Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

What part of "by STUpid's own logic" didn't you understand?

 

another childish quote from stu. Stu refuses to accept science.

the quotes I have given you explain the science.
They are from the scientists who do he experiments and make the observations.... they have conclude our universe is too finely tuned to be here by chance.

What part of the fact that our universe appears fine tuned don't you comprehend. I will get you the info you need to understand it.


Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”

- Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.



Stu - do you not comprehend english when a scientist explains it?



"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: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t 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.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t 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 “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t 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

 

Have a clue for once, look at your link - philosophypress. Philosophy is not science. You've had this pointed out to you before.
Reposting the same crap doesn't make you right.

Whether they are scientists or not, those people's ideas about supernatural creators or so called fine tuning whatever, is not science. duh

 

stu -- you are such a troll.

first of all the website does not matter.
The substance of the quotes matter. That is elementary logic.

next, we provided you an explanation of some of the science with a quote from Hawking a few months ago. You know the quote where you got the laws of physics allows the universe came from nothing idea for the first time.

If you really do not understand the science go back and read the quote where you got your quote.

 

"We provided " as in you and your other screen name ?

Of course the title of the website matters. It is at least offering a clue here.
Just ask yourself, how come you can't distinguish between philosophy and science, even when the title of a website you're copying from is suggesting which?
Supernatural origins and notions of fine tuning are not science. So the main substance of the quotes from there are not scientific. That's the thing.

Also Hawking's quote has little if anything to do with this.

It's ridiculously dumb things like that which make your responses sound so clueless.
For some reason you seem content in being that way.

 

A scientific explanation for a universe from nothing.
A mythical non-explanation for a universe - not from nothing - but via some bizarre figment of imagination.
And you're saying the two are the same.

I understand why the lack of necessity for a mythical creator brings with it a certain disenchantment, but always the same race to some deceit or absurdity in defense for such things is totally weird.

 

Yes and one is no more or less far fetched than the other.

 

....only because you altered what was actually said.

 

A universe from nothing is a universe from nothing stewie.

Whether it was created by a grand poo pah in the sky or just happened by pure chance in some fantastical unproven scientific THEORY.

Despite the multitudes who would like to think they know for a fact which it was, as far as I'm concerned NO ONE really knows.

If you've decided to put your faith and beliefs in an unproven scientific THEORY, that's certainly your prerogative.

Me, I'm willing to admit I nor anyone else really truly knows for sure.

 

This from the one who knows less about science than some children.

What's really bizarre is you "thinking" there's a scientific explanation for a universe from nothing. At most, it's a wild speculation. And probably wrong given how little scientists know. They don't even know what 95% of the universe consists of, let alone how it came into being.

You must live a truly pathetic existence being as STUpid as you are and also so desperate to believe there's no God.