No einstein... but every time we encounter something which looks incredibly fine tuned... we should consider there might be a tuner. do you enjoying forcing me to explain this too you everytime you play stupid. its funny how you atheists can read science and then lie about it. here it is again. ... 1. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned [10] - as if prescribed by an outside agency or it requires one to invoke the notion of eternal inflation, which prevents one from predicting what a typical observer would see. from the hawking and hartle paper... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf 2. "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
Do you really want to go down the rational road? I have read the Bible, and I follow many of it's tenet's, but I do not believe in all the fantasy stories put forth. I have no problem with others blindly following, and calling it Faith, what else could you call it? A single entity, with all the powers put forth for 2000-5000 years is where I have a problem. Something happened, we'll likely never know, some choose faith, some choose science. That's pretty much it IMO.
if the christian default position is "god did it". for everything we dont have an answer why keep looking for answers? would it be anti christian to keep looking for answers that showed god did not do it?
Why not concede the "God did it" argument? Let them have it. It's clear that either God has completely and utterly walked away from his creation, or that He's literally doing everything according to His plan, which, from a practical perspective, are the same thing.
ahem, an agnostic is just assessing the fact that they don't know. strictly speaking I'm agnostic , I believe but I don't "know". I'm sure that went over brass's and peedrinker's pointy little heads.
they want to teach "god did it" in the schools. that would be conceding the scientific advancement of mankind. We Have A Responsibilityâ¦as unbelievers, we have a responsibility to the future of our species to do whatever we can to disseminate the science and eliminate the myth.
If God wanted to be a dictator, He would have mandated exactly what you suggest. But He actually wanted to create us in His image, to be like Him. As a certain Savior once said..... "be perfect, for I am perfect" It takes experience to get good at anything, including life. He gave us time to experiment with our own decisions, as it was called in the beginning, "knowledge of good and evil". How is it not obvious to you that if man simply did not lie, steal, murder, give false witness, or put any other gods before The Perfect One that these problems of which you are so fixated on would not exist? Or would you rather not have the freedom to choose your own path? Would you rather have God force you?
lol. sounds like you bought into the indoctrination without thinking about it too deeply. who said anything about forcing. an all powerfull god should be able to think of something to get us to believe in him without force. how about he call fox news and proclaim to the world that every dying child in one hospital will get up and walk out tomorrow. think maybe that would get him noticed? Bertrand Russell: And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence Gene Roddenberry: We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes
If you really believed your theory it would be irrational to believe in a god. You'd be overwhelmed with the unlimited ideas of any possible reason on why we are here. But this whole song and dance of yours is to justify your belief in Jesus. Which is OK, if you could just admit that. You are totally disingenuous on this subject.