“What that IS is a busted syllogism”
This is only another way of stating what I said.
Again, the argument at the start of this thread is not a circular argument. It’s an example of syllogistic logic in that the conclusion follows from the premise. However, due to certain facts inherent to the conclusion, the premise is refuted.
Therefore, the multiverse theory is untenable.
One is tempted to resurrect the old saw about ‘People unclear on the concept ...’
You are SO ‘confused’ about what you are saying, the mind boggles.
An argument / syllogism / ‘proof’ that ‘refutes itself’ is, BY DEFINITION, defective and useless. And it don’t matter, no how, what the subject may be or how urgently you NEED said proof to fly.
You can put lipstick on it but it’s still a pig ...
Has it ever occurred to you that there may be sound reasons why you can’t seem to sway or impress anyone who doesn’t already agree with you ?
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion