>be David Humes>least retarded atheist >one of founding fathers of empiricism>empiricism proves the existence of God>Finite universe>DNA>Fine-tuning of the universe>Spiritual practices have universally observable outcomes
I don't trust anyone who blindly attacks atheists because I feel like this is just a motte and bailey to shoehorn in shit like talking snakes even though the crux of your argument is closer to Deism than Christianity
It is natural outcome because you can't prove essences or substances, the things that theisms work off much less any divine revelation. Hume's skepticism rules it out. Quine's empircism is even more strict.
>>18517741The interesting thing about the atheist-christian debate on this forsaken board, that is atheist can be annoying and intrusive, but he can convince some people with his arguments. When Christian creates le smug greentext thread, it's basically self-indulgence. Nobody will be like 'OH, NOW I FINALLY SEE, FINE-TUNING! WELL, I'M A CRISTIAN NOW, I SUPPOSE'.
>>18517751Christians have to temporarily convert to Deism in order to stand any kind of chance at having an intelligent argument
>>18517743>>18517751>>18517761Christianity wasn't even mentioned.
>>18517770Christians seethe at atheists more than anyone else, if you were truly a Deist you wouldn't give as much of a shit
>>18517770On a list of substantial and trustworthy ontological sources, yes.
>>18517741>be op>christian intellectual titan>thinks that david fucking hume, 18th century philosopher extraordinaire, knew about the big bang, dna, and fine-tuning of fundamental constantsJesus's strongest soldier btw.
>>18517741>David "Humes">Atheist Sometimes I am impressed you morons can even figure out the captcha
>>18517820This is just another example of Christians lacking a theory of mind btw.
>>18517822Look, he is just tired of studying Aris Tootle and Sowkrates.
>>18517741>finite universe Not proven and doesn’t necessitate a God>DNALol?>fine-tuning of the universe The problem stops existing if you just think in terms of the anthropic principle in a near-infinite universe with variable physics >Spiritual practices have universally observable outcomesNo retard
>>18517950You fail to realize many spiritual practices such as meditation and prayer actually do have measurable effects as observed by science, such as lowered anxiety, reduced stress, and changes in attention.
>>18517741So where are the talking snakes and magical rocks that release water when struck by a stick?
>>18517958That has nothing to do with the “spiritual”, dummy. That’s just your cells responding to stimuli or lack thereof lol
>>18517958You know what else has a measurable effect on people. Placebos. By believing you are getting better, your body can reduce stress and anxiety and from that lessen or even remove negative consequences of stress. But a placebo can be purely materialistic, just a pill that the patient believes will help them will have the same effect on you as prayer or meditation.
>>18517743>>18517741Empirically, those who call themselves "atheists" tend to fall into a distinct cluster of attitudes and beliefs. One typical atheist belief is that they get to just "define" atheism to include a bunch of people who would never willingly associate themselves with the atheist demographic.If you argue this point to an atheist, sooner or later he will start attacking strawmen of whatever he thinks your religion is, even if you never expressed any theistic beliefs. At that point, he's basically determined you're NOT an atheist, even if you are one by his bogus definition. Why? Simply because you contradict his characteristic atheist philosophy and atheist pattern of thought.This WILL happen REGARDLESS of your belief in deities or lack thereof. The atheist intuitively rejects his own definitions. This is a pasta I wrote years ago but you can see it immediately playing out ITT. My theory is falsifiable and highly predictive.
>>18517950>The problem stops existing if you just think in terms of extreme mental gymnastics and do a turbo-cope where atheism is plausible because everything is possible
>>18517971Depends on how you define spirituality. Even a religious person could agree that cells responding to stimuli has something to do with it>>18517978Prayer and meditation are not identical to placebos, and not even close. Sure, they may involve expectancy effects, but researchers agree they are not purely placebos.
>>18517982>One typical atheist belief is that they get to just "define" atheism to include a bunch of people who would never willingly associate themselves with the atheist demographic.What definition are you talking about? Are you some agnostic seething about lacktheism nonsense? lol
>>18517989>What definition are you talking about?The one you always appeal to when your belief system is analyzed.
