stu, do you get tired of distorting to the point of lying? here is a quote... showing how wrong you are.... "Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire? Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why." http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
and Stu if you are still pretending Susskind does not state that our universe looks designed.... you will have to argue with this book review at the new york times.. ...Not one to despair over lemons, Susskind finds lemonade in that insane-sounding result. He proposes that those 10 (to the) 500 possibilities represent not a flaw in string theory but a profound insight into the nature of reality. Each potential model, he suggests, corresponds to an actual place - another universe as real as our own. In the spirit of kooky science and good science fiction, he coins new names to go with these new possibilities. He calls the enormous range of environments governed by all the possible laws of physics the "Landscape." The near-infinite collection of pocket universes described by those various laws becomes the "megaverse." Susskind eagerly embraces the megaverse interpretation because it offers a way to blow right through the intelligent design challenge. If every type of universe exists, there is no need to invoke God (or an unknown master theory of physics) to explain why one of them ended up like ours... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/books/review/15powell.html
I think you are not only misinterpreting my tone.... as it's not intended to be overly agressive and doesn't seem to me generally to be any more so than your own....but also misinterpreting what is being written. Just to throw a little light on this. How do you interpret the pro-Creator crowd's tone? Don't tell me it is not in any way the 'myway or highway' approach. Also your example doesn't at all mean everyone IS wrong as you say. It means those who postulate x+y=4 must mean x=2 and y=2... are wrong. Or in other words those who say "there must be a Creator are wrong. But it's the science and it's the math which proved the postulate right or wrong. For all I have said is, the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. Which they do. Then all of a sudden, the whole of science is brought into question by those who think there MUST be a Creator and even gravity then becomes "just a theory". People like Jem start bobbing up all excited and confused into blind repetitive posting syndrome, repeating over and over the same old propaganda style posts in thread after thread, as if being constantly deceptive about what scientists actually say might mean anything. All of which I say is basically being ignorant or dishonest. Do you find a problem with that?
If someone were to keep repeating over and over and over that "the laws of physics allow for a creator" would you simply accept it as fact? Or would you ask what specific laws they are referring to?
Scientists know almost nothing about 95% of the universe which they currently call dark energy and dark matter in an attempt to explain discrepancies between observations and theory. So explain which "laws of physics" allow this and how scientists know how the universe began when they don't even understand what it consists of.
It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in evolution because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing. --Freethinker
littlfish Registered: Apr 2009 Posts: 14 11-07-10 11:35 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from peilthetraveler: Plenty of evidence that God exists. All of creation, everything you see, hear, smell, taste and touch is a testament to Gods existence. A logical mind sees a painting and knows their must have been a painter. If the painting is not signed and you cant find the painter, do you say "the painter does not exist because their is no proof"? Isnt the painting a testament to the painter? Now your turn. What proof is there that God DOESNT exist? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very well stated. you think so? it is impossible to prove a negitive..when you figure out a way to prove that santa clause does not exist i will use the same logic to prove gods dont exist. Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative? Richard Dawkins: Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.
Nonsense. I can prove a circle can't be squared or that my coffee is not molten gold. Not very much of a "free thinker" are you?
4 or 5 years ago I gave you top scientific minds and you rejected their thoughts about fine tuning and the appearance of design. It took me years but now I find quotes which spoon feed it to you and you still remain ignorant. You are such a douche when you say - I tell you its the creator or the highway. Why do you lie in such a sick manner? How many times have I said "appearance of design". Have I ever said proof. You are such a slime ball... acting like I tell you creator or the highway. Your position is ignorant of science. You refuse to accept the idea that science not only allows the idea of a creator but that it seems to have evidence of a creator. (I did not say proof). Yet on the converse I not only accept that science says the universe could pop up from nothing and that I suppose there could be trillions of other universes, I could explain it to you with quotes from scientists. I understand both sides of the argument and I am aware of other theories as well. Your argument seems to be that Science says there is no God. Perhaps no argument could be more ignorant than yours.