Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

Yet again you contradict yourself in the same post. And you're probably too STUpid to see it, even after it's pointed out to you.

 

Why do you keep posting stuff to prove my point if you disagree with it so much?

Birth: all parameters are known. Probability against 10 ^265,000 (beats Universe!)
Universe: they aren't all known.

If you know the parameters you can make a probability calculation. "Given what we have already said,".... well what he has already said is, it is all down to the basic laws of physics.

Lee Smolin's hypothesis is a Universe by cosmological natural selection, in that black holes will create a Universe of any and every kind. With around 100 million black holes in the galaxy and an endless number of galaxies in the universe, one with black holes will continue and be able to 'reproduce', and so any question of probability for a Universe like this one isn't even there.

As I said earlier, it's easy to understand how people, like Lee Smolin and Roger Penrose use the irrational proposition of a probability not as fact (because in this subject it isn't ), but juxtapose it to demonstrate how their own hypothesis remove the need for any question of probability in the first place.

Sure, false starts. Laws of physics allow for it, so why not.

I certainly do postulate that a scientific theory (which has to be based on relevant associated fact) is superior to non fact based non-explanations about some imaginary deity or other, magically whipping up a Universe only because of superstition, wishful thinking and make-believe.

Even for you that should be a no brainer.

 

once again stu pulls out his buzzwords and bullshit post.
just keep telling yourself you understand the subject better than the smartest guys on the planet.....


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WhGdVMBk6Zo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

When the smartest guys on the planet won't be telling me something which can't be true, then I question the idiot who pretends they are.

 

5. Very occasionally monkeys hammering away at typewriters will type
out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
Not true, not in this universe. But it is a popular assumption that the monkeys can do it, a wrong assumption that randomness can produce meaningful stable complexity. But let’s look at the numbers to see why the monkeys will always fail. I’ll take the only sonnet I know, sonnet number 18, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day …” All sonnets are 14 lines, all about the same length. This sonnet has approximately 488 letters (neglect spaces). With a typewriter or keyboard having 26 letters, the number of possible combinations is 26 to the exponential power of 488 or approximately ten to the power of 690. That is a one with 690 zeros after it. Convert the entire 10 to the 56 grams of the universe (forget working with the monkeys) into computer chips each weighing a billionth of a gram and have each chip type out a billion sonnet trials a second (or 488 billion operations per second) since the beginning of time, ten to the 18th seconds ago. The number of trials will be approximately ten to power of 92, a huge number but minuscule when compared with the 10 to power 690 possible combinations of the letters. We are off by a factor of ten to power of 600. The laws of probability confirm that the universe would have reached its heat death before getting one sonnet. We will never get a sonnet by random trials, and the most basic molecules of life are far more complex than the most intricate sonnet. As reported in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, when the world’s most influential atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, read this analysis of complexity and several analyses related to the complexity of life brought in my third book, The Hidden Face of God, and Roy Varghese’s excellent book, The Wonder of the World, he abandoned his errant belief in a Godless world and publically apologized for leading so many persons astray for the decades that his atheistic thoughts held sway.

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=82

Theory of the Gradual Evolution of Life.
The exact opposite is the case. As Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History, NYC, wrote in the New York Times, “The fossil record that we were told to find for the past 150 years (since Charles Darwin ) does not exist.” Darwin insisted that “natura non facit saltum,” that nature does not make jumps. In fact, the flow of life as recorded in the fossil record has many jumps in complexity. The great trade secret of paleontology is that the fossil record does not confirm Darwin. Never did I expect to read in the esteemed, peer reviewed journal, Science, the following: “Did Darwin get it all right?” And the sub-title was no, species appear with a most un-Darwinian rapidity. The problems of evolution begin with the origin of life (Richard Dawkins attributes the origin of life to “luck.”) and continue through the fossil record. Most precisely, the oldest rocks that can bear fossils already have fossils of microbes, some undergoing cell division. Nature “invented” DNA, RNA, cell structure, cell function with startling rapidity.