>>18517993The one I always appeal to is "atheism is the claim that there are no gods, an atheist is a person who claims there are no gods".What's your issue with that definition?
>>18517995>What's your issue with that definition?Nothing, I'm glad to see that my tardwrangling effort is improving your thinking, even if you're just trying to spite me and prove you're not like the other girls.
>>18517998That's been the definition I use since a decade ago when I got into philosophy. So was I right? Are you an agnostic seething about lacktheist nonsense?
>>18517741>>empiricism proves the existence of God>>Finite universe>>DNA>>Fine-tuning of the universe>>Spiritual practices have universally observable outcomesNone of that happened. "DNA" isn't even a point, you're just mentioning a molecule.
>>18518002>That's been the definition I use since a decade ago when I got into philosophy.Very based. Since you acknowledge atheism is a belief rather than the lack of one, do you also acknowledge we can examine what other beliefs it entails in practice?
>>18518011You refused to answer my question twice and now you're trying to bait me into a long convo on some pet topic of yours. I'm not stupid, I see what you're doing.Next you'll say I'm scared or otherwise attack my character or motivations in order to once again try to bait me into some debate. You're like an open book to me.
>>18518016Ok, but since you acknowledge atheism is a belief rather than the lack of one, do you also acknowledge we can examine what other beliefs it entails in practice?
>>18518021This will be my last reply to you itt for the reasons I mentioned. Yes, we can empirically examine what other beliefs atheists tend to hold. However, you will find that there are almost no atheists irl because most of the people that you wish to include in your empirical study are actually lacktheists and are NOT claiming that there are no gods.You've been hoisted by your own petard. I hope you will at least find that amusing, I only decided to make this last post because I think it's a very funny preemptive counterargument to whatever argument you're cooking.Have a nice day!
>>18518025> most of the people that you wish to include in your empirical study are actually lacktheists and are NOT claiming that there are no gods.By which, of course, you mean the people described in >>18517982.>Yes, we can empirically examine what other beliefs atheists tend to hold. Glad we have that settled. Atheism is indeed a belief system.
>>18517983>The problem stops existing if you just think in terms of extreme mental gymnastics and do a turbo-cope where atheism is plausible because everything is possibleLmfao>an infinite in God: totally reasonablæe>an infinitely smaller near-infinity in the universe: NOOOOO THIS IS COPE YOU CAN’T JUST DO THAT>>18517986If you define “spiritually” as broadly as to include even processes that are entirely understood mechanistically just because some chick feels totally in touch with her ki when she sits still for 30 mins, then yes, you can win your argument. But you’re also left with a totally useless definition >>18517982What the fuck is this retard even talking about
>>18518036>The problem stops existing if you just think in terms of extreme mental gymnastics and do a turbo-cope where atheism is plausible because everything is possible>This is a rational position b-b-b-because uhhhhh.... le God also infinite????
>>18517820>treating official narrative like word of godThe so called atheist btw.You are retarded as trve believer fundies
>>18518039What is irrational about it? Theories like eternal inflation result in an infinite, eternal universe (into the future), for example. Are you going to argue with the physics or not? Or will you limit it to a simple faith based argument, in which case it seems far more reasonable to believe in the far lesser structure (a near infinite universe or an universe infinite in one direction of time vs. a total infinity which is also on top a little bit like man and shit)
>>18518186>What is irrational about it?The way you elevate epistemological gaps and theoretical flaws into nonsensical ontological fantasies where your belief is possible because everything is possible.
>>18518211>epistemological gapsWhich, precisely? Or did you just learn that word and desperately wanted to use it?>theoretical flawsWhat flaws? This sentence doesn’t even make sense, likely because, again, you’re contorting yourself to fit in these token words that you don’t really know what actually mean. Because what flaws? Mathematical flaws in theories like eternal inflation? Show them to us>where your belief is possible because everything is possibleIf that is where the physics lead us, then yes. The universe and existence in general is already completely nonsensical, whether you’re a theist or not. What’s so difficult for you to square when it comes to the idea the universe might be eternal? You’ve already said that you’re willing to accept eternal things based on faith, so why not eternities from actual mathematics? Why does skydaddy have to be involved so so badly?
