Confusing faith and belief with science and knowledge is not valid. Science is the antithesis of belief. Science is organized systematic rational skepticism towards proof without conclusion, and couldn't be further from belief. Responses are not being made to invoke science. They are to those who, like yourself, would attempt to align science with belief, in the apparent hope of establishing some credibility for faith in a 'Supreme Being'. Attempting to rank the words faith and belief along with the best methods there are of understanding the universe doesn't stack. It never has. Scientists with beliefs is not a description of science. A scientist with a belief or faith, must very quickly acquire some rational fact based understanding before they can start to enter into anything scientific.
Nonsense. You assumed the motivations and timeframe of a "Creator" in your previous post to try to make your point. Now you're pretending your opinions are facts ("because it hasn't shown its existence"). You also ignore the reasons why ancient writings would as varied as they are. Also, before you wrote: "The Christian god is no more falsifiable than Zeus or Thor." Was that supposed to prove something?
Doubling down on your STUpidity? Equally implausible based on what? Certainly NOT based on unfalsifiability. And yes, I've refuted it before. Can't stop yourself from lying, can you?
Here's more from Richard Dawkins. When pressed he's no loinger so sure of himself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M_ZF8r5e7w&feature=youtu.be
.....It's very apparent you also seem to think false assertion is a form of argumentâ¦â¦â¦...did you miss that? I've already explained a number of times why there is an equal implausibility and why so particularly, based on unfalsifiability. You've provided no argument yet which has stood in any reasonable way to support your assertions. Stomping your feet and throwing infantile insults around is not really anything much to do with a refutation.
Why an all-powerful Creator being needs religious people to convince others of its existence? Yea, that sounds really logical for such an entity... Pretending? Can you ffs get off me personally? Why don't you focus on the "shown its existence" part and explain how such a statement is false, instead of obsessing over me. Can you do that PLEASE????? Again, can you stop focusing on me, and focus on the argument? Yes, the Christian god is no more real than Zeus or Thor. Why is that not a true statement?
Riiiiiiight. Ben Stein is just mentioning gaps in our knowledge and of course, "God did it" (Intelligent Design) is his implied conclusion.
The multiverse is conjecture. It is unfalsifiable It can not be observed It can be modeled using numbers the way the writers of star trek could put words together to create an alternate kirk and spock. It is just possible solutions... which Susskind decided, well they could exist therefore we can explain the fine tunings. it is science faith. It is far more speculative than observing the fine tuning of this universe.
You ask where the appearance of fine-tuning came from. You've decided the "God did it" argument suffices as an answer. I'm saying a theory supported by mathematics blows such arguments to smithereens, even if both are technically conjecture. So we have a multi-verse theory, supported by mathematics, and compatible with conventional theories of physics. And then we have the..."God did it" argument which would be laughed at in even the most average physics lecture halls.