Quote (Saurod @ Feb 12 2025 08:17am)

Well, the Multiverse "theory" is not a theory at all. Its more of a hypothesis (at best).
A scientific theory must make testable predictions that can be experimentally or observationally verified. The problem with the multiverse concept is that, by definition, it is difficult or even impossible to observe or detect other universes.

No idea how you wanna use stuff like that as argument in a discussikn like this one.

Quote

"multiverse" is the counter argument to the fine tuning argument and its desperation chit science "WOOWOO"

Quote (TiStuff @ Feb 12 2025 05:19pm)

because what motivated it. understand your remarks show your tolerance to atheist chit science woowoo. then calling creation "magic"

Quote (Saurod @ Feb 12 2025 08:23am)

I dont know why you always act like scientists would want to disprove bible stories as if this was a thing. Even if there were multiverses and evolution and whatnot, god could have made all of it. No scientist tries to disprove this shit. Its not even related. One is serious work, one is woowoo as you like to say. Guess which is which.

Quote (TiStuff @ Feb 12 2025 05:36pm)

just showed it to you. "mulriverse" was a direct response to the fine tuning argument.

we should do the jay harlen bretz story maybe the best documented stories about how the institute of science completely loses it over his missoula badlands flood theory

'atheist 'scientists been telling the greatest woowoo stories since they up and decided man came from monkeys.

Quote (Saurod @ Feb 12 2025 08:45am)

Multiverse is NOT scientific AT ALL.

Quote (TiStuff @ Feb 12 2025 06:05pm)

we found something we can agree on

Quote (Saurod @ Feb 14 2025 04:09am)

Finally. I hoped you'd get it eventually.

Quote (TiStuff @ Feb 14 2025 01:55pm)

whats your proposal for the fine tuning argument?

Quote (Saurod @ Feb 14 2025 07:29am)

What is the "argument"?