>>18518248>Which, precisely?Stopped reading since you're displaying your level of imbecility and openly admit not comprehending my post.
>>18518297This means you don't have an answer, because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or even what the words you're using mean. What an embarrassing cop-out. I almost made a post to apologise for the tone in the previous post because you're clearly just some confused kid living in some confusing times, but damn you're annoying as fuck too
>>18518307>you don't know what the fuck you're talking aboutI was very specific in what I'm talking about:You elevate epistemological gaps and theoretical flaws into nonsensical ontological fantasies where your belief is possible because everything is possible.The fact that you can't map this statement onto the relevant aspects of your position tells me you're a sub-90-IQ brownoid because it's pretty direct.
>>18518318The sentence does not make sense, and I pointed out which parts need clarification because, again, you just strung together a sentence of words you barely understand. In response to this post you go "uhm no actually I can't get into specifics because uh you wouldn't understand". Fucking pathetic sorry
>>18518324>The sentence does not make senseIf you actually believe this, you're mentally ill. The sentence makes perfect sense and every part of it maps easily onto your stated belief.
>>18518326Then it should be extremely fucking easy for you to go through this post like a check-list and epicly dunk on me on each point >>18518248
>>18518334I'm not going to read your mentally ill drivel, I'll just demonstrate your profound mental retardation by spelling out the obvious things you couldn't figure out:>epistemological gapsLike not knowing what determines nature's constants...>theoretical flaws... and having so little hope of finding out that you suppose they may actually be arbitrary with respect to [insert current physics framework]...>elevated into nonsensical ontological fantasies where your belief is possible because everything is possible.... so instead of admitting the limits of the framework, you imagine the arbitrariness is a feature of reality itself, forcing you to invent infinite universes just to account for this particular one.
>>18517741>Spiritual practices have universally observable outcomesIndeed, that's why all those devout soldiers who prayed they wouldn't be killed were observably not turned into a pink cloud 30 seconds later.
>>18517773not like the reverse has ever happened. oh no sirree!
>>18518365>I'm not going to read your mentally ill drivel, I'll just demonstrate your profound mental retardation by spelling out the obvious things you couldn't figure outYou're literally veering into an entirely different conversation and it's simply not possible to deconstruct that from the sentence, you actual mental toddler. Mystifying your points because you think obscurity=profundity doesn't make you appear smart - it makes you look like an actual fucking spastic>Like not knowing what determines nature's constants...Nothing does. Under inflation, the constants will just depend on whatever the initial conditions of that region of the "bubble" are at at some point in time. It's just an eternal causal chain. Some of these will just so happen to fall within the ranges which are acceptably stable for self-replicators>and having so little hope of finding out that you suppose they may actually be arbitrary with respect to [insert current physics framework]The endpoint of any line of inquiry will always be that we must accept a brute fact. This is as true for agnostics as theists. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a God who creates an existence, rather than no God at all and nonexistence? It's simply unavoidable. Then from observation and math we can derive models that explain the makeup of the universe and the way in which it develops >... so instead of admitting the limits of the framework, you imagine the arbitrariness is a feature of reality itself, forcing you to invent infinite universes just to account for this particular oneNobody invents anything. They make observations, then attempt to create satisfactory models that explain their observations. Eternal inflation happens to be based on pretty robust physics. Meanwhile, your only argument against it is literally "uhmmm but it can't just be infinite? That feels wrong to me, no I don't like that stop doing that. why? IT JUST CAN'T OKAY?"
>>18518417Didn't read. You've already demonstrated that you're too retarded for reading comprehension, so nothing you say about my statement actually matters.
>>18518420This is pathetic man. You do realise everybody sees it for what it is, right? I am trying to be nice because again you are obviously very young and fucking confused, but please get some help or something
>>18518430>at least my imaginary audience sees that i'm not retarded!!!You've already demonstrated that you're too retarded for reading comprehension, so nothing you say about my statement actually matters.
>>18518417>Nobody invents anything. They make observationshow many of the infinite universes have you observed? are they in the room with us right now?
