Atheists Prevaricating

[jem]

I was setting you up you lying troll.

I have video explaining what I said above is correct.

Now support your lying troll statement.

Quote from stu:

..just further shows how little you actually do know about Penrose's work.

You chose to brainlessly copy nonsensical claims based on things he doesn't say. Why the hell would you ever be interested or able to understand the things he does say?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:
I have video explaining what I said above is correct.

What you have is a nonsensical insupportable assertion drawn from a video abbreviated in order to leave the wrong impression.
In other words what you have is sweet f a.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

What you have is a nonsensical insupportable assertion drawn from a video abbreviated in order to leave the wrong impression.
In other words what you have is sweet f a.

try supporting your lying statement... troll.

show us.

show us when penrose explains the fine tuning with a cyclical universe conjecture. you may be correct... I just want to see if you have any ability to tell the truth or you just make up lies.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

try supporting your lying statement... troll.

show us.

show us when penrose explains the fine tuning with a cyclical universe conjecture. you may be correct... I just want to see if you have any ability to tell the truth or you just make up lies.

My "lying statement"...."may be correct".
Are you drinking or can you just be that pathetic without trying?

You wouldn't recognize the truth about Penrose or anything else on this topic if it smacked you around the head. You've already proved that much over and over again.
Clearly you need a place, even if it is in the peddling of contradiction or misinformation, for your magic divine creator to sit and nothing, such as 'the truth', is welcome there.

 

[jem]

given us a lnk you liar stu... support your statement.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

given us a lnk you liar stu... support your statement.

When you can learn to be civil.

In the meantime all you have to do is understand that your reliance on copying a clip, purposely taken out of a video to mislead and give a wrong impression about what is actually being said in the video, is very dumb of you.
That much I've advised you of too many times than should be necessary for any reasonable person to understand.

 

[jem]

stu had just finished lying... attempting to say that penrose did not mean what he stated in his book as his paper...

I asked from proof.

now for a page the sturoll plays games.

Quote from jem:

alright... lets see if you can back this one up... for the first time in you lying about science life...

show us when penrose explains the fine tuning with a cyclical universe conjecture.

 

[stu]

Anyone who's genuinely interested knows full well Penrose puts forward a cyclic universe, his point being to dismisses any "enormous odds against" argument.

I can link to the proof easily enough. So can anyone else.
The proof is out there Spok.

You're angry uncivil and closed minded in defense of that imaginary divine creator so you're hardly going to be responsive to any proof no matter what.

You'll have to take Penrose on and show how his cyclic universe doesn't overcome that non-argument 'odds against' you're trying to push all the time.

That'll be a laugh.

Quote from jem:

stu had just finished lying... attempting to say that penrose did not mean what he stated in his book as his paper...

I asked from proof.

now for a page the sturoll plays games.

 

[jem]

Where does Penrose's say his cyclic universe dismisses any enormous odds against argument. If you understand his cyclic universe argument you would see that it can be different than a multiverse argument...

So go ahead... show us where you got your info. for once.. instead of just bullshitting your scientism.


Of course... you will still have to address.
Hawking, Carr, Weinberg and the hundreds of others who speculate the multiverse is needed to dismiss the fine tuning of our universe...


“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)

Quote from stu:

Anyone who's genuinely interested knows full well Penrose puts forward a cyclic universe, his point being to dismisses any "enormous odds against" argument.

I can link to the proof easily enough. So can anyone else.
The proof is out there Spok.

You're angry uncivil and closed minded in defense of that imaginary divine creator so you're hardly going to be responsive to any proof no matter what.

You'll have to take Penrose on and show how his cyclic universe doesn't overcome that non-argument 'odds against' you're trying to push all the time.

That'll be a laugh.

 

[stu]

Go look up Cyclic universe and get a clue before making any more of an utter ass of yourself.
Then it should be even more immediately obvious, even to someone as confused as you, why "odds are" has no relevance.

Quote from jem:
Where does Penrose's say his cyclic universe dismisses any enormous odds against argument. If you understand his cyclic universe argument you would see that it can be different than a multiverse argument...

So go ahead... show us where you got your info. for once.. instead of just bullshitting your scientism.

Of course... you will still have to address.
Hawking, Carr, Weinberg and the hundreds of others who speculate the multiverse is needed to dismiss the fine tuning of our universe...

“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)