“So it’s not an example of a circular argument. It’s an example of an argument in which the conclusion contains a necessary premise which contradicts an essential component of the initial premise, #1.”
Sorry, sport. You can handwave and borrow the form of a logical argument to dress it up BUT ... What that IS is a busted syllogism. Pure and simple.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
“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.