Were you offended by the "i.e. Pascal's Wager is for the gullible" comment? I can tone it down if you'd like for the sake of keeping this discussion civil. Betapig!? Lol, that's original
1. at least you should be able to line up more scientists than I have shown you -- right? How about a few recent from scientists which say our universe is a random spontaneous universe.... but not part of the multiverse. 2. your last sentence is pretty funny since I have shown you quotes from scientists saying most scientists now chose between the multiverse idea or evidence of design idea.
So your standard of truth is how many people believe something? That's a logical fallacy. It really sounds kind of lame when you establish the end condition of a debate as being how many more quotes you or I can post. So you're only response to the substance of the quotes I posted are to...ask for yet more quotes that fit exactly into your pre-defined criteria of acceptance. Sorry, but you're going to have to accept what I have already posted, and answer to that. Which you haven't except to repost and restate what you have already said, and to which the purpose of my posted quotes was to refute your claim that "most if not all scientists" believe in a fine-tuned universe. That's a lie, a deception, or a misrepresentation. Whatever it is, it's not the truth and I think I proved that point. If you seriously think intelligent design is at the fore-front of scientific advances, or that there is even a consensus among the science community that the universe is fine-tuned (and hence implying "fine-tuner"), then you are extremely mistaken. You do realize that teaching intelligent design in science classrooms is illegal in countries with modern secular governments, right? You are making a religious/philosophical statement when implying a fine-tuner. Who is the fine-tuner? Of course it's an unfalsifiable deity. I can only conclude that you are quote mining (a common creationist tactic) and taking people's quotes out of context. For example, you're use of Stephen Hawking to posit he believes in a designed universe. He only said it "seemed" like the universe was designed which does not mean he believes it so. To which the quotes I posted by him should have put to rest your attempt to use such a brilliant mind as a support to your point of view, which I know for a fact he does not share. Here it is again. "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. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." I can only assume that I can nitpick the other quotes you posted and find some reason why it's out of context or just plain wrong. You're more than welcome to post your best 3. And you're also more than welcome to answer to any of my quotes which state in DETAIL the fact of a randomly changing/generated universe.
I generally agree, but it also happens to be one of ET's atheists biggest arguments. Or haven't you noticed?
The logic goes, just because everyone believes something doesn't necessarily mean it's true. In this case, what the science community accepts as fact on an overwhelming majority basis just happens to be the truth.
Which translates to: It's OK for YOU to use the argument but it's a logical fallacy for anyone else to use it.