as expected the et atheists produce more detritus and no science or scientists. Notice the desperate appeal to authority. See the silly argument... tried for a second time by a second et atheist in just a few pages.... these scientists are atheists so you can't conclude the fine tuning is evidence of the tuner. Stu you reek of desperation. Why is this so challenging to your 1950s world view that you become frantically illogical? That you lie about context, that you pretend videos like Dawkins are not what Dawkins meant? You have become a joke. I prefer science. Hawking in his 2006 paper... where he states its either designer.. multiverse or multiverse with a top down view of cosmology. Note... how explicit he is about your first choice... and the conclusion you may draw if you adopt the classical bottom up approach... http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0602/0602091v2.pdf "In fact if one does adopt a bottom-up approach to cosmology, one is immediately led to an essentially classical framework, in which one loses all ability to explain cosmologyâs central question - why our universe is the way it is. In particular a bottom-up approach to cosmology either requires one to postulate an initial state of the universe that is carefully fine-tuned 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.
The vast majority of scientists are atheists, thus they do NOT believe there was a fine tuner. Period. Simple.
Yes Jem, you do sound desperate and like a joke, but then you always did. You asked how you were taking those vids out of context. After it is explained, what do you do but ignore everything to mornically take another of your stock out of context edited clippings, and wrap your rather freaky pre-conclusions in that too. The only response you can manage is to repeat the same uninformed nonsense "designer or multiverse" over and over like an idiot constantly playing the same old broken record. In science , fine tuning is a phrase used to explain about certain mathematical calculations , not a theist's supernatural imaginary designer. Scientists , even those Nobel prize winning ones you like to refer to so much, explain fine tuning without a multiverse with different values for the fundamental constants. So you are, how shall I put this ... just wrong. But then you don't care about being wrong, you just want to make some space for your designer wizard where there is non.
You are so ignorant you are funny. No one has ever seen or found a different region of space with a different fundamental constant. If they did then it would not be a constant. Notice Stu is arguing with Hawking, Carr, Dawkins, Penrose and next he will misrepresent Weinberg. Just about every scientist in the world contradicts Stu's 1950s worldview.
Stu is such a bullshiter. He pretends he knows that constants change in our space in order to quote Weinberg out of context... Barrow and Tipler Barrow and Tipler (1986) anchor their broad-ranging discussion of astrophysics, cosmology, quantum physics, teleology, and the anthropic principle in the fine structure constant, the proton-to-electron mass ratio (which they, along with Barrow (2002), call β, and the coupling constants for the strong force and gravitation. [edit]Martin Rees's Six Numbers Martin Rees, in his book Just Six Numbers, mulls over the following six dimensionless constants, whose values he deems fundamental to present-day physical theory and the known structure of the universe: N≈1036: the ratio of the fine structure constant (the dimensionless coupling constant for electromagnetism) to the gravitational coupling constant, the latter defined using two protons. In Barrow and Tipler (1986) and elsewhere in Wikipedia, this ratio is denoted α/αG. N governs the relative importance of gravity and electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;[1] ε≈0.007: The fraction of the mass of four protons that is released as energy when fused into a helium nucleus. ε governs the energy output of stars, and is determined by the coupling constant for the strong force;[2] Ω ≈ 0.3: the ratio of the actual density of the universe to the critical (minimum) density required for the universe to eventually collapse under its gravity. Ω determines the ultimate fate of the universe. If Ω>1, the universe will experience a Big Crunch. If Ω<1, the universe will expand forever;[1] λ ≈ 0.7: The ratio of the energy density of the universe, due to the cosmological constant, to the critical density of the universe. Others denote this ratio by ;[3] Q ≈ 10â 5: The energy required to break up and disperse an instance of the largest known structures in the universe, namely a galactic cluster or supercluster, expressed as a fraction of the energy equivalent to the rest mass m of that structure, namely mc2;[4] D = 3: the number of macroscopic spatial dimensions. N and ε govern the fundamental interactions of physics. The other constants (D excepted) govern the size, age, and expansion of the universe. These five constants must be estimated empirically. D, on the other hand, is necessarily a nonzero natural number and cannot be measured. Hence most physicists would not deem it a dimensionless physical constant of the sort discussed in this entry. There are also compelling physical and mathematical reasons why D = 3. Any plausible fundamental physical theory must be consistent with these six constants, and must either derive their values from the mathematics of the theory, or accept their values as empirical. [edit]Variation of the constants The question whether the fundamental dimensionless constants depend on space and time is being extensively researched. Despite several claims, no confirmed variation of the constants has been detected.[citation needed] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_constants
So what if all of that, and more, is true about religion? It's nobody's business but your own, what your personal relationship to God is.
I think atheism needs a new "PR" team! They try to get you to see things their way by being angry and insulting. Good plan.
Yes. Hawking is the smartest of all the atheists. And he has been wrong many times (also once claiming information could be permanently lost in black holes), and wrong on topics smaller than the existence of God. If Hawking can't prove the atheists view, then NOBODY can do it.