>>18518439You made a post that was barely on topic, and then tried to mystify it so that on top of being off topic, it was completely unreadable nonsense. Now that you've clarified it, I addressed your points, and now you don't want to answer after all. It's just sad man >>18518446>toddler somewhere between stage of learning about object permanence and basic inference
>>18518474why are you chimping out? tell me what observations they made to support the existence of infinitely many universes they can't observe
>>18518474>You made a post that was barely on topicI guess understanding a sentence really isn't easy for you even after being instructed. Feel free to re-read >>18518365 as many times as you need.
>>18518661>tell me what observations they made to support the existence of infinitely many universes they can't observeWell, chud, the observations they did make (about this universe) don't imply any principled constraints on fundamental constants, which means they've observed an ontological lack of such constraints. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence under my nuanced atheist metaphysic. :^)
>>18518474>basic inferenceSo not observed?
>>18517741>>empiricism proves the existence of GodAll of the empiricists must have missed this memo.
>>18518677>Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence under my nuanced atheist metaphysic. :^)you mean like the absence of a gap in knowledge? no wonder the retard was so confused
>>18518661https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflationHow much handholding do you need?>>18518662I already replied, right here: >>18518417Are you shy? Do I make you insecure a bit?>>18518682Why do highschool dropouts like you pretend to know what any of these things mean? Lmfao. Genuinely what do you think you're even saying in this sentence? Like walk me through what you think the point you're making is
>>18518732>How much handholding do you need?just enough to take me along with you for the ride form your posting a random wiki article to their observing infinite universes
>>18518738>a random wiki articleWhat? It's literally the article for what we're talking about. Are you a genuine drooling fucking retard?
>>18518732Who cares that you replied? Did you have a micro-stroke? Are you struggling to keep track of which of your mongoloid claims you're defending at a given time?
>>18518742>Are you struggling to keep track of which of your mongoloid claims you're defending at a given timeI am directly responding to your post after we finally managed to decrypt the nonsense together. You can go ahead and reply now shyguy
>>18518741>It's literally the article for what we're talking aboutok, quote the part of it that says more than one universe has ever been observed
>>18518746>>18518746>I am directly respondingYou weren't, but now watch me make you do so: was my reply on topic or not? (Protip: ask yourself if your retarded response here >>18518417 is on the topic you originally made claims about)
>>18518751You simply don't understand what the word observation means, or the extent of conclusions that can be drawn from observations. This legitimately feels like bullying a handicapped fucking spastic so I'll be nicer to you than the other retard, but it genuinely looks like I was right about the fact that your development halted somewhere between understanding object permanence and basic interference. I am going to break it down to you like you're in kindergarten because apparently I literally have to. I'll also pick an extremely kindergarten-friendly example. Imagine you're in a forest and notice a chopped down tree. Does the fact that you see no one around mean that a lumberjack didn't chop down the tree? Even when all the data points suggest so? Are you like a baby that can only possibly conceive of the possibility of something if you're looking directly at it? Obviously not. Good job, A+. There is a ton of shit that we cannot observe directly with a pair of binoculars, but which we can still infer must be true because the mathematics that we use for other phenomena dictate that it must be>>18518756It was extremely confused because you were using words you barely understand. Like this sentence:>You elevate epistemological gaps and theoretical flaws into nonsensical ontological fantasies where your belief is possible because everything is possible.Could legitimately mean anything. I asked you to define what you even think you meant with "theoretical flaws" but I got no reply. Now that I managed to finally bully you into clarifying this nonsense, I have, again, responded right there >>18518417. Why do you keep dodging replying to this post?Are you faggots from some tradcath discord? Is that why you're trying to desperately not to lose face in front of your faggot friends? Because this is mental illness levels of low self-esteem when I can't even get you to reply directly to posts, yet you INSINST on trying to get the last word still
>>18517741>>empiricism proves the existence of Godproof?>inb4 nonethats right
>>18518795sorry, i'm not reading any of your blathering. i'm too busy reading the article you posted:>Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation,[1] eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theoryso there's an example of a serious scientist who clearly understands your theory and its rationale but doesn't even consider it science>According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult.and here's a major proponent of it claiming not that the model necessitates a multiverse but only that it doesn't forbid one and then admits there are possible models without it
>>18518795>Could legitimately mean anythingWhen you have profound mental retardation, maybe. When you try to solve the fine-tuning problem by appealing to made up infinite universes, what epistemological gap are you trying to resolve?
