An Open Letter to Atheists

[AN2]

Says the guy who can’t differentiate singular from plural.

lol Says the guy who (still) thinks that's ^ an argument

Ah Tiger, you're good for amusement if nothing else

 

[Tiger]

Tiger be like....

Two different theories are the same cos Tiger says so. That takes balls. He's even browbeating poor old dope Roger Penrose who only has a Nobel Prize and is Rouse Ball Professor of Maths at Oxford.

Ah, the tired incantation of academic sainthood—as if Oxford robes and Swedish medals grant metaphysical immunity. Prestige does not absolve error.

 

[Tiger]

So, no answer there

"Theoretical physics is a deflection from my creation myth."

What a dumb, whiney ass titty baby

A "creation myth" presumes arbitrary narrative; what I'm pointing to is metaphysical necessity grounded in reason. The multiverse is the real myth here—an infinite, unprovable abstraction conjured precisely to avoid confronting the uncomfortable question: why is there something rather than nothing? It's not a deflection from my explanation—it's a deflection from any coherent explanation at all.

 

[Tiger]

lol Says the guy who (still) thinks that's ^ an argument

Ah Tiger, you're good for amusement if nothing else

You can always tell when ‘hothead’ Dawson is losing badly. He reverts to childish sneering.

 

[AN2]

A "creation myth" presumes arbitrary narrative; what I'm pointing to is metaphysical necessity grounded in reason. The multiverse is the real myth here—an infinite, unprovable abstraction conjured precisely to avoid confronting the uncomfortable question: why is there something rather than nothing?

It's not a deflection from my explanation—it's a deflection from any coherent explanation at all.

"Theoretical physics is a deflection from any coherent explanation at all."

That's why you're whining about it

 

[Haven]

Ah, the tired incantation of academic sainthood—as if Oxford robes and Swedish medals grant metaphysical immunity. Prestige does not absolve error.

But you weren't considering that when you namechecked him earlier in support of your position, were you?
Prestige does not absolve error for Gödel and Penrose to Lennox and Plantinga. Appeal to Authority is a classic fallacy.

Still, between you and Penrose, well, theres no contest is there? Its a bit hilarous to see you try to judge him and still expect to be taken even slightly seriously.

 

[Tiger]

"Theoretical physics is a deflection from any coherent explanation at all."

That's why you're whining about it

To mistake principled correction for “whining” is the reflex of a juvenile mind, schooled in memes, not metaphysics. When a man calmly lays bare the occult dogmas of theoretical physics dressed up as empirical certainties, and the reply is sniggering emojis, we are not in the realm of science but of sophomoric sorcery.

So, to be clear for the benefit of our reading audience—are you sincerely proposing that Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a theory which posits an infinite procession of self-erasing universes without origin or telos, is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning? Or is this just the latest metaphysical fig leaf for those desperate to avoid the implications of design?

@Haven - feel free to answer the same question.

 

[AN2]

But you weren't considering that when you namechecked him earlier in support of your position, were you?
Prestige does not absolve error for Gödel and Penrose to Lennox and Plantinga. Appeal to Authority is a classic fallacy.

Still, between you and Penrose, well, theres no contest is there? Its a bit hilarous to see you try to judge him and still expect to be taken even slightly seriously.

Scientists are lauded by FECs... until they're not

 

[AN2]

To mistake principled correction for “whining” is the reflex of a juvenile mind, schooled in memes, not metaphysics. When a man calmly lays bare the occult dogmas of theoretical physics dressed up as empirical certainties, and the reply is sniggering emojis, we are not in the realm of science but of sophomoric sorcery.

So, to be clear for the benefit of our reading audience—are you sincerely proposing that Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a theory which posits an infinite procession of self-erasing universes without origin or telos, is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning? Or is this just the latest metaphysical fig leaf for those desperate to avoid the implications of design?

@Haven - feel free to answer the same question.

So, uh, what does Penrose's CCC say about "fine-tuning", Tiger?

 

[Tiger]

So, uh, what does Penrose's CCC say about "fine-tuning", Tiger?

Oh look, James answering a question with a question. Quelle surprise. Quick…deflect…deflect!

His theory is literally born from the fine tuning of this (observable and measurable) universe and his own probability calculations.

 

[AN2]

His theory is literally born from the fine tuning of this (observable and measurable) universe and his own probability calculations.