The Theory of Evolution is based on selection by nature (survival
of the fittest) and therefore is not a random process.
Not true. The Theory of Evolution as understood today is a two stage process, the first of which is totally random: First stage: random mutations produce changes in the DNA (the genetic library that stores the information to form the specific organism) and so yield variations in the progeny of the organism; and, second stage: the environment challenges the altered organism. If the mutation was beneficial, the improved version survives and flourishes. If the mutation was detrimental, then relative to its better neighbors, it will decrease in abundance and possibly perish. This is what is referred to as survival of the fittest. If there ever was a phrase with circular reasoning, this is it. We define the fittest as those that survive. We could just as well have written survival of the survivors. Note that the second stage, the challenge by nature, is not random. But the first stage, the mutations in the DNA, must be random. If not random, then certain mutations are favored by nature, which would imply an inherent direction to the flow of life, which in turn would imply a Director. The late Stephen Jay Gould, then professor of paleobiology, Harvard University, referred to it as channeling.

The Big Bang Theory disproves God (and affirms atheism).
Not at all. The big bang (theory or fact) is merely jargon for the creation of the universe. The opening sentence of the Bible states that there was a creation. What caused the big bang is still being debated. Scientists suggest that within the laws of nature, the concept of a quantum fluctuation could create a universe. This of course assumes that: 1) the laws of nature (not physical nature, but totally abstract, non-physical laws of nature) pre-date the universe; 2) that these laws are eternal or timeless, outside of time; and 3) that within these eternal laws is the property of a quantum fluctuation that under extreme conditions can produce the physical universe from absolute nothing. Now all this sounds very much like the biblical definition of God. The Bible tells us that the eternal, non-physical God created the universe – perhaps working through the laws of nature. Recall that in the Exodus account, God used a force of nature, a strong east wind, to split the sea (Exodus 14:21). And that the only name for God in Genesis One is Elokim, God as made manifest in nature.

The mystery of the origin of life has been solved.
Of all the many mysteries in nature, the origin of life is one of the three key that have resisted solution. At the present there is no viable explanation for how the complexity of even the “simplest” of microbes arose over many stages, but starting with rocks, water and a few simple molecules. Consider that molecules or atoms must have joined together perhaps in some pool of water or by a thermal vent and then built a chain of molecules gleaned from that puddle. This growing-in-length molecule must have been able to reproduce itself and do so with some changes that advance its complexity. The number of assumptions required increases with each stage in the proposed development. The other two conundrums are why there is something rather than nothing, why there is existence of any thing in any form; and, what is the origin of consciousness, self-awareness in life that arose from seemingly inert, non-living matter.

 

which does not in anyway contradict the point that the smartest guys in the world are saying the exact opposite of what you are misrepresenting as science.

our universe is incredibly fine tuned... as if by a outside agency... even an agnostic like Susskind explains one possible explanation for this level of tuning is a Creator.

 

Wrong. All parameters are absolutely NOT known. Let's see the list that you "think" is all-inclusive, STUpid.

 

But, and this is important, it is not fine tuned by an outside agency. There can be nothing other than what is. An outside agency is logically impossible. There is no God. Sorry. Most of the smartest guys on the planet are atheists. That means they don't think there is a God, fine tuner, creator, outside agency whatever. You are grasping at straws.

 

I am not grasping at shit. I am just stating facts.
The universe we live in is extremely fine tuned according to most of today's top scientists.

The explanation for that fine tuning... is not settled...
the top scientists admit the answer:
could be God
could be a multiverse
could be explained in the future

 

Then without all parameters probability can't be calculated.
Like an idiot you make the point for me but don't even realize you have.

could be God is not science based
could be a multiverse is science based
could be explained in the future, is like the first, no explanation at all.

You are grasping at shit, and as desperately as ever, to try to insert a God where it won't go.

Misrepresenting as science? You're confusing me with yourself.

A smartest guy in the world says.....

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking.