letter word) cry me a river. When you address my arguments with science and don't link to some WLC style philosopher then I'll refute your main argument.
I just did stupid. You don't know anything about philosophy. you have no concept of where I'm coming from. I am so far over your head you have no idea.

(2) you totally ignored the Linde stuff and tha'ts what's driving my arugment.

You ignored all of the stuff I said. Like the fact that physicists have done experiments and concluded that it is still possible for li
I just answered it dubm ass. If you think I ignored read all this agin dumb dumb.

fe to exist. Which is all that counts. (expletiave deleted, four letter word ryhming with tuck).

The rest of what you said didn't make sense and was just a pack of lies, at least the parts I could make out.

O there's a brilliant answer. well now I see, why didn't you say that before?

You just lost big.

No fucktard.

ahahahahahah what kind of a word i that? NO loiotard! ahaahhahaah h what a pathetic worm.

You just made yourself look like a dumb retard that doesn't understand what the hell he's fucking talking about. You lost this argument. And I know that other Tweb users will say that I have a vulgar mouth, and that I insult to much, blah, blah, blah. But you know what? I don't give a shit. You drove my temper up and what you got was this. Fuck you and the horse you road in on.

ahahahahahahahah yea right. all those who think his undocumented assertions are real arguments raise your hands.

Maybe if you actually refuted me with scientific data and didn't use a bunch of philosophical bitching you'd sound more intelligent. You didn't refute any facts, you merely showed you and some other apologists don't like what I have to say. A lot of what I said can be confirmed by doing some research, but you will never do it so I don't know why I bother.

where is your scientific data! where! you never used any dumb ass! you never had any! don't you understand.

You are very creepy. You challenged that I am in a Ph.D program for astronomy.
This guy can't make a sentence without a four letter word in it but I'm creepy!

I actually started out arguing that we should believe what you saya bout that. but you so stupid that despite the fact hat I tried to say that several times you bit the hand that tied help over and over again so now I'm talking it back. no one as stupid and childish as ou deserves a Ph.D. you do not deserve one. You may be in a program, although I doubt it bu tyou don't deserve a degree. you are a true idiot.

You stalked me for four threads now, and you've been whining for me to play. Well you got your wish. Hope enjoyed it as much as I did. The sad part is that you got me so worked up that I'm unable to write long ass rebuttals to you and your bullshit. Of course you'll claim I can;t answer, fine live in your fantasy, I don't care. I'm just pissed that a little insect like you got me this worked up.
you kept coming in to my thread to argue with you stupid ;restarted little term. How the hell can you possibly think that. you don't know even know what the words means.

It was my thread, yo kept arguing on it stupid!

Don't try and play the martyr game. I never asked you to defend me(which I didn't even see). You got me to this point and got this kind of a response by trolling me. You earned this, so you got it.

I normally don't take it to this level but you worked me up. So let me just make it clear to all the other Tweb theists who may read this, I don't do this that often, very unlikely that I'll do this to you.
man I feel so sorry for you. you are truly lame. you are truly stupid and trey lame.

MetaCrock. Don't talk to me, don't P.M me, just fuck off.


wow,what a childish little peion.

then one of his little play mates adds on to that:

See the hate? It's so obvious. Nothing other than expression of hatred against religion was important to that guy. He never made any attempt to think about the issue or prove anything. This is a perfect example of the atheist template. He's not thinking he's comparing ideas to the template. Here's what the informed atheist thinks, think ye this!


Brian Westley said...

Godwin's law, thanks for losing.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

what did I lose? Another little arbitrary bull shit piece of propaganda designed by know nothing bullies to protect themselves rom exposure as the thugs and brown shirts that they are.