Guy

 

has still got me all worked up.

These people.

"Critics sometimes argue that the multiverse is unscientific because we can’t ever observe other universes. But I disagree. We can’t observe the interior of black holes, but we believe what physicist Roger Penrose says about what happens there—his theory has gained credibility by agreeing with many things we can observe."

(This is where I just wanna throw a brick at 'em and tell 'em to shut up and sit down! 

Penrose theory agrees with many things we can observe.

We cant observe all of this universe, let alone any parts of any others.

Therefore, the authors fallacy is that of:

So?

Dr. Martin Rees is Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal. Lord Rees is co-founder of the Centre for the Study of the Existential Risk, an early stage initiative which brings together a scientist, philosopher and software entrepreneur.

If your argument above is so strong?

"The multiverse is scientific"

Then why did you have to employ a middle school gimmick to try and make your point?

Be my first question out of the gate for you.

Stephen Hawking proved the universe came from a singularity. It had a beginning. Spent a good chuck of the rest of his life trying to unprove what he proved. 

This guy? 

This guy had a hand with Cosmic Background Radiation. It exist like the big bang theory said it would and that also shows the universe had a beginning. Just like Hawking's discovery did. 

These guys just dont like it, they dont like the theistic implications of it and they are going to wild crazy lengths to try and undo what they have discovered.

So again?

Why did you have to employ a middle school gimmick to try and make your point if your argument is so valid?