>>18517741Sonic the hedgehog is a character that doesn't exist in real life.
>>18520048Lmfao. Again, you’re just stringing terms together that you don’t really have a complete understanding of and hope that they look like something that has substance. I’ll be honest with you then, however anxious you are about how stupid it’s possible that your quasi-random sentence makes you look, it’s actually twice as bad as that. An “epistemological gap” isn’t a proper definition of anything but even if we play along>solve the fine-tuning problem by appealing to made up infinite universes, what epistemological gap are you trying to resolveMakes absolutely zero sense. What does the problem of fine-tuning have to do with epistemology? They’re two completely different domains, you fucking dummy. Now please, go back and address the other post in which I ask you to further clarify in neat little bullet points >>18519010>a theist has a problem with whether a hypothesis is testable or not Holy shit lmao>doesn't forbid one and then admits there are possible models without itAnd? He even says it is unlikely, but all of that is beside the point. The point being that there are inflation models that permit infinity and which can explain the fine-tuning problem as such
>>18520197>Makes absolutely zero sense.That's all I wanted to hear. Thanks for demonstrating once again your severe mental illness. It would've been more tedious if you had made a futile attempt to reason your way through that simple question.
>>18517982If you don't believe in deities you are by definition an atheist.
>>18520197>Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation,[1] eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theoryso there's an example of a serious scientist who clearly understands your theory and its rationale but doesn't even consider it science>According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult.and here's a major proponent of it claiming not that the model necessitates a multiverse but only that it doesn't forbid one and then admits there are possible models without it>The point being that there are inflation models that permit infinitywhich doesn't actually mean anything>and which can explain the fine-tuning problem as suchit doesn't "explain" anything, as the guy who produced the first example of eternal inflation tells above
>>18520209>If you don't believe in deities you are by definition an atheist.Evidence for this delusional claim?
>>18520216I don't see any flying rabbis anywhere and the earth isn't encapsulated in a firmament. This at least shows me that a certain abrahamic religion is stating untrue things about material reality. Also pick up a dictionary and see what the word atheism means.
>>18520231https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition>Description: Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance. In short, dictionaries tell you what a word meant, according to the authors, at the time of its writing, not what it meant before that time, after, or what it should mean.Try again?
>>18520231>I don't see any flying rabbis anywhere and the earth isn't encapsulated in a firmament. This at least shows me that a certain abrahamic religion is stating untrue things about material reality.Total nonsequitur directly confirming >>18517982>If you argue this point to an atheist, sooner or later he will start attacking strawmen of whatever he thinks your religion is, even if you never expressed any theistic beliefs. At that point, he's basically determined you're NOT an atheist, even if you are one by his bogus definition.
>>18520238What he described is not a strawman of christianity. You might not be a christian, but that isn't a strawman of christianity.
>>18520242It is, but the main point is that he couldn't help himself and had to start sperging out about Christianity out of the blue. He couldn't resist his ideological indoctrination and clownishly demonstrated my point.
>>18520249It isn't a strawman. The bible does indeed say the earth has a solid dome firmament and that jesus flew into the sky.
>>18520234Words have meaning. The word atheist means "person who does not believe in the existence of supernatural entities such as gods, demons, spirits, etc. A atheist will believe in these things if evidence is presented about them.>>18520238As for this, maybe read the Bible, since it directly states that the world is encapsulated in a firmament, and that Jesus flew into the sky after his resurrection. The problem i have is that every religion makes definitive statements about the nature of the material world, and it writes them down long before the natural sciences can catch up. Once we have material proof that the firmament isn't real, or that Japan wasn't created by who gods stirring the ocean, or any other myth then religious beliefs move into the purely philosophical realm where material proof is impossible to present and people argue over concepts like the Logos, or the prime mover, but never try to prove that a material claim is real (outside of fundamentalist that believe Noah's ark was real, or that Muhammed flew into heaven on a magic horse).
>>18520253>The word atheist means "person who does not believe in the existence of supernatural entities such as gods, demons, spirits, etc. A atheist will believe in these things if evidence is presented about them.Proof?