Can you expand?

 

[Haven]

feel free to answer the same question

Your former hero (as of a day ago) proposed it, didn't he?

But now "prestige does not absolve error".

Its not so much that I'm proposing that "Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a theory which posits an infinite procession of self-erasing universes without origin or telos, is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning" - what I am instead proposing for consideration is that you are an outragous bullshit artist and hyprocrite.

 

[Tiger]

Can you expand?

Certainly. As soon as you answer my original question

 

[AN2]

Certainly. As soon as you answer my original question

Okay, revise it to a sentence and I promise you that I will (my eyes have a tendency to glaze over your bloviated general nonsense)

 

[Tiger]

But you weren't considering that when you namechecked him earlier in support of your position, were you?
Prestige does not absolve error for Gödel and Penrose to Lennox and Plantinga. Appeal to Authority is a classic fallacy.

Still, between you and Penrose, well, theres no contest is there? Its a bit hilarous to see you try to judge him and still expect to be taken even slightly seriously.

You have no idea what I was considering. Nor has it any relevance. You’re deflecting from the poverty of your explanation of the universe’s origins and how you think Penrose solved the problem when he did no such thing.

You’re lazily trying the old bait-and-switch—pretending that acknowledging someone’s legitimate contributions to one domain commits me to uncritical acceptance of everything they’ve ever said. That’s not how serious thinking works. I can value Penrose’s insights into the structure of spacetime or consciousness without swallowing his Conformal Cyclic Cosmology whole. Intellectual integrity demands discernment, not blind devotion.

Your claim that it’s “hilarious” for me to critique Penrose only betrays a shallow understanding of how real scholarship works. Great thinkers—Gödel, Penrose, Plantinga—are not immune to error, and citing them appropriately is not “appeal to authority” but recognition of where their insights are solid and where they lapse into speculative fantasy. The fact that you see critique as contradiction tells me more about your dogmatism than mine.

I’m not judging the man—I’m judging a theory. If you think Penrose’s CCC is beyond critique, then it’s you, not I, who has succumbed to the fallacy of authority.

 

[Haven]

recognition of where their insights are solid and where they lapse into speculative fantasy

Which is merely your own very limited judgement, at the end of the day.

 

[Tiger]

Which is merely your own very limited judgement, at the end of the day.

No, what’s "limited" is not my judgment—but your attempt to pass off unprovable imaginings as though they stood on firmer ground than they do. My critique isn’t based on personal taste; it’s based on the fact that theories like CCC, while imaginative, remain entirely speculative and devoid of empirical verification. If calling out metaphysics dressed up as physics unsettles you, that’s not a reflection of my limitations—but of your expectations for science.

Do you believe that CCC is the best explanation for why our universe is fine tuned and do you believe in this chicken and egg cosmology?

 

[AN2]

Your former hero (as of a day ago) proposed it, didn't he?

But now "prestige does not absolve error".

Its not so much that I'm proposing that "Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a theory which posits an infinite procession of self-erasing universes without origin or telos, is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning" - what I am instead proposing for consideration is that you are an outragous bullshit artist and hyprocrite.

Feel free to disagree, but I'm not sure why you're using the eh, plural, universes

You might only be giving Tiger a little fuel (for his dumpster fire)

 

[Haven]

what’s "limited" is not my judgment

But it is limited. Absolutely so.

You can say otherwise all you want.

Doesn't change a thing.

 

[Haven]

I'm not sure why you're using the eh, plural, universes

I'm just quoting the poor man back at him.

 

[AN2]

Feel free to disagree, but I'm not sure why you're using the eh, plural, universes

You might only be giving Tiger a little fuel (for his dumpster fire)

What is clear, is that the plural in CCC is the plural of aeon

I'm not sure that you should say the same for universe

 

[Tiger]

What is clear, is that the plural in CCC is the plural of aeon

I'm not sure you should say the same for universe

James, be honest. Do you think CCC suggests the creation of a new universe or the same one over and over.

The answer is potentially hilarious.

 

[AN2]

James, be honest. Do you think CCC suggests the creation of a new universe or the same one over and over.

Could you tell me why it isn't?

 

[Tiger]

Could you tell me why it isn't?

Certainly, James.

Asking this question confirms that you think it does.

