Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I can show that number 2 is true.... It is not even controversial








Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia


But its not a big deal many solutions have been proposed, all you have go do is reject the idea that the low entropy of the universe is a product of chance

Then prove it. You did not even support the possibility of their existing.

 

[leroy]

You should try to learn what logic is first. But go ahead.



Remember how I said that you need to understand what logic is. It is always a bad idea to start a logical argument with a false premise. It makes the rest of your argument moot.



Let's see. A strawman and a resulting incorrect logical fallacy. You are going from bad to worse.

This is a second failed premise.





No,. Sorry, two failed premises does not justify a false conclusion.



Ummm, no. That is another strawman. Why do creationists think that fossil evidence is the only evidence for evolution? It is not even the strongest evidence. It is only the most obvious evidence to amateurs.

Nice failure.

Ok but what is wrong with my couter argument?.......


... Its an evolution of the gaps argument " we dont know why we see that pattern in the geological column, therefore evolution did it.

 

[leroy]

Then prove it. You did not even support the possibility of their existing.

I did prove it, but you ignored the sources.....

Therefore BBís should outnumber ordinary
observers like us by an infinite factor. So why am I not

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2o5wOQCt_WHfUehVMESmDB&cshid=1608550511395

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but what is wrong with my couter argument?.......


... Its an evolution of the gaps argument " we dont know why we see that pattern in the geological column, therefore evolution did it.

We do know she we see that pattern. You have your cause and effect backwards in your argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did prove it, but you ignored the sources.....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw2o5wOQCt_WHfUehVMESmDB&cshid=1608550511395

Try again. Less green ink please.

 

[leroy]

We do know she we see that pattern. You have your cause and effect backwards in your argument.

Sorry argument from ignorance..... Just because we dont kmow why we have that pattern that doesn't mean "evolution did it"

 

[leroy]

Try again. Less green ink please.

This simply shows you hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.


I supported my argument with 3 different sources....
1 a peer reviewed source

2 a wiki article

3 a blog post written by a scientist

Honestly what else do you whant?....... More sources?

Do you have any reason to disagree with the sources?...

 

[Subduction Zone]

This simply shows you hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.


I supported my argument with 3 different sources....
1 a peer reviewed source

2 a wiki article

3 a blog post written by a scientist

Honestly what else do you whant?....... More sources?

Do you have any reason to disagree with the sources?...

No, you merely linked and quoted out of context. That is not supporting. Try again.

 

[leroy]

No, you merely linked and quoted out of context. That is not supporting. Try again.

Well then support your assertion, what did the authors actually said, and how was that different from what I said?

O wait you are an atheist…….. You don’t support your assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then support your assertion, what did the authors actually said, and how was that different from what I said?

O wait you are an atheist…….. You don’t support your assertions.

I am still waiting for the peer reviewed article that you said that you used. Here is a hint, just because a paper is written as if it was in a journal does not mean that it was published. And another hint for free, peer reviewed articles rarely have cutesy titles.

It is up to you to properly cite and quote your sources if you want to claim that you proved something. Especially if your sources are not what you claim that them to be.

 

[leroy]

I am still waiting for the peer reviewed article that you said that you used. Here is a hint, just because a paper is written as if it was in a journal does not mean that it was published. And another hint for free, peer reviewed articles rarely have cutesy titles.

It is up to you to properly cite and quote your sources if you want to claim that you proved something. Especially if your sources are not what you claim that them to be.

I am still waiting for the peer reviewed article that you said that you used. Here is a hint, just because a paper is written as if it was in a journal does not mean that it was published. And another hint for free, peer reviewed articles rarely have cutesy titles.

It is up to you to properly cite and quote your sources if you want to claim that you proved something. Especially if your sources are not what you claim that them to be.

aja.......and how do you know that th article is not peer reviewd?

 

[Subduction Zone]

aja.......and how do you know that th article is not peer reviewd?

LOL!! Shifting the burden of proof. You claimed it was. It has been challenged since it does not appear to be, Your source, your claim, your burden of proof.

But thanks for admitting that you are wrong again.

 

[leroy]

LOL!! Shifting the burden of proof. You claimed it was. It has been challenged since it does not appear to be, Your source, your claim, your burden of proof.

But thanks for admitting that you are wrong again.

Why it doesnt appear to be?

but ok, here is your peer reviewd article

We use an argument by Page to exhibit a paradox in the global description of the multiverse: the overwhelming majority of observers arise from quantum fluctuations and not by conventional evolution.

A paradox in the global description of the multiverse - IOPscience

No what excuse are you going to invent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why it doesnt appear to be?

but ok, here is your peer reviewd article

A paradox in the global description of the multiverse - IOPscience

No what excuse are you going to invent?

What? That has nothing to do with your previous "peer reviewed article". That article is about potential problems with the multiverse. It does not refute it, it merely points to problems. So how does that help you?

Did you just read the headline again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

O wait you are an atheist…….. You don’t support your assertions.

By the way, this is a reportable claim. The fact is that when I make positive assertions I will and have gladly supported them. Right now we are seeing if you can support any of your claims. So far the answer is no.

 

[leroy]

What? That has nothing to do with your previous "peer reviewed article". That article is about potential problems with the multiverse. It does not refute it, it merely points to problems. So how does that help you?

Did you just read the headline again?

According To the article observers that arise via quantum fluctuations (bolzman brains) are more likely than normal observers like us………which is expactly the point that I made and exactly the point that you disagreed with.

We use an argument by Page to exhibit a paradox in the global description of the multiverse: the overwhelming majority of observers arise from quantum fluctuations and not by conventional evolution.

so any disagreement form your part?

 

[leroy]

By the way, this is a reportable claim. The fact is that when I make positive assertions I will and have gladly supported them. Right now we are seeing if you can support any of your claims. So far the answer is no.

No, you don’t support your assertions.

No, you merely linked and quoted out of context.

Support that assertion for example.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According To the article observers that arise via quantum fluctuations (bolzman brains) are more likely than normal observers like us………which is expactly the point that I made and exactly the point that you disagreed with.






so any disagreement form your part?

I think that your interpretation of the article appears to be amiss. The idea of Boltzmann brains is used at times to test a hypothesis, but that does not mean that the writers are supporting their existence. They can merely show an idea to be wrong.

And for what its worth the lead author does not seem to think too much of that article himself these days. It is not listed as a work of his from this source:

Raphael Bousso | UC Berkeley Physics

But at least you found an actual peer reviewed article this time, though of course it is not the one that you originally listed. Why didn't you acknowledge your error?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you don’t support your assertions.



Support that assertion for example.

Holy crap! You don't know the difference between an assertion and an observation. Try again.

By the way you in effect confirmed my observation when you were forced to find an actual peer reviewed journal.

 

[leroy]

I The idea of Boltzmann brains is used at times to test a hypothesis, but that does not mean that the writers are supporting their existence.

Nether do I.....

What is your point,?

Do you agree that I supported my assertion properly?

My original assertion (that you disagree with)

2 that you are a bolzman brain under the illusion of living in a FT universe is more probable than a real FT universe