>>18520268That's the definition of the word.
>>18520268You want me to prove a definition of a word? Well go outside and talk to any random person and ask them what an atheist is. You will find that 99,999% of people will use the same definition. Like I said words have meaning, and when societal consensus is made about a word people will use that definition. You can try and change it, bit I really don't know how you can convince humanity to redefine the word atheist to something that doesn't offend your sensibilities.
>>18520272>You want me to prove a definition of a word?No, I want you to prove that the dictionary definition of a word dictates its meaning, because that's essentially your "argument" (i.e. your fallacious dictionary appeal).
>>18520275If every person on the planet, or at least an overwhelming majority uses the same definition for a word then that definition becomes the standard. The burden is on you to show why that definition isn't true and your previous statements were insufficient as they were trying to redefine atheism using pedantry.
>>18520288>>18520275Also I didn't argue for a dictionary fallacy since my point was that word atheist gains its meaning from the consensus of humanity. This isn't a meaning set in stone a thousand years ago, but a living culture coming to the reasoning that that's what the word means.
>>18520288>every person on the planet, or at least an overwhelming majority uses the same definitionProof?>>18520293> that word atheist gains its meaning from the consensus of humanitybut you didn't provide any evidence of this "consensus", you just quoted a dictionary
>>18520304>Huh, unless you give me a peer reviewed study showing me that this commonly used definition of a word is in fact used by people then I can't accept your statement in good faith>I need a study asking at least several tens of thousands of people from different demographics and geographical locations, what they think the word atheist means and then I want you to compile that data as proof of what the word meansLike I said, pure pedantry.
>>18517741Gotta go fast!
>>18520312In other words, you have no evidence of this asserted "consensus", which undermines your ideological payload dumping. Well, here's your thready reminder that dictionaries only provide the bare minimum you need to decipher the meaning of an unfamiliar word in a given context. They cover barely a fraction of the meaning of any word they try to "define" and aren't intended to do more.
>>18520359Neither do you you autistic retard. When two people have a conversation, they don't spend hours arguing over the minutiae of the definitions of words. The meaning of the word atheist is crystal clear to anyone willing to have an actual conversation instead of an autist smugly repeating the word "Proofs" like a stimming tick.
>>18520392>Neither do youOk, but I didn't barge in here claiming to represent some global consensus on the meaning of the word. Are you mentally retarded?> The meaning of the word atheist is crystal clear I agree and that meaning clearly goes beyond your fallacious dictionary appeal.
>>18520204>That's all I wanted to hear. Thanks for demonstrating once again your severe mental illness. It would've been more tedious if you had made a futile attempt to reason your way through that simple question.This is genuinely pathetic. Do you think other people reading don't see this? You keep dodging every single question like a disgusting little cretin, flailing around with "b-but you wouldn't understand anyway". When I try to pin you to the simplest possible questions it can be condensed down to, you literally just pretend you didn't read it. Because again, I'd love for you to explain>What does the problem of fine-tuning have to do with epistemologythis and what the fuck you think you were even saying there lol >>18520212Why did you repeat yourself?>which doesn't actually mean anythingIt's directly related to what we're discussing?>as the guy who produced the first example of eternal inflation tells aboveNo, you're just retarded & brown and don't understand what his problem actually is. It's not a problem of the model itself or the underlying math, but the conclusion it leads to. It's dismissed because its conclusion sounds too "absurd". The same is true for quite a few theories in cosmology>it doesn't "explain" anythingIt does. Before you say "n-not testable", this is only true because counting probabilities in infinity is an open problem in math atm. When that barrier is removed, what part exactly is not testable?
>>18520621imagine thinking anyone's gonna read any of that shit lol>Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation,[1] eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theoryso there's an example of a serious scientist who clearly understands your theory and its rationale but doesn't even consider it science>According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult.and here's a major proponent of it claiming not that the model necessitates a multiverse but only that it doesn't forbid one and then admits there are possible models without ityour own article undermines your position
>>18520631Pretty funny how OP starts a thread claiming atheism relies on retarded cartoon logic and there you have an atheist foaming at the mouth trying to shill infinite universes because muh model (Current Year Edition) doesn't forbid it.