If not a single baryon, quantum state, or boundary condition persists, then invoking “sameness” is semantically hollow. You’re left with entirely new spacetime, governed perhaps by the same equations, but populated by new instantiations—new matter, new causal chains, new cosmic history. In every physically meaningful sense, that is a new universe.

So, unless your definition of “same” is abstract mathematical symmetries untethered from physical instantiation, the answer is clear: CCC posits a succession of universes—plural.

Whether stacked end-to-end (as in CCC) or side-by-side (as in many-worlds), it’s still a multiverse model by definition.

 

[AN2]

Certainly, James.

Asking this question confirms that you think it does.

If not a single baryon, quantum state, or boundary condition persists, then invoking “sameness” is semantically hollow. You’re left with entirely new spacetime, governed perhaps by the same equations, but populated by new instantiations—new matter, new causal chains, new cosmic history. In every physically meaningful sense, that is a new universe.

So, unless your definition of “same” is abstract mathematical symmetries untethered from physical instantiation, the answer is clear: CCC posits a succession of universes—plural.

Whether stacked end-to-end (as in CCC) or side-by-side (as in many-worlds), it’s still a multiverse model by definition.

It's literally been pointed out to you, in black and white, that CCC is not a multiverse theory. Why do you keep on embarrassing yourself?

Now, "fine-tuning" please, what does CCC say about that?

 

[Tiger]

It's literally been pointed out to you, in black and white, that CCC is not a multiverse theory. Why do you keep on embarrassing yourself?

Now, "fine-tuning" please, what does CCC say about that?

James, yourself and Tank are both illiterate and don’t understand the basic meaning of words. You have no merit to point out anything to anyone.

CCC is a multiverse theory in structure and implication. It proposes multiple distinct universes, each called an “aeon,” with separate thermodynamic histories and space-time frameworks. That’s not speculation—that’s the literal definition of a sequential multiverse. Arguing that stacking universes vertically rather than horizontally changes the genre is like claiming a deck of cards isn’t a collection because it’s in a pile, not spread out.

But here’s the deeper issue: it doesn't matter whether CCC fits your preferred label or not—because at its core, it remains an elaborate metaphysical fantasy, no more empirically verifiable than myth. Conformal mappings of infinite cosmic cycles may dazzle the mathematically inclined, but they are just scaffolding built on the absence of data, not the presence of it. CCC doesn’t solve fine-tuning; it dodges it by assuming an infinite regress of universes. That's not science—it’s cosmological escapism with equations.

 

[AN2]

James, yourself and Tank are both illiterate and don’t understand the basic meaning of words. You have no merit to point out anything to anyone.

lol The f*cking irony

'Multiverse' has a meaning... which isn't the plural of 'universe' in the title of a YouTube video

You remain a science illiterate and a disgrace to the human intellect

CCC is a multiverse theory in structure and implication. It proposes multiple distinct universes, each called an “aeon,” with separate thermodynamic histories and space-time frameworks. That’s not speculation—that’s the literal definition of a sequential multiverse. Arguing that stacking universes vertically rather than horizontally changes the genre is like claiming a deck of cards isn’t a collection because it’s in a pile, not spread out.

But here’s the deeper issue: it doesn't matter whether CCC fits your preferred label or not—because at its core, it remains an elaborate metaphysical fantasy, no more empirically verifiable than myth. Conformal mappings of infinite cosmic cycles may dazzle the mathematically inclined, but they are just scaffolding built on the absence of data, not the presence of it. CCC doesn’t solve fine-tuning; it dodges it by assuming an infinite regress of universes. That's not science—it’s cosmological escapism with equations.

 

[Tiger]

Okay, revise it to a sentence and I promise you that I will (my eyes have a tendency to glaze over your bloviated general nonsense)

Ok ‘Myles’

Are you sincerely proposing that Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a theory which posits an infinite procession of self-erasing universes without origin or telos, is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning?

 

[Tiger]

But it is limited. Absolutely so.

You can say otherwise all you want.

Doesn't change a thing.

Simply repeating "it's limited" like an incantation doesn’t transform your position into an argument. If you believe CCC is more than imaginative conjecture, then say how.

Show me (and everyone else) the empirical evidence. Otherwise, dismissing my critique without engaging with its substance isn’t a rebuttal.

