Since @Sid clearly won’t engage at all over his relentless use of known logical fallacies we will examine them with out him, for our own edification.
Here is his first post:
We saw after much prevarication that he was here using a false equivalence fallacy, where he dishonestly equated the subjective meaning that humans attach to their lives, with the notion the universe itself has or is even capable of having meaning. NB the universe containing meaning is very different to the universe itself having meaning. He deliberately ignored this difference, using a false equivalence.
NB Worthy of note here he posted this in a thread asking what is the biggest lie, despite no one here ever claiming that the universe didn’t contain meaning. So was also of course using a straw man fallacy in conjunction with the false equivalence fallacy.
His very first post, and two known logical fallacies used. Had he been honest about what he meant, then this argument would have been exposed immediately as irrational, but note the first question I asked, and his response here:
So when I ask @Sid directly for clarification, instead of honestly addressing his irrational false equivalence, he evades it with dishonest obfuscation. Note also that he also shifts the burden of proof to his claim immediately, and yes it was a claim as no one has claimed what he is calling the biggest lie.
Just a few posts later he skirts close to another obvious argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy:
Note the addition of word life, he is shifting the goal posts already to his final false equivalence, and he has already asserted that it is “the biggest lie” that the universe has no meaning, now he is implying the notion is unfalsifiable. So though this is still a false equivalence to where he eventually leads, which is just that human beings (have evolved) to attach subjective meaning to their lives, it is also a straw man since no one disputed that as yet hidden claim, he is now implying that not knowing the universe can’t have meaning validates his claim the universe has meaning, which of course would be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I don’t think he’s posted more then 10 times and that is three known logical fallacies. The arguments by the way are as relentlessly dishonest at this point as they are irrational, evasion, equivocation, misdirection, ignoring question that sought clarity on his position, responding with vague appeals to mystery as questions, asked of straw man claims no one has made, etc etc…
More to come on this, as some posters will understand and see the inference for claims and beliefs that are based on such relentlessly irrational and dishonest arguments.