>>18520631>imagine thinking anyone's gonna read any of that shit lolPathetic, shy, and 0 arguments>your own article undermines your position>*a* major proponent>*a*, SINGULARLike I think you might legitimately be retarded. Are you from the slums of Brazil? Is this the tradcath discord visiting /his/ with their garbage? What does the position of one, single person matter? Do you think there are any of these theories that there is a consensus on? Again, this literally feels like bullying mental retards but you guys are too fucking annoying for me to not
>>18520631Looks like you can't engage with his points desu. It's weird that almost every time I see someone debate an atheist on /his/, they eventually shut down and stop addressing the atheist's points entirely.
>>18520641>>18520643imagine thinking anyone's gonna read any of that shit lol>Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation,[1] eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theoryso there's an example of a serious scientist who clearly understands your theory and its rationale but doesn't even consider it science>According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult.and here's a major proponent of it claiming not that the model necessitates a multiverse but only that it doesn't forbid one and then admits there are possible models without ityour own article undermines your position>>18520640>Pretty funnyno it's not. i won't be surprised if one of these lunatics ends up killing himself and a bunch of other people to get a better respawn in a universe where he won't be diagnosed as a retard
Inflation is true via the evidence. That some scientists don't like it implies a multiverse does not mean it isn't true. You guys are fucking retarded.
>Inflation is true via the evidence
>>18520658You are retarded.
There are dozens of cases in physics where something seems """true via the evidence""" (i.e. the model seems to work) but the math fails to rule out physically dubious or straight up nonsensical scenarios. Mentally ill retards will selectively latch onto this when it suits their irrational belief system.
>>18520640If this cartoon logic is so easily dismissed then why don't you engage with and easily dunk on me, then?>>18520651Again, too fucking low IQ to actually argue your point. Womanish, weak behaviour >>18520643It's because they don't actually believe. They're just people whose education stopped somewhere around highschool and has carried that resentment with them since then, and Christianity offers and easy way for them to feel superior. But inside they don't ACTUALLY believe. It's actually the most spiritually rotten shit, abusing faith for self-gratification. If the hell they so badly insist is real actually exists, they'll be burning there. Meanwhile my dad is Christian - never mentions it to anyone, for the longest time I didn't even realise he was in church on Sundays as a kid and I assumed he was just working. Not even when my brothers and I were in our annoying teenage atheism phase did he even once get defensive about it. Because he actually has faith and simply just believes, whereas these guys begin sperging out because it's actually not Christianity but their ego that they feel is being attacked
>>18520643>>18520722Atheists win pretty much every argument, whether here on /his/ or just in general.
>>18520722>>18520727imagine thinking anyone's gonna read any of that shit lol>Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation,[1] eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theoryso there's an example of a serious scientist who clearly understands your theory and its rationale but doesn't even consider it science>According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult.and here's a major proponent of it claiming not that the model necessitates a multiverse but only that it doesn't forbid one and then admits there are possible models without ityour own article undermines your position
>>18520680Have you ruled out that Jesus flew or do you still think it's possible that he did fly?
>>18520746Every point has already been addressedAlso, enjoy burning
>>18520747>i'm mentally illOk.
>>18520754Why can't you answer the question? It's a very simple one.
>>18520756>why don't you LARP as the imaginary character i hallucinatedMentally ill and retarded.
>>18520680But there's nothing about multiverses which are dubious or nonsensical.
>>18520759I didn't ask you to larp as anything, I asked you to answer a simple question. If you asked me the exact same questions I'd simply answer that I did rule out that Jesus flew. See? No larp necessary.
>But there's nothing about multiverses which are dubious or nonsensical. There are dozens of cases in physics where something seems """true via the evidence""" (i.e. the model seems to work) but the math fails to rule out physically dubious or straight up nonsensical scenarios. Mentally ill retards will selectively latch onto this when it suits their irrational belief system, nevermind that it's as scientifically unnecessary and unobservable as the other nonsense they readily reject.
>>18520767>i'm mentally ill and you must notice meCall your tard wrangler.
>>18520785You're afraid to answer my question because you don't want to explicitly deny that Jesus flew lol.