 

[AN2]

Ok ‘Myles’

Are you sincerely proposing that Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, a theory which posits an infinite procession of self-erasing universes without origin or telos, is the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning?

Back to your usual shite I see, always pushing it to 'origins' i.e. to your creation myth/God

Show me where CCC says anything about the "existence of the cosmos" and, for the third or fourth time of asking, what it says about "fine-tuning"?

 

[Tiger]

lol The f*cking irony

'Multiverse' has a meaning... which isn't the plural of 'universe' in the title of a YouTube video

You remain a science illiterate and a disgrace to the human intellect

It's comically revealing that you think the term “multiverse” is somehow insulated from its plain meaning: multiple universes. Whether imagined as concurrent, sequential, branched, or stacked, the conceptual plurality is the point.

Penrose’s CCC posits an indefinite series of causally distinct universes—plural—which fits squarely within the definitional umbrella of multiverse theories, regardless of your emotional attachment to semantics. If that basic taxonomy escapes you, the only “disgrace to the human intellect” here is the posture of smug ignorance parading as insight.

This misunderstanding ranks right up there with your claim that the universe creating itself from nothing is a 50/50 probability "it either happened or it didn't"—an argument so profoundly unserious it verges on cosmic slapstick.

Go read a book. You're wasting my time.

 

[Tiger]

Back to your usual shite I see, always pushing it to 'origins' i.e. to your creation myth/God

Show me where CCC says anything about the "existence of the cosmos" and, for the third or fourth time of asking, what it says about "fine-tuning"?

Literally just answer the phucking question.

It’s that simple.

You said if I put it in one sentence you would answer it. You haven’t. You never do. You’re a time wasting troll.

 

[AN2]

Again, mountains of irony

I'm not "emotionally attached" to anything, I am simply destroying you when you (foolishly) wander into the realm of science with your God theory

 

[Tiger]

Again, mountains of irony

I'm not "emotionally attached" to anything, I am simply destroying you when you (foolishly) wander into the realm of science with your God theory

James you are utterly hopeless.

You couldn’t destroy a paper bag.

You can’t answer basic questions because you think everything is a trap and you ultimately have no solid beliefs.

The literal definition of an online troll.

 

[AN2]

James you are utterly hopeless.

You couldn’t destroy a paper bag.

You can’t answer basic questions because you think everything is a trap and you ultimately have no solid beliefs.

The literal definition of an online troll.

What question, this -

Is CCC the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning?

You want me to answer a ridiculous question, other than with - CCC has nothing to say about that?

You are a strawmanning imbecile, as is all of your ilk

 

[Tiger]

For the thoughtful reader, now is a fitting moment to pause and consider the worldview espoused by our modern magi, James and Tank.

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.

 

[AN2]

lol Stop waving your hands about and tell us what you think CCC has to say about;

1. The existence of the cosmos
2. "Fine-tuning"

 

[Tiger]

lol Stop waving your hands about and tell us what you think CCC has to say about;

1. The existence of the cosmos
2. "Fine-tuning"

James. My work is done here tonight.

I’ve exposed the farcical atheist position.

Thank you for being a willing prop/participant.

 

[AN2]

The answer is: Nothing

So a five-year-old (or younger) would be able to answer this question -

Is CCC the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning?

 

[Tiger]

The answer is: Nothing

So a five-year-old (or younger) would be able to answer this question -

Is CCC the most coherent explanation for the existence of the cosmos and its astonishing fine-tuning?

My work is done James. Once again you lose. Thanks for walking into my trap once again. Checkmate.

If you want to entertain the casual reader by disputing this, then work away:


For the thoughtful reader, now is a fitting moment to pause and consider the worldview espoused by our modern magi, James and Tank.

According to their cosmological folklore, the universe is eternally giving birth to itself—like a cosmic chicken endlessly laying its own egg. A chicken which has always existed and was never created.

Yet, in a breathtaking feat of metaphysical gymnastics, they insist that each new "chicken" is not a new universe at all, but the same one repeating ad infinitum, a kind of astrophysical Groundhog Day.

This, dear reader, is the sad spectacle of atheist cosmology in our time: a self-refuting fable posing as serious science. A parody in search of reverence.

They won’t be living this down in a hurry. This has been an intriguing evening’s work, finally nailing them down in their absurd belief’s.