The atheist son this board refuse to admit they they have this concept. Yet it's proved every time Big Thinker writes. He's a "one trick pony" no offense. BT's one trick is "we have gobs of facts about nature and stuff but you don't have any facts to back up God. Since God is an idea in the mind and you have no facts to prove he's real then he's just an idea in the mind!
that is exactly the fortress of facts. So you can't argue that it doesn't exist and isn't used when BT uses it all the time.
post no 14:
"The argument is that your God doesn't exist outside of your imagination. That's why all you can produce is arguments instead of factual evidence."
he had a whole thread "why aren't the theist hammering us with facts about their God?" that's saying the exact idea.
even HRG helps spread the propaganda:
post 11: ""God" is obviously a concept in human minds. It may be instantiated in reality, but where is the sufficient evidence to believe that it is ?"
here he looks to evidence in the from of "facts" as the deciding factor. Of course I've given facts for years and they are totally ignored because anything not counting for the atheist view is automatically discounted as nonsense.
HRG has no facts that support Multiverse yet that's his openly real argument agaisnt God arguments. He may argue that they prove but he doesn't have any kind of positive proof except the multiverse. Yet there is no factual basis for any proof favoring it. There's no empirical evidence of it.
Its' all theoretical. mathematically based arguments are not empirical proof. Not only is he contradicting the atheist credo that we cant' believe without proof but he's also contradicting BK's one and only trick. Because without empirical proof the MV is just a concept in the mind. Apply what he says above:
MV" is obviously a concept in human minds. It may be instantiated in reality, but where is the sufficient evidence to believe that it is ?"
Ditto dark matter
Some of the atheists responses to this are very instructive. essentially they went ape. One tried to jack up mathematics to the level of empirical proof calling it "factual." "Mathematics are facts" he says. Therefore, the mathematical proofs of multivariate are facts too. It doesn't work that way I can do it too. Logic has facts It's a fact that an illogical argument is deemed untrue.
another such attempt is where some try to claim an "empirical bounce" for MV theory becuase it's derived from other theories that are empirically based.
If this counts as empirical, why are you dismissing my examples? I can only conclude that you didn't understand me.
Let me explain: just like you're based the CA theory upon another theory, the MV is also based upon other theories. I believe (but I may be wrong), that quantum mechanics is one of them. In other words, an MV based upon QM cosmology is emprically based.
By "this" he means my big bang cosmology dependent cosmological argument. There's a huge difference. The big bang and singularity are derived from empirical data that directly demonstrates their truth. The theory of the mulitverse is derived from theories that have empirical elements, such as QM particles, but that doesn't mean there's any empirical evidence for mutliverse. They are trying to produce this "empirical bounce" where the empirical nature of one theory rubs off on another. It doesn't work that way because it's still not directly empirical. The big bang is.