>>18520781>scientifically unnecessaryWhat does "scientifically unnecessary" mean? >unobservable It's not unobservable. It follows from inference based on actual observations >but the math fails to rule out physically dubious or straight up nonsensical scenariosThis is not a failure of the model but a failure of your imagination. "That sounds absurd so it must be wrong" isn't really a valid criticism on its own. It's a good benchmark to guide theory but it doesn't stand on its own
>It's not unobservable. It follows from inference based on actual observations There are dozens of cases in physics where something seems """true via the evidence""" (i.e. the model seems to work) but the math fails to rule out physically dubious or straight up nonsensical scenarios. Mentally ill retards will selectively latch onto this when it suits their irrational belief system, nevermind that it's as scientifically unnecessary and unobservable as the other nonsense they readily reject.
>>18520781>>18520815You're fucking retarded.What you are calling "physically dubious" is nothing but a presupposition about how physics is supposed to be. there is nothing "physically dubious" about a multiverse.
>>18520815I'll just repeat that everybody reading this, including your Christian cuck discord friends, knows that the reason you aren't engaging is because you're genuinely too low IQ to
>What you are calling "physically dubious" is nothing but a presupposition about how physics is supposed to be. there is nothing "physically dubious" about XNotice how in the mental patient's mind, this is a compelling argument, but only when X = something supports his irrational belief system.
>>18520815>>18520825Did you rule out that Jesus flew or do you think that Jesus having flown is a live possibility?
>It's not unobservable. It follows from inference based on actual observationsIt should also be noted that the mentally ill retard doesn't grasp the concept of actually testing a model's predictions, thinking that if a model "implies" something, then it's as good as observed because the model is inferred from observations. Imagine reaching such a profound level of imbecility.
>>18520825It isn't irrational. There is nothing irrational about there being a multiverse.
>>18520851Are you too shy to quote directly?>grasp the concept of actually testing a model's predictionsWhat do you accept as a standard for when something has been reasonably tested? Again, returning to the kindergarten-friendly example of the tree in the forest, if you have seen a woodcutter and understand this concept, and you have seen a tree and how it looks when it has been chopped, do you now have enough information to stop at a chopped tree in a forest and make the inference that a woodcutter chopped this tree, or is it simply impossible and you simply HAVE to catch them in the act, lmao? So much of physics has very little to do with "observation" in the conventional, everyday sense. So if the Standard Model on which the entire modern world is built, down to even the device that you're currently cursing us with your retardation through, if it predicts inflation events... then what? Do we throw out the Standard Model? Or does the Standard Model only hold true to whatever arbitrary extent you're comfortable with and NO further?
>What do you accept as a standard for when something has been reasonably tested?I wonder by what possible standard the mentally ill retard thinks infinite universes are tested.
>>18517741>empiricism proves the existence of GodOkay, then you should be able to provide the data to prove this (you won't)
>>18521612>you should be able to provide the data to prove thisCope. Literally all sense data supports that hypothesis.
>>18521638Literally no sense data supports it
>>18521648NTA but unless you know what God feels like, you don't know that what you just said is true
>>18517761Deism is just a weird not well known term mainly popularized in usage by seething online atheists in their vocabulary. Normally people talk about religions/Christianity/ atheism, not this retarded crap like deism/theism.
>>18521677lol. You do realise everyone would absolutely prefer to say Christcuck, right? The problem is that a lot of 4chan tradcucks will go "uhm who said I was a Christian? try again, tsk" when defending their religious/Christian views. And because it's really draining to argue with people that you know are doing weird play-pretend, it's convenient to just say theism and get to the actual discussion
>>18520640They're all retarded, like their worldview programming is bugged. They think NOTHING created everything and have a distorted reality. It's scientifically impossible for nothing to create anything because it's nothing. They'll try to define what nothing is by describing something rather than nothing, completely glitching out like a npc... They however unironically believe people can change genders at any time. Retards don't even know they're retarded.
>>18521875>They think NOTHING created everything and have a distorted realityThat's not what the big bang is.>It's scientifically impossible for nothing to create anythingThis doesn't mean anything>They'll try to define what nothing is by describing something rather than nothingNo one does this. You just don't understand what the big bang is.
