the observation the universe is extremely fine tuned is the science. The explanation that there is a Tuner or a Multiverse is the debate. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\ What About God? .... If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god? “I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.” On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.” Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.
Multiverse or not, it only requires that the fundamental laws of nature could be no different, can have no other parameters, and any question of fine tuning evaporates.
but the possibility of a Designer might even be stronger. If science ever develops a Theory of Everything (which is what you just proposed in different words) we may still want to know how and why.
A 'Designer' is not in accordance with the fundamental laws of nature , can have any parameters anyone wants it to have and doesn't explain a thing. That really isn't something stronger. Theory of everything or not, it only requires that the basic laws of nature could be no different. That must be as strong a possibility for dispelling notions of fine tuning as it can get.
that is your philosophy... and there many views on this subject. you might find this one interesting to consider... http://www.strangenotions.com/a-theory-of-everything-a-god-haunted-film/ In light of these clarifications, let us look again at the central preoccupation of “A Theory of Everything,” namely, Hawking’s quest to find the one great unifying equation that would explain all of reality. It is always fascinating to go to roots of an argument, that is to say, to the fundamental assumptions that drive a rational quest, for in so doing, we necessarily leave the realm of the purely rational and enter something like the realm of the mystical. Why in the world would a scientist blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed that there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there? Why shouldn’t the world be chaotic, utterly random, meaningless? Why should one presume that something as orderly and rational as an equation would describe the universe’s structure? I would argue that the only finally reasonable ground for that assumption is the belief in an intelligent Creator, who has already thought into the world the very mathematics that the patient scientist discovers. In turning his back on what he calls “a celestial dictator,” Stephen Hawking was indeed purging his mind of an idol, a silly simulacrum of God, but in seeking, with rational discipline for the theory of everything, he was, in point of fact, affirming the true God.
Okay well, I've considered it... So is it supposed to be suggesting the universe might be chaotic indicating no 'Creator' or is it supposed to be suggesting the universe might fit to a Hawking equation indicating no 'Creator' ? Other than that it doesn't make much sense really.
of course... once again you jump to conclusions which are not necessarily warranted. finding a theory of everything whether it be Hawkings or not might actually point to a Creator.
Jump to what conclusions. I asked you two questions. Nothing scientific points to a 'Creator'. And you may as well say a theory of everything might actually point to a.... Unicorn. The article, like most things you post, doesn't make sense to the point of silly. Par for the course.
Debate:"Anti-theism" or "Why is Atheism not enough?" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Debate:"Anti-theism"_or_"Why_is_Atheism_not_enough?"