What the hell are you talking about. Weinbergs time. You misrepresented the science by using a pre observation / discovery quote of Weinbergs. Weinberg predicted and science confirmed (within a reasonable error) his prediction about the Cosmological Constant. You were quoting Weinberg prior to the observation/discovery/confirmation. you are trying to bullshit your way out of big lie again. if you want to make a comment about science... link to it... you mispresent science almost everytime. let me lay it out for you again... per wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant Observations announced in 1998 of distanceâredshift relation for Type Ia supernovae[6][7] indicated that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. When combined with measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation these implied a value of \Omega_{\Lambda} \simeq 0.7,[8] a result which has been supported and refined by more recent measurements. There are other possible causes of an accelerating universe, such as quintessence, but the cosmological constant is in most respects the simplest solution. Thus, the current standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model, includes the cosmological constant, which is measured to be on the order of 10â52 mâ2, in metric units. Multiplied by other constants that appear in the equations, it is often expressed as 10â35 sâ2, 10â47 GeV4, 10â29 g/cm3.[9] In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10â122.[10] http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=49 Professor Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in high energy physics (a field of science that deals with the very early universe), writing in the journal âScientific Americanâ, reflects on: how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinbergâs wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues: One constant does seem to require an incredible fine-tuning â The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000, but instead: 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001, there would be no life of any sort in the entire universe because as Weinberg states: the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form. Michael Turner, the widely quoted astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab, describes the fine-tuning of the universe with a simile: The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side. Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.) Penrose continues, Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe â and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure â we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newtonâs, Maxwellâs, Einsteinâs) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment. Cosmologists debate whether the space-time continuum is finite or infinite, bounded or unbounded. In all scenarios, the fine-tuning remains the same. It is appropriate to complete this section on âfine tuningâ with the eloquent words of Professor John Wheeler: To my mind, there must be at the bottom of it all, not an utterly simple equation, but an utterly simple IDEA. And to me that idea, when we finally discover it, will be so compelling, and so inevitable, so beautiful, we will all say to each other, âHow could it have ever been otherwise?â
There is a world of difference between a "personal God" and a Creator. Einstein knew that. So did Darwin. So do all the real scientists seeking truth. All people seeking the truth and nothing but the truth must remain agnostic at present. Might that change someday? Certainly, but we ain't there yet.
I stand by that comment. Atheists are saying they are certain that not only there is no God, they take it a step further an claim there cannot be a creator. Therefore, if you're an Atheist your mind is not open to the possibilities of something other than your belief. To be that certain about something so obviously unknowable at this time is the definition of no humility.
You are so wrong in your understanding of this CO. Saying "maybe so" to every crazy thought that comes along is not being open minded it's being foolish. Atheist is simply not believing in the absurd. You wouldn't make the same argument for people who flatly didn't believe in leprechauns. I flatly don't believe in leprechauns, god, a civilization living in the earths center all for the same reason, it's absurd.
I just reread your dated quote here... I will break it down The pertinent part of the quote Weinberg quote is below. "the correct value is less than that estimated value by something like 120 orders of magnitude. That looks like some kind of fine tuning. And we don't know. It may be that that number is simply zero, and it's zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn't fine tuned. It's also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn't imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life." 1. its implicit the fine tuning is there... but... 2. "it may be that that number is simply zero, and it's zero for some fundamental reason that we will discover. And so it isn't fine tuned. " This is or is similar to the hope for the Grand Unifying theory or the Theory of Everything. This is one of the options Susskind discusses in his video. Note... the GUT does not really discount a Creator at all. 3. Here is the other option.... multiverse. Note... as I have proven to you before... whether you have one universe with regions with different fundamental laws or multiple universes its the same thing... other almost infinite tries to make a universe as fine tuned as ours for life. " It's also possible that the universe is bigger and more complicated than we had thought, and that what we call the universe, is just part of the universe, and that what we call the laws of nature differ from one part to another, and that we are living in a part of the universe where what we call the laws of nature, including the value of this constant, allow life to appear. In that case we wouldn't imagine that any supernatural agency fine tuned the laws and constants to make us possible, any more that we imagine that a supernatural agency arranged that the Earth had a temperature which allows life.""
How is it foolish to speculate a creation has a creator. How is it less foolish to say I know there was no creator... it was definitely random chance. I truly sit here amazed anyone could they know for sure this was all random. It seems so emotional to say someone knows it was random chance... It seems so "religious" I am not sure I wish to say prove it.
I'm not emotional at all about this. Until there is proof of the unbelievable I'll stay unbelieving. You want to see some out of control emotion, go to church, that's where a lot of emotional people hang out.
Would that be like saying "maybe so" to a crazy idea like, oh say, once upon a time there was nothing, absolutely nothing, not even space. Then, for no apparent reason something appeared. Something appeared from nothing. Then, for no apparent reason the something from nothing thingy exploded and the universe was born. This is not absurd? Your theory ignores the very same question that you pin on the creationists, which is who created God? Ok, who or what, or even why, was the something created from nothing, and what was there the split second before the something from nothing? In the end, as any reasonable person can see, one mans absurdity is another mans belief. Being as objective as I can, the whole damn thing seems absurd regardless of the theory. It is, at this moment at time, beyond human comprehension for something so massive as the universe to be defined with certainty. So spectacular as to leave every true scientist in awe at the new things we discover, only a true zealot would think they could explain it all without question while denying another to put their theory forth.
Believing in God is a belief and we know it. Not having a belief in God or having no position is Agnostic. Saying you know there is no creator is the same as saying you believe in random chance. Its a faith based position to take. It is also just about by definition emotional.